Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘B’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’

with Respondent No. 21

Some Of The Topics Covered

there is no love here in the pristine purity of this actual world – there is neither ashes nor manure here for either a new to be born or a new birth – does not profundity come with the territory? – a perfection of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable – the feeling of caring is a far cry from actually caring – ‘real love’ is human love writ large – distancing love from hate – love is not hard to define – actual caring is when the identity is extinct – why not apply the same-same advice as applies to real hate to real love – there are no ‘different kinds of love’ to confuse the issue here in this actual world – altruism – Love Agapé – an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss – why it is difficult for some to comprehend – something beyond enlightenment which was of such a magnitude as to be unimaginable, inconceivable, incomprehensible and unbelievable – seven more years before fruition – an all-consuming state of being, totally overwhelming in all its splendour – love has its roots in hate (good exists only to combat evil) – actual infinitude of eternal time, infinite space and perpetual matter is way beyond any infinite god – actuality is much, much more than any delusory state of being can ever be – bogged down in a theological-type dispute – there is neither love nor hate (neither good nor evil) here in the pristine perfection of this actual world – the passions of love and hate are soul-centred – self-aggrandisement – love and hate have no existence outside of the human psyche – 6.0 billion peoples are missing out – passions are deeper than emotions ... more primal – the usual ‘ego centred’ deliberations that pass for investigation – not denying other people’s deeply felt experiences – peace-on-earth is tangibly palpable, patently substantial and flagrantly evident – enter into this actual world ... and leave the ego/soul behind where it belongs – at their root, the passions are prehistoric, primordial, primeval, primitive, antediluvian, archaic – spite can rule a person’s life ... and thus a national psyche – nothing ‘dirty’ can get in – the ‘real world’ is a grim and glum place – one cannot enter into this actual world by leaving the body ... quite the obverse – altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice ... a magnanimous ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and everybody – how can living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day be construed as being a contrived freedom – tobacco smoking and an enlightened drug-pusher

July 22 2001:

RICHARD: There is no love here in the pristine purity of this actual world ... it being so perfect nothing ‘dirty’ can get in, as it were.

RESPONDENT: What would be the dirty?

RICHARD: Any smidgeon of a trace of a whiff of a hint of ‘I’/‘me’ in any manner, shape or form (be it is ashes or manure)

RESPONDENT: Love?

RICHARD: Yes ... and specifically your ‘real love which is something else again’.

RESPONDENT: I don’t get what you are saying. If we could minimize the profundity, I might understand it.

RICHARD: Hmm ... but does not profundity (synonyms: depth, insight, insightfulness, wisdom, understanding, complexity, intensity) come with the territory?

RESPONDENT: Also since we have not defined ‘love’ how do you know you don’t have it?

RICHARD: Please feel free to define ‘love’ as you will, then ... and we can take it from there.

*

RESPONDENT: If not what would you call the state of mind that you have?

RICHARD: The mind which is the brain in action in this flesh and blood skull is an apperceptive mind ... unpolluted by anything of ‘the original person still alive’(*).There is neither ashes nor manure here for either a new to be born or a new birth.

RESPONDENT: So you are saying you are just flesh and blood and have nothing in your brain from past negative conditioning?

RICHARD: Nor positive conditioning.

RESPONDENT: Fine.

RICHARD: Better than ‘fine’ ... a perfection of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable.

RESPONDENT: Do you care about others or just yourself?

RICHARD: This body and that body and every body.

RESPONDENT: Caring is a quality of love.

RICHARD: The feeling of ‘caring’ is a far cry from actually caring.

July 25 2001:

RESPONDENT: From ‘Think On These Things’ ... 1964; p76. ‘You cannot learn how to love, but what you can do is to observe hate and put it gently aside. Don’t battle against hate, don’t say how terrible it is to hate people, but see hate for what it is and let it drop away; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let hate take root in your mind. If you encourage hate, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem’.

RESPONDENT No. 10: Perfectly spoken K, the problem is we already did, now what?

RICHARD: What you can now do is to observe love and put it gently aside also. Do not protect love, do not say how transforming it is to love people, but see love for what it is and let it drop away as well; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let love take root in your heart. If you encourage love, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem for you and your partner ... and all humankind.

RESPONDENT: That depends on whether you are talking about false love which is the other horn of the same goat, or real love which is something else again.

RICHARD: This is the love I am referring to: [No. 10 to Richard]: ‘There will be for each Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth not like what the current ‘consciousness’ it is for this one is real real. The cause of this Transformation will be people who speak the truth to themselves 100% no matter and those who speak the truth will be able to see that all of what they have done has been a 100% failure, this will set up a dynamic so Huge it simply burns the old and out of the ashes, the new will be born’ [endquote]. I would say that he is talking of your ‘real love which is something else again’.

RESPONDENT: So are you saying there is no such thing as love than?

RICHARD: There is no love here in the pristine purity of this actual world ... it being so perfect nothing ‘dirty’ can get in, as it were.

RESPONDENT: What would be the dirty?

RICHARD: Any smidgeon of a trace of a whiff of a hint of ‘I’/‘me’ in any manner, shape or form (be it is ashes or manure).

RESPONDENT: Do you equate ‘I/me’ be it ashes or manure with love? Why would that be so?

RICHARD: Because your ‘real love which is something else again’ is human love writ large. Look, it was you who posted the ‘see hate for what it is and let it drop away’ quote in the first place ... why is it so difficult to comprehend that the same-same advice applies to love? Why not re-read my initial response (the third paragraph from the top of the page) before reading on to what I write below?

At least give yourself the benefit of doubt (else this post will blow-out to massive proportions like some of our previous posts did).

*

RESPONDENT: [What would be the dirty?] Love?

RICHARD: Yes ... and specifically your ‘real love which is something else again’.

RESPONDENT: I never defined my ‘real love’ so you are making assumptions.

RICHARD: This is what you initially wrote (further above):

• [Respondent]: ‘That depends on whether you are talking about false love which is the other horn of the same goat, or real love which is something else again’.

If you are now saying that you did not define your ‘real love’, when you distanced it from hate altogether (along with an allusion to evil), and that, therefore, I am ‘making assumptions’, then all I can say is either you are (a) a poor communicator in your own eyes ... or (b) you are resorting to a typical pusillanimous stance when somebody engages you in an honest discussion.

*

RESPONDENT: I don’t get what you are saying. If we could minimize the profundity, I might understand it.

RICHARD: Hmm ... but does not profundity (synonyms: depth, insight, insightfulness, wisdom, understanding, complexity, intensity) come with the territory?

RESPONDENT: If it is understandable.

RICHARD: If it is not ‘understandable’ then you are way out of your depth ... floundering around in the shallows saying things such as love is hard to define and so on.

*

RESPONDENT: Also since we have not defined ‘love’ how do you know you don’t have it?

RICHARD: Please feel free to define ‘love’ as you will, then ... and we can take it from there.

RESPONDENT: You were willing to say ‘There is no love here in the pristine purity of this actual world ... it being so perfect nothing ‘dirty’ can get in, as it were’ without any definition of love from me. I wonder why you would make the assumption that you knew what it was ... or what I meant by it? You quoted No 10 ... not me.

RICHARD: Aye ... that was for two reasons:

1. It was my response to him that you replied to with an implicit query as to what love I was referring to (‘that depends on whether you are talking about false love which is the other horn of the same goat, or real love which is something else again’) to which I replied with an explicit quote of his which leaves it unambiguous as to what the love was I was referencing.

2. Unlike yourself I am right up-front with word-specific definitions of what I am on about instead of lurking about behind a screen of protestations about love being hard to define and so on.

RESPONDENT: Love is hard to define.

RICHARD: It is not at all: you are speaking of what is otherwise known as god’s love ... after all our previous correspondence over the years this is cheap what you do here.

*

RESPONDENT: If not what would you call the state of mind that you have?

RICHARD: The mind which is the brain in action in this flesh and blood skull is an apperceptive mind ... unpolluted by anything of ‘the original person still alive’. There is neither ashes nor manure here for either a new to be born or a new birth.

RESPONDENT: So you are saying you are just flesh and blood and have nothing in your brain from past negative conditioning?

RICHARD: Nor positive conditioning.

RESPONDENT: Ok ... you have no conditioning whatsoever. You are just flesh and blood.

RICHARD: May I ask? Is your use of ‘just’ a pejorative usage ... or do you mean it as in ‘simply’?

RESPONDENT: Fine.

RICHARD: Better than ‘fine’ ... a perfection of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable.

RESPONDENT: What is so great about flesh and blood?

RICHARD: ‘Tis the very stuff of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe, for starters ... its infinitude is a perfection of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable

*

RESPONDENT: Do you care about others or just yourself?

RICHARD: This body and that body and every body.

RESPONDENT: Caring is a quality of love.

RICHARD: The feeling of ‘caring’ is a far cry from actually caring.

RESPONDENT: Caring would still be a part of love.

RICHARD: Except that I am clearly speaking about actually caring (which is impossible whilst any smidgeon of a trace of a whiff of a hint of ‘I’/‘me’ in any manner, shape or form – be it is ashes or manure – is still lurking about).

RESPONDENT: I never said love was necessarily a feeling of caring.

RICHARD: I am aware that you did not ... that is why I said it.

RESPONDENT: If you care about everybody, than you must have love.

RICHARD: Not if one actually cares ... and that only happens when the identity is extinct (and not turned into fertile soil for a new birth).

July 26 2001:

RESPONDENT: From ‘Think On These Things’ ... 1964; p76. ‘You cannot learn how to love, but what you can do is to observe hate and put it gently aside. Don’t battle against hate, don’t say how terrible it is to hate people, but see hate for what it is and let it drop away; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let hate take root in your mind. If you encourage hate, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem’.

RESPONDENT No. 10: Perfectly spoken K, the problem is we already did, now what?

RICHARD: What you can now do is to observe love and put it gently aside also. Do not protect love, do not say how transforming it is to love people, but see love for what it is and let it drop away as well; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let love take root in your heart. If you encourage love, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem for you and your partner ... and all humankind.

RESPONDENT: That depends on whether you are talking about false love which is the other horn of the same goat, or real love which is something else again.

RICHARD: This is the love I am referring to: [No. 10 to Richard]: ‘There will be for each Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth not like what the current ‘consciousness’ it is for this one is real real. The cause of this Transformation will be people who speak the truth to themselves 100% no matter and those who speak the truth will be able to see that all of what they have done has been a 100% failure, this will set up a dynamic so Huge it simply burns the old and out of the ashes, the new will be born’ [endquote]. I would say that he is talking of your ‘real love which is something else again’.

RESPONDENT: So are you saying there is no such thing as love than?

RICHARD: There is no love here in the pristine purity of this actual world ... it being so perfect nothing ‘dirty’ can get in, as it were.

RESPONDENT: What would be the dirty?

RICHARD: Any smidgeon of a trace of a whiff of a hint of ‘I’/‘me’ in any manner, shape or form ... be it is ashes or manure.

RESPONDENT: Do you equate ‘I/me’ be it ashes or manure with love? Why would that be so?

RICHARD: Because your ‘real love which is something else again’ is human love writ large. Look, it was you who posted the ‘see hate for what it is and let it drop away’ quote in the first place ... why is it so difficult to comprehend that the same-same advice applies to love? Why not re-read my initial response (the third paragraph from the top of the page) before reading on to what I write below? At least give yourself the benefit of doubt (else this post will blow-out to massive proportions like some of our previous posts did).

RESPONDENT: IF a post blows out too big and gets cumbersome, I stop reading it. Let’s get directly to the point. It does not apply to real love. There is a real and a false love.

RICHARD: Okay ... equally then the quote you initially posted (at the top of the page) does not apply to real hate? There is a real and a false hate as well?

RESPONDENT: If you are saying that we should drop real love, you are being ridiculous as I see it.

RICHARD: Why ‘ridiculous’? Why not apply the same-same advice as applies to real hate to real love?

RESPONDENT: Is that what you are saying?

RICHARD: This is what I am saying: what you can do is to observe love and put it gently aside also [as well as hate]. Do not protect love, do not say how transforming it is to love people, but see love for what it is and let it drop away as well; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let love take root in your heart. If you encourage love, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem for you and your partner ... and all humankind.

RESPONDENT: If not what are you saying? That you have dropped all that you were and therefore are the only one with real love?

RICHARD: Not at all ... real love is human love writ large. Yet all this whilst there is a perfection here in this actual world of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable ... for the flesh and blood body.

*

RESPONDENT: Do you care about others or just yourself?

RICHARD: This body and that body and every body.

RESPONDENT: Caring is a quality of love.

RICHARD: The feeling of ‘caring’ is a far cry from actually caring.

RESPONDENT: Caring would still be a part of love.

RICHARD: Except that I am clearly speaking about actually caring (which is impossible whilst any smidgeon of a trace of a whiff of a hint of ‘I’/‘me’ in any manner, shape or form – be it is ashes or manure – is still lurking about).

RESPONDENT: I never said love was necessarily a feeling of caring.

RICHARD: I am aware that you did not ... that is why I said it.

RESPONDENT: If you care about everybody, than you must have love.

RICHARD: Not if one actually cares ... and that only happens when the identity is extinct (and not turned into fertile soil for a new birth).

RESPONDENT: Identities don’t usually just become extinct one morning after reading the paper.

RICHARD: Indeed not ... altogether the process took eleven years for the identity who was parasitically inhabiting this body.

RESPONDENT: If you claim there is an actually caring, than you are claiming there is an actual love.

RICHARD: Most definitely not ... there is no love here in the pristine purity of this actual world (it being so perfect nothing ‘dirty’ can get in, as it were).

RESPONDENT: Many parents love their children even though they have not given up their ego identity, so it seems there are different kinds of love.

RICHARD: There are no ‘different kinds of love’ to confuse the issue here in this actual world ... ‘tis all so simple here.

RESPONDENT: How would one know when the identity is extinct ...

RICHARD: The direct experiencing of a perfection of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable each moment again, day after day, year after year.

RESPONDENT: ... and what would be your idea of the process involved in getting there?

RICHARD: I only know of one process so far (the one that the identity inhabiting this body discovered all those years ago) and as it worked for ‘him’ so should it work for anyone else.

In a word: altruism.

August 22 2001:

RESPONDENT No. 12: If ‘you’ are there assessing and evaluating, that is just thought evaluating its own content.

RICHARD: There was no ‘me’; there was no assessing; there was no evaluating; there was no content to thought ... there was only love. For three years, by the calendar, there was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. Then love flew to India ... the rest is history.

RESPONDENT No. 12: The confusion is that what is impersonal, i.e.- intelligence as direct perception and compassion, gets mistaken for something that I am or I was or I experienced.

RICHARD: No ... there was no ‘I am or I was or I experienced’ at all. There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable.

RESPONDENT: Why do you call it ‘love’ instead of some feeling?

RICHARD: This was the deepest feeling possible; an enduring, timeless passion quite removed from the norm ... it was an unsurpassable state of being: it was The Ultimate, The Supreme, The Absolute.

The phrase ‘Love Agapé’ was best fitted as being an apt description.

RESPONDENT: What was the experience like?

RICHARD: It was an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss: Love Agapé and its Divine Compassion poured forth, unconditionally, for all suffering sentient beings twenty four hours of the day.

It was a truly euphoric state of being (there was no more ‘becoming’).

RESPONDENT: It would seem that if you had love, you would not give it up unless you found something wrong with it.

RICHARD: Indeed ... this is a very perspicacious observation.

RESPONDENT: If there was something wrong with it, it could not be real love ...

RICHARD: Ha ... this is quite humorous (for all its in inaccuracy) yet serves to show why it is difficult for some to comprehend what I have to report.

RESPONDENT: ... so what do you think really happened?

RICHARD: There was something beyond Love Agapé and its Divine Compassion (which was God, which was The Truth, which was the Ground Of Being) ... something beyond enlightenment which was of such a magnitude as to be unimaginable, inconceivable, incomprehensible and unbelievable.

The condition experienced was of the nature of some ‘Great Beyond’ (I have to put it in capitals because that is how it was experienced it at the time) and it was of the nature of which has always been ascribed, in all the spiritual/mystical writings I had read, as being ‘That’ which one merges with at physical death when one ‘quits the body’. Sometimes known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ or ‘Parinirvana’, it seemed so extreme that the physical body must surely die for the attainment of it.

There was to be seven more years before fruition ... but that is another story.

August 23 2001:

RICHARD: There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable.

RESPONDENT: Why do you call it ‘love’ instead of some feeling?

RICHARD: This was the deepest feeling possible; an enduring, timeless passion quite removed from the norm ... it was an unsurpassable state of being: it was The Ultimate, The Supreme, The Absolute. The phrase ‘Love Agapé’ was best fitted as being an apt description.

RESPONDENT: What was the experience like?

RICHARD: It was an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss: Love Agapé and its Divine Compassion poured forth, unconditionally, for all suffering sentient beings twenty four hours of the day. It was a truly euphoric state of being (there was no more ‘becoming’).

RESPONDENT: Why did you assume that there is Divine Compassion for all sentient beings?

RICHARD: There was no assuming possible ... it was an all-consuming state of being, totally overwhelming in all its splendour.

RESPONDENT: What caused you to think it was real love?

RICHARD: Again ... it was not a matter of thinking ‘is it this’ or ‘is it that’: it was instantaneously obvious what it was.

RESPONDENT: I doubt that there is any euphoric feeling that accompanies real love by the way.

RICHARD: You may ‘doubt’ all you like, of course ... but once experienced all doubt is banished in the twinkling of an instant.

RESPONDENT: It just is.

RICHARD: Okay.

RESPONDENT: I am saying that although you thought it was Divine Love, it may not have been.

RICHARD: I hear what you are saying. I am simply telling my story ... what you make of it is your business, of course.

*

RESPONDENT: It would seem that if you had love, you would not give it up unless you found something wrong with it.

RICHARD: Indeed ... this is a very perspicacious observation.

RESPONDENT: What was it that was wrong with it?

RICHARD: Just for starters ... it has its roots in hate (good exists only to combat evil).

*

RESPONDENT: If there was something wrong with it, it could not be real love ...

RICHARD: Ha ... this is quite humorous (for all its in inaccuracy) yet serves to show why it is difficult for some to comprehend what I have to report.

RESPONDENT: You would have to know without a doubt what real love is in order to say my statement was inaccurate.

RICHARD: Aye ... night and day for eleven years is more than enough to know it through and through.

RESPONDENT: You seem to have described more of a high than love.

RICHARD: Hmm ... as it is the Highest of the High I do look askance at your appraisal.

*

RESPONDENT: ... so what do you think really happened?

RICHARD: There was something beyond Love Agapé and its Divine Compassion (which was God, which was The Truth, which was the Ground Of Being) ... something beyond enlightenment which was of such a magnitude as to be unimaginable, inconceivable, incomprehensible and unbelievable.

RESPONDENT: You are saying there was something beyond God which is to assume you experienced God, the infinite and found something more.

RICHARD: There is that word ‘assume’ again.

RESPONDENT: What could be beyond the infinite?

RICHARD: The actual infinitude of eternal time, infinite space and perpetual matter, of course.

RESPONDENT: The infinite is hard to get one up on.

RICHARD: It is not hard ‘to get one up on’ a fantasy ‘infinite’ at all ... actuality is way beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and schemes.

RESPONDENT: All other things are less, not more.

RICHARD: Oh ... actuality is much, much more than any delusory state of being can ever be.

August 26 2001:

RESPONDENT: What caused you to think it was real love?

RICHARD: It was not a matter of thinking ‘is it this’ or ‘is it that’: it was instantaneously obvious what it was.

RESPONDENT: It would seem that if you had love, you would not give it up unless you found something wrong with it. (...) What was it that was wrong with it?

RICHARD: Just for starters ... it has its roots in hate (good exists only to combat evil).

RESPONDENT: It is just the reverse. Evil is dependent upon good to have something to exist for. Without good, evil would have nothing to oppose. It takes it’s content from good. Without the higher call for love and good, hate would not be a negative thing at all.

RICHARD: I am, of course, speaking from experience ... and not something I read in an ancient book. I notice you have expanded upon what the implications of the good/evil dichotomy are for you in some other posts in this thread:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am just describing what is there to see. It is there whether you like the idea or not. Evil is close by ... talking, suggesting and prodding constantly in the mind. That is why there is so much aggression in the world. What would evil be without good? Good does not create evil. Evil is the opposition of good. Without something to go against there could be no evil. Good must be there first. To claim that real good came after evil does not make sense. If there was only evil, it would not be thought of as evil. It would just be what is ... a part of normal life. The existence of a principality of good is required or there is no real good or evil’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Good was first and evil came after. Evil aspired to equality and independence from good. Having become hopelessly separate from good, it sought to cause all men to share it’s hopelessness and misery’.

Rather than become bogged down in a theological-type dispute I would prefer to highlight where you say ‘the existence of a principality of good is required or there is no real good or evil’ as that comes closest to what I am conveying ... for there is neither love nor hate (neither good nor evil) here in the pristine perfection of this actual world.

And every body is already walking around in this ambrosial paradise ... it is the direct and/or on-going experiencing of such consummate purity that perhaps 6.0 billion peoples miss out on.

*

RESPONDENT: ... so what do you think really happened?

RICHARD: There was something beyond Love Agapé and its Divine Compassion (which was God, which was The Truth, which was the Ground Of Being) ... something beyond enlightenment which was of such a magnitude as to be unimaginable, inconceivable, incomprehensible and unbelievable.

RESPONDENT: What could be beyond the infinite?

RICHARD: The actual infinitude of eternal time, infinite space and perpetual matter, of course.

RESPONDENT: The infinite is hard to get one up on.

RICHARD: It is not hard ‘to get one up on’ a fantasy ‘infinite’ at all ... actuality is way beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and schemes.

RESPONDENT: OK ... I see where you are coming from here. You are saying that you found the real thing while the ideas of God were just fantasy.

RICHARD: Yes ... actuality far exceeds any delusory state of being.

August 26 2001:

RICHARD: I am, of course, speaking from experience ... and not something I read in an ancient book. (...) Rather than become bogged down in a theological-type dispute I would prefer to highlight where you say ‘the existence of a principality of good is required or there is no real good or evil’ as that comes closest to what I am conveying ... for there is neither love nor hate (neither good nor evil) here in the pristine perfection of this actual world.

RESPONDENT: There is neither love nor hate in the usual sense in what I am referring to either.

RICHARD: Whereas I am saying that there is neither love nor hate in any sense whatsoever in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: The emotions of love and hate are both ego centred.

RICHARD: Deeper than that are the passions of love and hate ... and passions are soul-centred.

RESPONDENT: We feel a sense of our own imagined greatness when we experience them.

RICHARD: Aye ... I have oft-times used the phrase ‘self-aggrandisement’ when referring to the many and various Avatars, Masters, Messiahs, Saviours, Saints, Sages and Seers (when I am not using the phrase ‘massive delusion’ that is).

RESPONDENT: I do not believe love is a feeling as people think of it. It is just a transparency through which something happens.

RICHARD: Irregardless of whether it be a feeling or a ‘transparency’ (whatever that is) the something which happens is more of the same-old same-old: love has been touted as the cure-all for all the ills of humankind for thousands of years ... and there is as much misery and mayhem now as there was then.

RESPONDENT: I do believe something called ‘love’ is there nevertheless even though the person through which it comes may feel nothing.

RICHARD: I am in no way denying the existence of love (and hate) ... I am simply saying that they have no existence outside of the human psyche.

RESPONDENT: The recipient will feel the benefit from it or will hate what is being offered.

RICHARD: What ‘benefit’? What is being ‘offered’?

RESPONDENT: The evidence of it’s existence is still there to be seen.

RICHARD: Whereabouts is ‘there’ located? I only ask because love (and hate) have no existence here in the pristine perfection of this actual world.

And all this while every body is already walking around in this ambrosial paradise ... it is the direct and/or on-going experiencing of such consummate purity that perhaps 6.0 billion peoples miss out on.

August 26 2001:

RESPONDENT: It would seem that if you had love, you would not give it up unless you found something wrong with it. (...) What was it that was wrong with it?

RICHARD: Just for starters ... it has its roots in hate (good exists only to combat evil).

RESPONDENT: It is just the reverse. Evil is dependent upon good to have something to exist for. Without good, evil would have nothing to oppose. It takes it’s content from good. Without the higher call for love and good, hate would not be a negative thing at all.

RICHARD: I am, of course, speaking from experience ... and not something I read in an ancient book. (...) Rather than become bogged down in a theological-type dispute I would prefer to highlight where you say ‘the existence of a principality of good is required or there is no real good or evil’ as that comes closest to what I am conveying ... for there is neither love nor hate (neither good nor evil) here in the pristine perfection of this actual world.

RESPONDENT: There is neither love nor hate in the usual sense in what I am referring to either.

RICHARD: Whereas I am saying that there is neither love nor hate in any sense whatsoever in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: The emotions of love and hate are both ego centred.

RICHARD: Deeper than that are the passions of love and hate ... and passions are soul-centred.

RESPONDENT: Passions are just strong emotions.

RICHARD: Also deeper ... more primal.

RESPONDENT: Everything is soul centred so I don’t know what you are referring to.

RICHARD: I am, as ever, endeavouring to move the discussion deeper than the usual ‘ego centred’ deliberations that pass for investigation on this Mailing List. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘The emotions of love and hate are both ego centred.

*

RESPONDENT: We feel a sense of our own imagined greatness when we experience them.

RICHARD: Aye ... I have oft-times used the phrase ‘self-aggrandisement’ when referring to the many and various Avatars, Masters, Messiahs, Saviours, Saints, Sages and Seers (when I am not using the phrase ‘massive delusion’ that is).

RESPONDENT: I do not believe love is a feeling as people think of it. It is just a transparency through which something happens.

RICHARD: Irregardless of whether it be a feeling or a ‘transparency’ (whatever that is) the something which happens is more of the same-old same-old: love has been touted as the cure-all for all the ills of humankind for thousands of years ... and there is as much misery and mayhem now as there was then.

RESPONDENT: No. It is not the same old. We do not know what will come through. We only have an idea of what it is.

RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... I have intimate knowledge of what will ‘come through’. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable.
• [Respondent]: ‘Why do you call it ‘love’ instead of some feeling?
• [Richard]: ‘This was the deepest feeling possible; an enduring, timeless passion quite removed from the norm ... it was an unsurpassable state of being: it was The Ultimate, The Supreme, The Absolute. The phrase ‘Love Agapé’ was best fitted as being an apt description.
• [Respondent]: ‘What was the experience like?
• [Richard]: ‘It was an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss: Love Agapé and its Divine Compassion poured forth, unconditionally, for all suffering sentient beings twenty four hours of the day. It was a truly euphoric state of being (there was no more ‘becoming’).
• [Respondent]: ‘Why did you assume that there is Divine Compassion for all sentient beings?
• [Richard]: ‘There was no assuming possible ... it was an all-consuming state of being, totally overwhelming in all its splendour.
• [Respondent]: ‘What caused you to think it was real love?
• [Richard]: ‘Again ... it was not a matter of thinking ‘is it this’ or ‘is it that’: it was instantaneously obvious what it was.

*

RESPONDENT: I do believe something called ‘love’ is there nevertheless even though the person through which it comes may feel nothing.

RICHARD: I am in no way denying the existence of love (and hate) ... I am simply saying that they have no existence outside of the human psyche.

RESPONDENT: That statement is just another way of saying that there is no God or higher power which emanates love.

RICHARD: Or, more accurately, it is another way of saying that no ‘God or higher power which emanates love’ has any existence outside of the human psyche (I am not denying other people’s deeply felt experiences).

*

RESPONDENT: The recipient will feel the benefit from it or will hate what is being offered.

RICHARD: What ‘benefit’? What is being ‘offered’?

RESPONDENT: Correction ... direction ... a life source.

RICHARD: What ‘direction’? What ‘life source’ is being offered? The direction I am talking of is to come here into this actual world ... where the source of life is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe itself. And the benefit is benignity and benevolence ... what is being offered is peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.

‘Tis unambiguous ... tangibly palpable, patently substantial and flagrantly evident.

*

RESPONDENT: The evidence of it’s existence is still there to be seen.

RICHARD: Whereabouts is ‘there’ located? I only ask because love (and hate) have no existence here in the pristine perfection of this actual world. And all this while every body is already walking around in this ambrosial paradise ... it is the direct and/or on-going experiencing of such consummate purity that perhaps 6.0 billion peoples miss out on.

RESPONDENT: The world may be perfectly balanced over all, but there is plenty of suffering and death on it. The larger animal kills the weaker and it becomes a part of the larger. IF we stand back far enough it may seem all is well but not for the deer that was eaten by the lion.

RICHARD: Oh, I am not suggesting that one should ‘stand back’ (experiencing oneself to be an ego/soul is to be already once-removed from actuality) ... quite the obverse:

I speaking of entering into this actual world ... and leaving the ego/soul behind where it belongs.

August 28 2001:

RICHARD: ... there is neither love nor hate (neither good nor evil) here in the pristine perfection of this actual world.

RESPONDENT: There is neither love nor hate in the usual sense in what I am referring to either.

RICHARD: Whereas I am saying that there is neither love nor hate in any sense whatsoever in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: The emotions of love and hate are both ego centred.

RICHARD: Deeper than that are the passions of love and hate ... and passions are soul-centred.

RESPONDENT: Passions are just strong emotions.

RICHARD: Also deeper ... more primal.

RESPONDENT: What does that mean?

RICHARD: It means that, at their root, the passions are prehistoric, primordial, primeval, primitive, antediluvian, archaic. Both love and hate come out of the instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire (which are the genetically inherited animal passions)

RESPONDENT: They are just stronger feelings.

RICHARD: They are deeper feelings ... the emotions are more on the surface.

RESPONDENT: If I have a mild and momentary experience of anger, it is not the same as a long standing intense feeling of hatred toward the object and anything that reminds me of the object.

RICHARD: Yes ... nursing a grudge, seeking revenge, demanding retribution, wreaking vengeance and so on run far deeper than a ‘mild and momentary experience of anger’.

It can rule a person’s life ... and thus a national psyche.

*

RESPONDENT: Everything is soul centred so I don’t know what you are referring to.

RICHARD: I am, as ever, endeavouring to move the discussion deeper than the usual ‘ego centred’ deliberations that pass for investigation on this Mailing List. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘The emotions of love and hate are both ego centred.

RESPONDENT: What is deeper about calling it passion? The principle is the same. All emotions or passions are ego centred.

RICHARD: You do seem to be vacillating on this issue. Vis.:

1. [Respondent]: ‘The emotions of love and hate are both ego centred.
2. [Respondent]: ‘Everything is soul centred.
3. [Respondent]: ‘All emotions or passions are ego centred.

*

RESPONDENT: I do not believe love is a feeling as people think of it. It is just a transparency through which something happens.

RICHARD: Irregardless of whether it be a feeling or a ‘transparency’ (whatever that is) the something which happens is more of the same-old same-old: love has been touted as the cure-all for all the ills of humankind for thousands of years ... and there is as much misery and mayhem now as there was then.

RESPONDENT: No. It is not the same old. We do not know what will come through. We only have an idea of what it is.

RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... I have intimate knowledge of what will ‘come through’. Vis.: [Richard]: ‘There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. (...) This was the deepest feeling possible; an enduring, timeless passion quite removed from the norm ... it was an unsurpassable state of being: it was The Ultimate, The Supreme, The Absolute. The phrase ‘Love Agapé’ was best fitted as being an apt description. (...) It was an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss: Love Agapé and its Divine Compassion poured forth, unconditionally, for all suffering sentient beings twenty four hours of the day. It was a truly euphoric state of being (there was no more ‘becoming’). (...) it was an all-consuming state of being, totally overwhelming in all its splendour. (...) it was not a matter of thinking ‘is it this’ or ‘is it that’: it was instantaneously obvious what it was’.

RESPONDENT: Your description of what you call love is without real substance. You are just saying it was a deep, great, all consuming feeling. That really in essence does not say much at all about the content or what it was. You are just saying that to you it was love. You felt something strongly. That does not mean anything much to me, being that it was your experience, not mine. You could have been psychotic or feeling something real and misunderstanding it. I would have no way of knowing what happened to you.

RICHARD: I hear what you are saying. I am simply telling my story ... what you make of it is your business, of course.

*

RESPONDENT: The recipient will feel the benefit from it or will hate what is being offered.

RICHARD: What ‘benefit’? What is being ‘offered’?

RESPONDENT: Correction ... direction ... a life source.

RICHARD: What ‘direction’? What ‘life source’ is being offered? The direction I am talking of is to come here into this actual world ... where the source of life is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe itself. And the benefit is benignity and benevolence ... what is being offered is peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. ‘Tis unambiguous ... tangibly palpable, patently substantial and flagrantly evident.

RESPONDENT: Why is the experience full of benignity and felicity?

RICHARD: Because both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – and thus all malice and sorrow – have no existence here in this actual world ... nothing ‘dirty’ can get in, as it were.

RESPONDENT: The animals live in this eternal and perpetual world and they kill one another with relish.

RICHARD: As I said ... the passions are primal.

RESPONDENT: There is no problem nor conflict there.

RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have no desire to live like the animals do.

*

RESPONDENT: The evidence of it’s existence is still there to be seen.

RICHARD: Whereabouts is ‘there’ located? I only ask because love (and hate) have no existence here in the pristine perfection of this actual world. And all this while every body is already walking around in this ambrosial paradise ... it is the direct and/or on-going experiencing of such consummate purity that perhaps 6.0 billion peoples miss out on.

RESPONDENT: The world may be perfectly balanced over all, but there is plenty of suffering and death on it. The larger animal kills the weaker and it becomes a part of the larger. IF we stand back far enough it may seem all is well but not for the deer that was eaten by the lion.

RICHARD: Oh, I am not suggesting that one should ‘stand back’ (experiencing oneself to be an ego/soul is to be already once-removed from actuality) ... quite the obverse: I am speaking of entering into this actual world ... and leaving the ego/soul behind where it belongs.

RESPONDENT: As I said, the actual world is not a place of peace and tranquillity.

RICHARD: It is not possible to experience this actual world whilst being an identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) inside the body looking out through the eyes as if looking out through a window ... what is seen from there is what is called the ‘real world’.

And the ‘real world’ is a grim and glum place.

RESPONDENT: It is a place where the larger usurp the smaller and they become part of the food chain.

RICHARD: Animals do not live in the actual world ... they are run by their instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire).

RESPONDENT: I do not see why it would be different for a man without a soul.

RICHARD: Are you interested in finding out?

RESPONDENT: Neither do I see the possibility of leaving the soul behind, assuming we know what a soul is.

RICHARD: Would you allow the possibility?

RESPONDENT: It would seem that we would have to die and leave the body ...

RICHARD: Now you are talking about the soul surviving the death of the body ... whereas I am speaking of the body surviving the death of the soul.

RESPONDENT: [It would seem that we would have to die and leave the body] to even enter a dimension where such a thing would be knowable ...

RICHARD: One cannot enter into this actual world by leaving the body ... quite the obverse.

RESPONDENT: [It would seem that we would have to die and leave the body to even enter a dimension where such a thing would be knowable] unless one would want to give his soul to the devil here and now ...

RICHARD: There is no ‘the devil’ here in this actual world ... both good and evil have no existence whatsoever outside of the human psyche.

RESPONDENT: [It would seem that we would have to die and leave the body to even enter a dimension where such a thing would be knowable unless one would want to give his soul to the devil here and now] which I wouldn’t know how to do either.

RICHARD: You will have gathered by now that this which you describe is not what I am talking of at all.

RESPONDENT: What is the difference, by the way, between the ego and the soul ...

RICHARD: Generally speaking, ‘I’ as ego is the thinker (typically described as being in the head) and ‘me’ as soul is the feeler (typically described as being in the heart). Generally speaking ‘I’ as ego is believed to die with the body at physical death (small ‘s’ self) and ‘me’ as soul is believed to survive at physical death (capital ‘S’ Self).

In other words: ‘I’ as ego is seen to be mortal ... and ‘me’ as soul as being immortal.

RESPONDENT: ... and how would one go about giving them up?

RICHARD: Altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice ... a magnanimous ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and everybody.

RESPONDENT: Are you just saying they are just ideas so forget them?

RICHARD: No. I am speaking of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself.

August 28 2001:

RESPONDENT No. 19: You may have some sort of ‘actual freedom’, but more than likely, it is a contrived freedom and not a ‘total freedom’.

RICHARD: How can living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day be construed as being a ‘contrived’ freedom?

RESPONDENT No. 19: I’m not a psychiatrist. Why don’t you ask yours?

RICHARD: As it was you who said ‘more than likely’ (thereby insinuating that you know something I do not) I am asking you why it is not ... specifically: why is it ‘more than likely’ that living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day is ‘a contrived freedom’ and not ‘a ‘total freedom’.

RESPONDENT No. 19: Perhaps, that is something you should check into.

RICHARD: No way ... many, many peoples say all kinds of things about me and I would have a full-time job if I did what you are suggesting. A person needs to demonstrate and substantiate their statement before I will consider it.

RESPONDENT: I think No. 19 is right about this.

RICHARD: Good ... maybe you can throw some light upon how living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day can be construed as being a contrived freedom?

RESPONDENT: I would think that there has been enough medical evidence and common sense observation on the subject of cigarettes that it would not be necessary to try to prove that it is a bad habit.

RICHARD: Oh ... you may not have noticed it but I have already said in another thread that I am not suggesting that smoking is necessarily a good thing.

Just that it is not quite as bad as it is made out to be.

RESPONDENT: An enlightened person would not want to be involved in something like this.

RICHARD: In that case it is just as well that I am not an enlightened person ... although I have read that Mr. Maruti Nisargadatta both smoked tobacco and made a living out of selling it (which could possibly be construed in some camps as him being an enlightened drug-pusher).

RESPONDENT: Any evidence you could provide to the contrary could be inundated with mass opposition from the other side.

RICHARD: As we have already discussed these kind of matters some time ago I am well aware that you are from the ‘other side’. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Do you live your life as one with values or do you not? Do you drink, smoke, hunt for women, lie, cheat, or steal? Do you overeat, over-sex, or over intellectualise?’
• [Richard]: ‘I must acknowledge that I sat and stared nonplussed at this sentence for some time. As I see no mention of all the genuinely terrible things that afflict human beings – like wars, rapes, murders, tortures, domestic violence, child abuse, sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide – I find it difficult to take this question sincerely. Basically, you seem to have paraded your prejudices in public and are asking me if I believe in them too. There are far, far worse things than smoking, drinking, womanising, lying, cheating, stealing, overeating and intellectualising, you know. Would it not be more important to attend to the sorrow and malice nestled firmly in your and every other human breast? What about the 160,000,000 people killed in wars this century alone? Do you think that they would thank you for going on a one-man crusade against all the drinkers, smokers, womanisers, liars, cheats, thieves, gluttons and intellectuals?’

And it looks as if nothing has changed since then.

*

RESPONDENT: Nicotine is a drug with side effects.

RICHARD: Virtually all drugs have ‘side effects’ ... and not just drugs: there is some evidence that the internal combustion engine could very well be causing far more illnesses among people – estimates vary between 42-48% of what is called ‘green houses gases’ are coming from exhaust fumes – and yet car ownership is on the increase and I am yet to see obligatory ‘driving kills’ warnings affixed to all vehicles.

Curiously enough, in the last hundred years or so the average life expectancy in the West has risen from 50-55 years of age to 75-80 years of age (speaking from memory).

RESPONDENT: The negative health aspects have been proven sufficiently over and over again and are stated plainly on the package.

RICHARD: As far as I can ascertain there has never been a scientific study done – random sampling, control group, double-blind testing and so on – and that all the furore (sometimes reminiscent of a witch-hunt) depends upon somewhat skewed statistical evidence. I say ‘skewed’ because if I were to die tomorrow my death would be added to the statistics irregardless of the actual cause (in case you have not noticed that people no longer die of ‘old age’ anymore).

RESPONDENT: The only reason to smoke is to indulge in the pleasure of the drug effect or to steady the nerves.

RICHARD: Speaking personally, I never need to ‘steady the nerves’. As for ‘indulge in the pleasure’ ... why are you against pleasure? I do recall that when tobacco was first introduced into Europe the Church demonised it (calling it the Devil’s Weed) ... the same as the early coffee-houses were vilified.

Just for the record ... which side are you on regarding caffeine?

RESPONDENT: Pleasure is heightened when there is pain to be relieved, and without pain I don’t think cigarettes would be pleasurable.

RICHARD: The only pain I can ever experience is physical pain ... and nicotine does zilch to ameliorate that.

RESPONDENT: If we were meant to smoke we would be born with a fire coming out of our mouths and a smokestack on top of our heads.

RICHARD: Aye ... and if we were meant to wear clothes we would be born fully dressed.

RESPONDENT: It is self evidentially an unnatural habit to indulge in.

RICHARD: So is just about everything short of wandering naked through the forests and hunting and gathering ... and mating.

RESPONDENT: Cigarettes have no food value; in this way they are even more unnatural than drinking wine or beer.

RICHARD: I am yet to see someone get drunk and disorderly on tobacco.

RESPONDENT: The only value is in the escape value of the drug.

RICHARD: Escape from what ... this ambrosial paradise? Speaking of which ... now that you have had your say about tobacco smoking maybe you could throw some light on how living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day can be construed as being a contrived freedom?

After all ... that is the subject under discussion.


RESPONDENT No. 21 (Part Six)

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