|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘C’ with Respondent No. 3
RESPONDENT: Richard, I think you are an intelligent person, and in all honesty I don’t think I’m going to convince you of anything, you seem to have it all worked out. RICHARD: May I ask? What is it exactly that you are trying to convince me of? That the job-description for the word ‘peace’ can include ‘losing his temper’ ? RESPONDENT: But I’ve already picked up one reader who wants my help thru this discussion and perhaps I’ll pick up another. So my intent is on the table. But please, could you not keep tacking on all the past discussions? RICHARD: But I am not ‘tacking on all the past discussions’ ... I am simply leaving on the parts which you have not acknowledged and/or answered yet. RESPONDENT: Let’s just speak from this moment, I’ll admit to winging it here ... RICHARD: Why? I have been sincere, candid, frank, honest and up-front all along ... after 24 years in the transcendent state is ‘winging it’ the best you can do? Is this an example of how people are to treat their fellow human beings when they are ‘self-realised’? Peoples everywhere are being killed, raped, tortured, brutalised, bashed ... and the latest representative of the ‘Tried and Failed’ is ‘winging it’ in a public discussion vis a vis human suffering? RESPONDENT: And perhaps I don’t even feel the same as I did yesterday, no for certain I don’t. RICHARD: Ahh ... so you go by how you ‘feel’ , eh? Then that explains it. RESPONDENT: So please limit your responses to what I’m saying now, fair enough? RICHARD: Are you sure that you do not mean: ‘please limit your responses to what I’m feeling now’? RESPONDENT: Let’s live in the moment, as that is all that really is. RICHARD: Ignore the lessons of history, you mean? Look, you had said ‘I’ll try to just keep in any new material I’ve heard from you’ ... and then proceeded to skip two thirds of the E-Mail ... so I re-presented it. Silly me sort of figured you might actually mean what you say. RESPONDENT: One post back is necessary, but not more than that. RICHARD: Why? You ask me for a response; I respond as per request; you ignore my response; you ask me again for a response; I respond again as per request; you again ignore my response; again you ask me again for a response; again I respond again as per request; again you again ignore my response; again you again ask me again for a response; again I again respond again as per request; again you again ignore my response again and so on. Viz.:
Yet when I look back through our correspondence I see that from the second E-Mail on I was already talking of the instinctual passions ... I have been providing my solution all along (which you obviously do not read) so I re-present what you have not responded to so as to stop you again asking this same question again and again ... and yet now you say ‘one post back is necessary, but not more than that’ . What is it that you require of me? Is dumb acquiescence really what you want? Viz.:
I guess all I can do is quote your own advice (maybe you will listen to yourself): [Respondent]: ‘To have fixed ideas allows no new information to come in, like living in a library in your mind’. * RESPONDENT: Repetition is suffering and I for one don’t want to promote that. RICHARD: But my daily life is remarkably repetitive ... yet there is no suffering at all. RESPONDENT: I find that amazing. RICHARD: Life in this actual world is amazing. * RESPONDENT: I’ll try to just keep in any new material I’ve heard from you. I’ll preface with saying that your assertion is to have a superior understanding and realization, which I find contrary to what realization is, which is the same and identical in all that have it. RICHARD: Yes ... which means that the blinded have been leading the blind for 3,000 to 5,000 years. By being born and raised in the West I was not steeped in the mystical religious tradition of the East and was thus able to escape the trap of centuries of eastern spiritual conditioning by going beyond Spiritual Enlightenment – which turned out to be an Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) – into the actuality of being here on earth and now in time as this flesh and blood body. This is because I did not just look to others for confirmation that I had arrived and thus rest on my laurels ... I looked into myself. <SNIP> The condition I went on to experience had the character of some ‘Great Beyond’ (I have to put it in capitals because that is how I 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 ‘The Ocean of Oneness’ or ‘Mahasamadhi’ or ‘Parinirvana’. It seemed so extreme that the physical body must surely die for the attainment of it. The autological self by whatever name would cease to ‘be’, there would be no ‘spirit’, no ‘presence’, no ‘being’ at all. This was more than death of the ego, which is a major event by any definition; this was total annihilation. No ego, no soul – no self, no Self – no more Heavenly Rapture, Love Agapé, Divine Bliss and so on. Only oblivion. It was not at all attractive, not at all alluring, not at all desirable ... yet I knew I was going to do it, sooner or later, because it was the ultimate condition and herein lay the secret to the ‘Mystery of Life’. It was to take seven more years to eventuate ... but that is another story. RESPONDENT: I do assert some degree of that and see it in others, I don’t see myself all by myself superior to others, as you do. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is the already always existing peace-on-earth which is superior ... eminently superior. The infinitude of the universe is innately perfect and pure; immaculate and consummate. Nothing ‘dirty’ can breach the blameless bastions of this unimpeachable purity and perfection ... even the most profound thoughts and the most sublime feelings are self-centred and/or Self-centred (narcissistic). The self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) is not only defiled, it is corrupt through and through. The self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) is perversity itself. No matter how sincerely and earnestly one tries to purify oneself, one can never succeed completely. The last little bit always eludes perfecting. The self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) is rotten at the very core. There is one thing that the self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) can do, however, to remedy the situation. The self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) can disappear, vanish, become extinct. Psychological and psychic self-immolation is the only sensible sacrifice that the self and Self (soul and Soul) can make in order to reveal perfection. Life is bursting with meaning when the self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) is no longer present to mess things up. The self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) is standing in the way of that purity being apparent. Both the self’s presence and the Self’s presence (the soul’s presence and the Soul’s presence) prohibits perfection being evident. The self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) is thwarting the very meaning to life from coming into plain view. The self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) is preventing the already always existing peace-on-earth from being apparent. Thus the self and/or Self (soul and/or Soul) is actively perpetuating 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. RESPONDENT: Yes, fine, fine, in other words the problems. RICHARD: War is not ‘yes, fine, fine, in other words the problems’ ... there are 34 wars occurring as you read this; people are actually killing and wounding and being killed and wounded. Murder is not ‘yes, fine, fine, in other words the problems’ ... someone, somewhere is being murdered and murdering as these words scroll past you. Torture is not ‘yes, fine, fine, in other words the problems’ ... just ask ‘Amnesty International’. Domestic violence is not ‘yes, fine, fine, in other words the problems’ ... someone, somewhere is being beaten up right this moment in some unsafe home. Child abuse is not ‘yes, fine, fine, in other words the problems’ ... somewhere some child is being brutalised, frightened out of their wits. Sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide is not ‘yes, fine, fine, in other words the problems’ ... all over the world such suffering is going on in uncountable numbers of utterly miserable lives. It is for reasons like this that I pushed the envelope all those years ago and got out of the institutionalised insanity known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ ... and yet you say (further below): ‘well all I can say is how about joining the rest of the spiritual community of existence ... join the rest of us. We’re here with open arms’. RESPONDENT: And you feel you have the condition of conditions that will cure all that. RICHARD: I do not ‘feel’ peace-on-earth ... I experience peace-on-earth twenty four hours a day, day after day. When I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day ... and I know that I will wake up to yet another day of perfection. This has been going on, day-after-day, for years now ... it is so ‘normal’ that I take it for granted that there is only perfection. Plus I can easily put it all into words so as to unambiguously share my experience with my fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: I understand your assertion. 5000 years of recorded avatars and self-realization and finally you have the solution. I really wish I were lost and you were correct, but you are not. In my opinion. RICHARD: Okay ... could you provide an short exegesis of what I have described as being my condition so that I can read for myself what you ‘understand’ of my ‘condition of conditions that will cure all that’ ? I am none too sure that you actually read what I have to say, you see. Only if you are so inclined, of course. RESPONDENT: In my opinion so many in this lifetime have and continue to offer the solution, regardless of your clever intellectualising of how they do not. I’ve met many who have that complete peace, never mind that they are not totally perfect in each and every second, that have that peace everlasting. RICHARD: And here it is in a nut-shell ... this sentence contains the essence of what I have been saying. Viz.: ‘many have that complete peace ... that peace everlasting’ (otherwise known as the after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’) which ‘peace’ must be obtained at any cost (including the cost of peace-on-earth). Which is precisely what you are saying in your own way. Viz.: ‘never mind that they are not totally perfect in each and every second’ . This narcissistic after-death ‘complete peace everlasting’ takes precedence over bringing to an end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and the such-like. And all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse are caused by what? By the affective feelings and ... it is the affective feelings that cause someone to lose their temper. Viz.:
Your ‘never mind that they are not totally perfect in each and every second’ means that you (and all the enlightened ones) are so busy chasing ‘that peace everlasting’ that it is no wonder there is no peace on earth. RESPONDENT: And for those at least 5000 years have been providing it for those with the ripened intuition to experience it. RICHARD: Yep ... if by ‘ripened intuition’ you mean the arrant selfishness to hold onto their precious feelings because that is the way to ‘that peace everlasting’ (which precious feelings includes ‘losing their temper’ here on earth). RESPONDENT: You say you have been evaluating me for all these exchanges but it means nothing to me. I need no approval from you or anyone. I’m content that my experience has been and is secure. RICHARD: Yet that was simply a response to your offer (which you snipped off). Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I still welcome you to come and test my realization’. If this is what your reaction is, then why do you want me to take the time and the expense and the dislocation to go to the USA to meet you? Viz.:
May I ask? Is all this (above) just rhetoric then? Are you incapable of partaking in an honest, candid and frank discussion? Is this an example of how a self acknowledged self-realised being, who has been living in the transcendent state for 24 years, treats his fellow human being? If I were so silly as to take the time and the expense and the dislocation to go to the USA ... then this is what I get? As you are the latest representative of Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages ... is this why there is still no peace-on-earth? * RICHARD: As for ‘helping another’ ... I can be of assistance to those who want affirmation that the peace-on-earth which they experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is valid. And yet not only is it that such experience is affirmed as valid, but they also gain a confirmation in that a fellow human being has traversed this territory in an eminently satisfactory way. For nineteen years I scoured the books for information on an actual freedom ... to no avail. Now the information exists and has taken on a life of its own on computers and in books in various parts of the world ... and I am well content. I am having such fun, here at the keyboard. RESPONDENT: Those who have had self-realization need no confirmation, it is self-confirming. RICHARD: There is no one (as far as I have been able to ascertain) who has already discovered an actual freedom from the human condition ... yet it stands on its own in its own right without needing confirmation from anyone. The already always existing peace-on-earth demonstrates its perfection each moment again in all situations and with all people. Since going beyond enlightenment and breaking through into an actual freedom from the human condition (wherein malice and sorrow is eliminated and not transcended as in spiritual enlightenment), I have consistently lived in total peace and harmony. This has been my condition since 1992, thus I have had eight years to compare it with the enlightened state ... I can find no fault anywhere. In the enlightened state there were occasional ‘bleed-throughs’ from the transcended ‘I’ as ego entity ... brief flashes of fear, irritation, anguish, desire and so on (a close examination of what is written regarding various Enlightened Masters’ day-to-day lived experience will verify this as being typical). I have had nary a hint nor a glimmer or even a whiff of the faintest trace of any fear, irritation, anguish, desire and so on in actual freedom ... and I am relentless in my examination of myself. After all, I am going public with an outrageous and outstanding claim that could – and should – set the squalid complacency of the religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical communities on their ears ... and for those eleven years in the ASC I was determined to be ‘squeaky-clean’ before doing so. Five years without a single hitch satisfied me beyond any doubt whatsoever – not only beyond reasonable doubt – that this is that which is the answer to all the ills of humankind ... and I started writing of my experience in public. Peoples are far to lenient – overlooking or excusing the ‘Enlightened Beings’ peccadillos – no wonder there is no peace on earth. RESPONDENT: Yeah, yeah, you are perfect, never get angry, never make an error in thinking. RICHARD: May I ask? Why do you object so strenuously to someone not being able to get angry, to live perfection, to be in peace-on-earth? RESPONDENT: You must be a hermit who never interacts with people, just hunkering down at your computer, waiting to discredit someone such as myself, but there is a problem here. I don’t care. RICHARD: If you are at all interested in your fellow human being, may I refer you to my résumé Anyway ... it is high time that the ‘Tried and Failed’ was ‘discredited’ . RESPONDENT: I just look for holes in your empiricism and try to point them out, whether you see them is up to you. RICHARD: Good ... when are you going to start reading my responses so that there can be some relevant pointing out of holes? I do appreciate informed peer group review. RESPONDENT: I could drop this in a heartbeat, and probably will if it doesn’t stop being so repetitious. RICHARD: Why? Are you not interested in peace-on-earth? RESPONDENT: Try changing your strategy. RICHARD: Why are you trying to direct how I explain my experience? How on earth would you know how I should best describe something that has never before been lived for the twenty four hours of the day in human experience? RESPONDENT: Try not using all those ** footnotes like some college professor. RICHARD: Why? So that you can get away with chopping and changing your mind (under the guise of ‘living in the moment’) in accord with the swings of your feelings? Why is it that self-realised beings do not like being called to account? RESPONDENT: Try being original each and every time you write. RICHARD: Yet I am original ... this is totally new to human history. RESPONDENT: Use new words, instead of this insidious actual freedom. RICHARD: Why? In what way is an actual freedom from the human condition (becoming happy and harmless by being free of malice and sorrow) ‘insidious’ (sinister, dangerous, treacherous, menacing)? RESPONDENT: How about self-actualisation? RICHARD: Why? There is no ‘self’ (or ‘Self’) to be actualised ... I have repeatedly said: self-immolated. RESPONDENT: How about joining the rest of the spiritual community of existence and come down from your lonely perch? RICHARD: Why? What are you offering (apart from losing one’s temper once in a while and a fantasy life on the astral planes)? RESPONDENT: How about acknowledging the hard work and lonely years of sadhana that people invest if finding their own ‘actual freedom’ and give them a little credit instead of taking it all yourself? RICHARD: Who? I have scoured the books for nineteen years and have not come across anyone who has been living an actual freedom yet. RESPONDENT: Lonely isolation is the last outpost. RICHARD: May I point something out? You have used the word ‘lonely’ three times in the last three sentences. Is this why you live in ‘the spiritual community’ ... the one that welcomes the lost, lonely and frightened ‘with open arms’? * RESPONDENT: One knows when one has it, they experience themselves as others and experience others as themselves. RICHARD: Aye ... this is the difference between spiritual freedom (solipsistic oneness) and actual freedom (individualistic commonality). RESPONDENT: You’re just trying to make your lick special. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘try’ to make an actual freedom from the human condition special ... it already is. RESPONDENT: True enlightenment is not solipsistic. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... realising ‘I am God’ (‘I am Everything and Everything is Me’) was pure solipsism the last time I looked. RESPONDENT: It’s beyond words. RICHARD: It is not ... I describe it quite adequately. RESPONDENT: You seem to be trying to carve out a niche that doesn’t exist. Beyond only consciousness? That would be non-existence. RICHARD: There is a total absence of identity (if that is what you mean by ‘non-existence’ ) ... where is the difficulty in comprehending this? RESPONDENT: People have these types of delusions on the Buddhist newsgroups all the time where they find a particular slant and how their particular take is the right one. RICHARD: If someone else has discovered an actual freedom from the human condition I would be delighted to hear about it ... I have not come across it on any Buddhist list, though. RESPONDENT: Self-realization is the end there is no ‘beyond’ it, but I’m being repetitious here, I’ve said this already and you’re going to come back and tell me how you are beyond the beyond. Well all I can say is join the rest of us. We’re here with open arms. RICHARD: Why? So that I can somehow get back the ability to lose my temper every now and then ... and thus secure my place in some spurious after-life? RESPONDENT: You use common self-realization terms such as extinction of the ‘I’ and psychological self-immolation as if it was something new. RICHARD: Of course ... I am describing the process of becoming enlightened (ego death and/or dissolution) which is the end of ‘I’ through psychological self-immolation so as to establish step one. The next step (soul death and/or dissolution) which is the end of ‘me’ through psychic self-immolation and is where extinction takes place. This is the ‘something new’ . RESPONDENT: Well, maybe it is to you, and everyone who has ever awoken has thought they had discovered new territory, but that fades eventually and you see that everyone finds that same ‘new’ territory. RICHARD: Good ... if you can provide me with names or URL’s or book titles of these peoples who have already discovered an actual freedom from the human condition I would be delighted to contact and/or or read about them. * RICHARD: Speaking personally, I do not play with another’s integrity and delude myself that I have made it my own (and mayhap messing their’s up into the bargain). There is only one person in this whole wide world that one can change ... ‘myself’. RESPONDENT: Agreed, but what I was referring to is that your astral body, whether you admit to having one, extends beyond your physical one and overlaps those who you come in contact with. Your energies, their energies become one common experience. Now, encased within your physical body. RICHARD: But I have already explained that there is no ‘energy-field’ here. The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ energies here in this actual world for those ‘energies’ to ‘become one common experience’ . * RICHARD: This is the most important point to understand thoroughly, otherwise one endlessly tries to change the other ... and as there are billions of ‘others’ it would be a life-time task with still no success at the end. If one grasps that the way to peace-on-earth is by changing oneself – and oneself only – then all of one’s interactions with others will undergo a radical transformation. RESPONDENT: This is common spiritual knowledge. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... I am talking about going beyond enlightenment, when all is said and done, and I am detailing the entire process (which will become obvious as you read on). * RICHARD: One sets them free of ‘my’ graceless demands ... ‘my’ endless neediness born out of being alone in the world. The cause of sadness and loneliness is not, as is commonly believed, alienation from others. The single reason for being alone and lonely is from not being what-I-am. By not being this flesh and blood body just brimming with sensory organs but being, instead, an identity within ‘I’ am doomed to perpetual loneliness and aloneness. ‘I’ am fated to ever pursue an elusive ‘Someone’ or ‘Something’ that will fill that aching void. RESPONDENT: Again, common knowledge. RICHARD: Hmm ... are you so sure about this? Can you let me know where it is written, in any scripture/spiritual discourse that ‘by not being this flesh and blood body just brimming with sensory organs but being, instead, an identity within ‘I’ am doomed to perpetual loneliness and aloneness’ ? Every tract and transcription I have read always says the opposite. Viz.: you are not the body, when the body dies you cast it of as if a suit of clothes; the body is the temple of the soul; resist the temptations of the flesh ... and so on and so on. * RICHARD: When I am what-I-am, there is no void. By being what I actually am – this body only – I have no need for others; hence I also have no need to place the burden upon them to fulfil that what was lacking. Not only do I free myself from that perpetual pursuit, but I also free others in my company from the task ‘I’ impose upon them. Being this sensual body is actual fulfilment, each moment again. Nevermore will I be needy, greedy and grasping. Nevermore will I plot and plan and manipulate others. Nevermore will I have to prostitute myself to others to assuage those main attributes of the identity: being lost, lonely, frightened and cunning. Being what-I-am is free-flowing, spontaneous, delightful fun ... for one can never, ever suffer hurt again. RESPONDENT: Yet you have these other bodies, whether you acknowledge or not. RICHARD: There is something that I have noticed, over the many years that I have discussed these matters, in the people I have met personally who have what may be described as a religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical and/or metaphysical point of view, is that as a last resort they invariably start threatening me with the dire consequences that ensue in the ‘after-death’ state because I do not agree with their belief system. So that this exchange does not devolve into you endeavouring to put the ‘fear of god’ into me (and I am not implying that you were going to), I take this opportunity to point out that your ‘whether you acknowledge or not’ amounts to the same-same threat that some Christians, for example, have tried on me when they say that my soul will have to face their god’s ‘Judgement Day’ ... um ... whether I acknowledge it or not. This hoary trick simply does not work on me. * RESPONDENT: You suggest that someone, say Gangaji or Andrew Cohen come to you for confirmation? RICHARD: But I do not want ‘someone’ (or anybody) to ‘come to me for confirmation’ as I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples, who cannot think for themselves, trooping daily through my front door. The Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there is actually a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... there is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here. The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: No energy field that you admit to, but others can perceive that you do in fact have one. RICHARD: This ‘others can perceive that you do in fact have one’ is called egocentricity (viewing another through one’s own feelings and/or beliefs and/or standards). * RESPONDENT: Suffering may be brought down to a dull roar, but unless one has the correct understanding, one will suffer. RICHARD: Indeed ... and as you have already acknowledged, as all the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages both can and do display anguish and anger, it is obvious that the reason why they are suffering is because they do not have ‘the correct understanding’ . My eleven years experience showed me that ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ most certainly does not endow the correct understanding of the root cause of human suffering. This is because human suffering (malice and sorrow) being physical, has a physical cause (instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) and not a metaphysical cause (such as ‘ignorance of knowing that we are spirit beings seemingly trapped in this veil of tears material world’ as you propose). Why is it so difficult to comprehend cause and effect? RESPONDENT: It’s not. RICHARD: Oh? Are you saying that you comprehend what I am discussing vis a vis the genetically inherited instinctual passions and the rudimentary animal ‘self’ that gives rise to a feeling ‘me’ which infiltrates into thought to establish itself as a thinking ‘I’ which then fondly imagines itself to be an as yet unmanifested manifestation of ‘God on Earth’ and then sets out to be humble enough to manifest that vainglorious grandiosity that has sucked in millions – if not billions – of otherwise intelligent people? If so, then we can have a sensible (empirical) discussion. RESPONDENT: Cause and effect is pretty simple really. But go ahead and complicate it. RICHARD: Not at all ... as you find it ‘pretty simple really’ then perhaps you might be inclined to provide an exegesis of what I have presented so that I can see for myself what you have understood? I am none too sure that you actually read what I write, you see. * RESPONDENT: You still have it. RICHARD: I can assure you (for what that is worth) that there is not the slightest trace of either egoism or soulism in me whatsoever. The identity – in toto – is no more, finish. Extinct. RESPONDENT: I’m not assured. RICHARD: May I make an observation? As I wrote ‘for what that is worth’ this is hardly an earth-shaking bit of information you provide. I am simply responding to your inane comment (‘you still have it’ ) with an equally inane comment. We can stop this nonsense any time you like and have a genuine conversation. It is entirely up to you. * RICHARD: How on earth can one live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst one nurses malice and sorrow in one’s bosom? RESPONDENT: My answer is self-realization, which as stated above is the actual experience of oneself as the three bodies that we are. RICHARD: Yet as you have already acknowledged on several occasions that ‘self-realisation’ does not bring about peace-on-earth then this is a rather pointless answer, is it not? RESPONDENT: You twist my words, it ‘does’ bring about peace for that person. RICHARD: There is something that I have noticed, over the many years that I have discussed these matters, in the people I have met personally who have what may be described as a religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical and/or metaphysical point of view, is that somewhere along the line they invariably start accusing me of ‘twisting their words’ because I do not agree with their belief system. So that this exchange does not devolve into you endeavouring to put a double-helix spiral onto something factual that I say (and I am not implying that you were going to), I take this opportunity to point out that although your assertion that ‘self-realisation ‘does’ bring about peace for that person’ you have already acknowledged on several occasions that it does not bring about peace-on-earth for that person. It is because many, many other peoples have attempted to pull this stunt on me that I provide footnotes. For example: you have written: [Respondent]: ‘I’ve known two [gurus] personally, Stephen Gaskin and John Panama and they were both peaceful. Oh sure once in a while one would lose his temper, Christ lost his temper when he turned over the tables. No one is perfect’ and ‘to once every blue moon fall down [losing their temper] does not prove one is not peaceful’ RESPONDENT: No, I said it DOES bring peace, but not the deluded perfection you claim. RICHARD: As your ‘peace’ I do not see ‘losing his temper’ in the dictionary description at all ... no wonder there is no peace on earth. * RESPONDENT: It does not however stop others from doing evil. RICHARD: Indeed ... this is because enlightenment comes about through sublimation and transcendence (the lotus blossom has its roots in mud) thus they have not eliminated evil but merely risen above it. The diabolical underpins the divine ... hence all the Hatred and Bloodshed that follows the latest manifestation of Love Agapé and Divine Compassion. Hence also all the religious wars that have raged across the millennia. Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain, to give but a recent example, demonstrated this sublimated ‘dark-side’ malignancy flowing its sinister way through his entire Oregon/Rajneeshpuram debacle for all the world to see. As I have remarked before, thanks to this modern era’s rapid and comprehensive publication and communications network, the ‘Enlightened Beings’ have squandered their heyday as none of their gaffes and improprieties elude notice anymore. The ‘Enlightened Beings’ have fallen short of their own standards (and they can no longer continue to strut the world stage with immunity to a sensible and valid critique) because the ‘Enlightened Beings’ have a fatal flaw – a hidden ‘dark side’ – which ‘Achilles’ Heel’ is why they have failed to deliver the goods so readily pledged to a credulous humanity ... and also because they still command respect, loyalty, devotion, worship and total surrender of the integrity of otherwise intelligent people. Only the gullible trust ... and only a fool accepts another’s trust. RESPONDENT: I believe you confuse awakening with perfection, which you believe you have attained and I do not believe you have. RICHARD: I can assure you (for what that is worth) that I do not confuse ‘awakening’ (spiritual freedom) with perfection (actual freedom). RESPONDENT: I too used to judge Rajneesh/Osho for his foolishness in Oregon, but then I realized that didn’t discredit his awakening. Awakening has to do with consciousness, not the intellect. Yet the intellect is still an aspect of being and Rajneesh himself was theoretically working on trying to integrate that aspect of himself, I read it in many of his books. Here’s how I see it. The ‘awakening’ is that your consciousness expands and you become conscious that your awareness is no longer limited to your own physical body but moves beyond that into experiencing also the astral or subtle body. This body expands and contracts and can become very large. And your awareness is throughout that whole subtle body. Not just your physical body. This is realized on initial awakening. Then there is the whole baggage of the mind you had and still have, which is basically the same deluded mind, with all it’s subconscious contractions and painful memories, it’s false thinking and self-referencing. But now you have an expanded awareness which feels everything, feels all the energies of your fellow beings around you and has an expanded sense of your own energies. You notice that your thoughts themselves create energies within you that radiate out into that subtle body and people react to them. Not only that, but it affects your own state of being. So now you have a tool to change your thinking based upon whether your thoughts produce favourable or unfavourable vibrations that are now clearly felt every moment. Yet ... conditioning and bad habits have built up over lifetimes and will not easily be uprooted. Even when you notice them, it takes continual effort to change them. This is the difference between realization and actualisation, the actualisation is when you actually replace the unfavourable habits with favourable ones. This can take years, decades, perhaps lifetimes to get to a basically clean consciousness that doesn’t lapse on a regular basis. No single realization can poof this instantly. It takes a lot of hard work. This is true spiritual work, there is no going beyond it or around it. In my opinion. RICHARD: I read this through three times ... and for the life of me I cannot see what this response has to do with the question. May I re-present the question/answer exchange so that you can get back on track? Viz.:
Nowhere in either of your answers have you addressed the question of the affective feelings (which is what malice and sorrow are) and nowhere in your second response did you address the question of ‘evil’ (which is extreme malice) ... except to say that ‘thoughts themselves create energies’ and ‘thoughts produce favourable or unfavourable vibrations’ . Are ‘energies’ and ‘vibrations’ the affective feelings in your lexicon? If so, thought does not create or produce them ... one is born with the affective faculty per favour of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire endowed by blind nature. Being pre-existent to thought, thoughts and thinking (the human infant has feelings prior to thought developing) then thought merely triggers them ... and does not ‘create’ or ‘produce’ them. It is such fun finding out about the human condition, non?
RESPONDENT: The unenlightened ... argue against something they have never experienced. Which to me is fear on the part of people’s egos, why they want to dismiss something they have no idea of what it is they are dismissing. Or why they carve out some superior intellectual place that beats them all. It’s the ego-self maintaining it’s separate identity, which it has to do to remain unenlightened, to remain and individual, otherwise the ego-self will actually die and the person will become enlightened and merge with all life. Then the awareness will easily recognize others who are having the same experience and those who are not. But you WILL see others and validate them. I recognize many ... who do you acknowledge Richard? No one, I’m sure. Which makes my point. RICHARD: As I recognised, named and validated at least four ‘Enlightened Beings’, in the 13 or so E-Mails that I have written to you so far, then I guess that (a) you do not actually read what I write ... and (b) you have not ‘made your point’ at all. Thus, your intuitive character analysis of Richard as having (1) ‘fear on the part of his ego’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of Richard as having (2) ‘no idea of what he is dismissing’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of what you intuit as being Richard’s ego-fear (3) ‘carving out some superior intellectual place’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of Richard having (4) ‘an ego-self maintaining a separate identity’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of what you intuit as being Richard’s (5) ‘ego-driven fear having to do with remaining unenlightened’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of what you intuit as being Richard’s (6) ‘ego-fear wanting to remain as an ego-self and individual’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of what you intuit as being Richard’s (7) ‘ego-fear preventing him from becoming enlightened and merging with life’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of Richard needing to be enlightened in order to (8) ‘recognise others who are enlightened’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of Richard needing to be enlightened in order to (9) ‘see others who are enlightened and validate them’ is incorrect. Therefore, as you are incorrect on all 9 (nine) points would you be prepared to question the intuitiveness that says Richard is out to ‘win with you in a debate’ as well? Because when it comes to a timely dialogue on global peace-on-earth, which the other intuits as being a debate, there is no winner if there be a loser. * RESPONDENT: I do doubt my thoughts, they prove wrong all the time, which is why someone can win with me in a debate, like Richard. RESPONDENT No. 4: Well, is that your perception i.e. that he won? The aim, I think, is to communicate. You often retreat to just saying you know its true and that isn’t helpful on a discussion list. RESPONDENT: I think his goal is to win, it’s subconscious. Perceptual truth is impossible to prove with word ... RICHARD: But what it is that you are trying to ‘prove with word’ ? That ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ exists? I have never said it does not ... I am saying there is something better beyond enlightenment which enables peace-on-earth. Or are you trying to ‘prove with word’ that you are enlightened? I have never said you are not ... I am saying there is something better beyond enlightenment which enables peace-on-earth. What exactly is it that you intuit I have as my ‘goal to win’ ? Do you really intuit that I would spend my time writing 13 long E-Mails just to prove that you are not awakened? I have one aim only: to demonstrate that, along with the secular solutions, ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ has not, does not and will not ever enable peace-on-earth ... because it can not (it does not have that capacity). Then peoples will be open to a third alternative to being ether ‘human’ or ‘divine’ as a way out of this instinctually-driven mess that already existed when we were all born. And the best part of this dialogue is that no one has to be enlightened in order to comprehend that the ancient wisdom has had 3,000 to 5,000 years to demonstrate its efficacy ... to comprehend and see that the ‘Tried and True’ is demonstrably the ‘tried and failed’. In fact, enlightenment – because of the vested interest involved – is a hindrance to comprehending, seeing and knowing this abject failure to be fact. Seeing the fact sets one free to live in actuality. Then we are all winners: no military force or police force would be needed ... no force at all would be needed anywhere on this otherwise fair earth we all live on; judges, gaols and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows .... terror would stalk its prey no more. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. It is the stuff of pipe-dreams come true.
RESPONDENT: The unenlightened ... argue against something they have never experienced. Which to me is fear on the part of people’s egos, why they want to dismiss something they have no idea of what it is they are dismissing. Or why they carve out some superior intellectual place that beats them all. It’s the ego-self maintaining it’s separate identity, which it has to do to remain unenlightened, to remain and individual, otherwise the ego-self will actually die and the person will become enlightened and merge with all life. Then the awareness will easily recognize others who are having the same experience and those who are not. But you WILL see others and validate them. I recognize many ... who do you acknowledge Richard? No one, I’m sure. Which makes my point. RICHARD: As I recognised, named and validated at least four ‘Enlightened Beings’, in the 13 or so E-Mails that I have written to you so far, then I guess that (a) you do not actually read what I write ... and (b) you have not ‘made your point’ at all. Thus, your intuitive character analysis of Richard as having (1) ‘fear on the part of his ego’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of Richard as having (2) ‘no idea of what he is dismissing’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of what you intuit as being Richard’s ego-fear (3) ‘carving out some superior intellectual place’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of Richard having (4) ‘an ego-self maintaining a separate identity’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of what you intuit as being Richard’s (5) ‘ego-driven fear having to do with remaining unenlightened’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of what you intuit as being Richard’s (6) ‘ego-fear wanting to remain as an ego-self and individual’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of what you intuit as being Richard’s (7) ‘ego-fear preventing him from becoming enlightened and merging with life’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of Richard needing to be enlightened in order to (8) ‘recognise others who are enlightened’ is incorrect; your intuitive character analysis of Richard needing to be enlightened in order to (9) ‘see others who are enlightened and validate them’ is incorrect. Therefore, as you are incorrect on all 9 (nine) points would you be prepared to question the intuitiveness that says Richard is out to ‘win with you in a debate’ as well? Because when it comes to a timely dialogue on global peace-on-earth, which the other intuits as being a debate, there is no winner if there be a loser. * RESPONDENT: I do doubt my thoughts, they prove wrong all the time, which is why someone can win with me in a debate, like Richard. RESPONDENT No. 4: Well, is that your perception i.e. that he won? The aim, I think, is to communicate. You often retreat to just saying you know its true and that isn’t helpful on a discussion list. RESPONDENT: I think his goal is to win, it’s subconscious. Perceptual truth is impossible to prove with word ... RICHARD: But what it is that you are trying to ‘prove with word’ ? That ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ exists? I have never said it does not ... I am saying there is something better beyond enlightenment which enables peace-on-earth. Or are you trying to ‘prove with word’ that you are enlightened? I have never said you are not ... I am saying there is something better beyond enlightenment which enables peace-on-earth. What exactly is it that you intuit I have as my ‘goal to win’ ? Do you really intuit that I would spend my time writing 13 long E-Mails just to prove that you are not awakened? I have one aim only: to demonstrate that, along with the secular solutions, ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ has not, does not and will not ever enable peace-on-earth ... because it can not (it does not have that capacity). Then peoples will be open to a third alternative to being either ‘human’ or ‘divine’ as a way out of this instinctually-driven mess that already existed when we were all born. And the best part of this dialogue is that no one has to be enlightened in order to comprehend that the ancient wisdom has had 3,000 to 5,000 years to demonstrate its efficacy ... to comprehend and see that the ‘Tried and True’ is demonstrably the ‘tried and failed’. In fact, enlightenment – because of the vested interest involved – is a hindrance to comprehending, seeing and knowing this abject failure to be fact. Seeing the fact sets one free to live in actuality. Then we are all winners: no military force or police force would be needed ... no force at all would be needed anywhere on this otherwise fair earth we all live on; judges, gaols and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows .... terror would stalk its prey no more. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. It is the stuff of pipe-dreams come true. RESPONDENT: I assumed you had a website so I just added a www to it and voila: www.actualfreedom.com.au I read a bit of your website which reflects what you’ve stated here. RICHARD: Good ... then you would have surely read the opening page where I say: ‘The blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient courage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of the final goal ... the Unknowable. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the Self or Spirit ... and an ego-less Self or Spirit is still an identity, nevertheless. In spite of the glamour and the glory and the glitz of the Altered State Of Consciousness, closer examination reveals that these ‘Great’ persons had – and have – feet of clay. The divine ‘Beings’ have been peddling their snake oil for centuries to no avail. Their time has come to either put up or shut up ... how much longer than these thousands of years do peoples need to further test the efficaciousness of their failed ‘Divine Message’? Bewitched and beguiled by the promise of majesty and mystery, they have led humankind astray. Preaching submission or supplication they keep a benighted humanity in appalling tribulation and distress. The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the identity in its entirety is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign for all and everyone’. And if you had read deeper, on other pages you would have found me rightfully saying (because I was one of them myself once), that they are ‘gutless wonders’ for chickening out in the ‘dark night of the soul’ ... grabbing for dissociation instead of extinction. If your heroes (peoples like Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and Mr. Krishna and so on) had the requisite intestinal fortitude, all those thousands of years ago, human beings living today may have already had global (or near global) peace-on-earth already. They should not have dawdled, tarried ... because there has been untold suffering since then that has been all unnecessary. Wars, rapes, murders, tortures, corruption ... the list is endless. If they had gone all the way through enlightenment and out to this other, side human suffering would possibly (probably) be all over by now. That was two to two and a half thousand years ago, remember. Plenty of time for everyone to become actually free of the human condition. RESPONDENT: I think it’s clear where we stand, I won’t be debating your last email or the one before that. I believe you are wrong, but don’t want to debate it any more. RICHARD: Then may I make a suggestion? If you do not want to discuss with me then simply desist from asking me a question (such as: ‘who do you acknowledge Richard? No one, I’m sure. Which makes my point ), especially immediately after announcing that you have intuited 9 (nine) blatantly false feeling-fed thoughts relating to my character, eh? RESPONDENT: I’ll keep my hand, you keep yours, it all comes out in the wash anyways. RICHARD: I have been to India myself to see what community life is like, after what they proudly announce as maybe ten thousand years (or more) of spiritually living ‘The Truth’, and it is horrific. The only thing that ‘comes out in the wash’ in the land where the ancient wisdom has such a stranglehold is dye ... if only ‘The Truth’ were that simply dispossessed of its ability to have such uncanny power over the minds and hearts of otherwise intelligent peoples. And, in case you do not get it, what I am pointing out is that if you are not prepared to substantiate your claim that ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ is the solution for all the ills of humankind by publicly demonstrating its efficacy in bring peace to earth ... then desist from making those claims. For how will anything ever ‘come out in the wash’ if you will not have a dialogue about your claim, eh? RESPONDENT: I’ve been arguing those who disagree with me for years and offering guidance to those who like what I say. So far, the arguing with others has proven unfruitful, I doubt I’ll be doing much more of that. RICHARD: Aye ... but will you desist from discussing with ‘those who like what you say’ as well? Otherwise you are proposing to only have a dialogue with sycophants ... preaching to the converted. RESPONDENT: I have nothing to prove. RICHARD: Au contraire ... you do have something to prove. It is just that you have zilch to prove it with (hence the craven withdrawal from a timely dialogue on peace on earth). RESPONDENT: I wish you luck on the continuing journey. RICHARD: If I may interject? This platitude (apart from having no sincerity) has no meaning whatsoever into the bargain ... one needs no luck here in this actual world where everything is already always perfect. RESPONDENT: I may or may not continue my argument (yes argument) with No. 4, you may or may not believe what I have said. RICHARD: You do seem to have missed the point: you have said nothing of substance for me to either believe or disbelieve. What you have contributed to the furthering of human knowledge, though, is perhaps best summed up by someone (an interested bystander who has been following this dialogue; an interested bystander who does not know me; and an interested bystander who shall remain anonymous) who kindly sent me an E-Mail just an hour ago. Viz.: [quote]: ‘No. 3 represents what I would call the worst of the East. Blind regurgitating of fantastic theories of astral beings, and planes of existence, of ancient wisdom un-critiqued, of ascended beings, and enlightened masters, of you can’t know the awakened state until you have awakened. It’s a horrid, elitist viewpoint that sees others as less evolved, and thus less worthy, perhaps, of happiness. Gods who punish and reward, allow evil but aren’t evil. Saviours and Purushas and on and on ... that worldview may have been the obvious next step thousands of years ago, but its demise has been imminent since the [Age of] Enlightenment (not of the spiritual kind, the historical era) when science began to tease itself out of the clutches of religion. However, science that doesn’t see the full, amazing wonder of the universe is not an adequate substitute’ [endquote]. Therefore, once again I would like to express my appreciation for your taking the time, in a discussion with me spanning 15 E-Mails, to give your attention to the most fundamental issues pertaining to human life on earth today. ... to be able to put various propositions (about actual freedom) and questions (about spiritual freedom) for your perusal, appraisal and response in a public forum such as this. The human world will be the better for it. RESPONDENT: You say you do, but it makes me wonder. While No. 4 just plain thinks I’m mistaken. Ha, ha, I’ve heard this before. RICHARD: Methinks thou does protesteth too much ... which perchance revealeth it all to be but pith and wind.
RESPONDENT: Look at the battle that was raging between Richard and myself. He threw some heavy punches and some hurtful insults. You don’t think that hurts? Well it does, but I’ve vowed to not have an ego, to throw it in the fire, so burn baby burn. The way to move on is to jump into the river. RICHARD: If I may point out? There was not, is not and never will be a ‘battle between Richard and [yourself]’ ... there has been, is now and only ever can be, a battle between you and your identity (identity as ego/soul if there still be ego-self as is suggested in your ‘I’ve vowed to not have an ego, to throw it in the fire, so burn baby burn’ declaration) or with your identity as soul (if/as you are already awakened through ego-dissolution). If I may make a suggestion? One will never dissolve the problem of oneself as ego/soul identity by viewing yourself as the foe (‘so burn baby burn’ ) and treating yourself as the enemy to be destroyed (‘to throw it in the fire’ ) in some mythical clash of the titans (‘look at the battle raging’ ) as in the days of yore where men were men and boys were boys. Because ‘you’ as ego/soul are your own ally – if and/or when ‘you’ choose for peace-on-earth – and ‘you’ will happily, cheerfully and altruistically co-operate by jumping in boots and all for the good of ‘your’ body and every body ... and thus going out in a ‘self’-sacrificial blaze of glory. This is because such a noble ‘self’-immolation is what makes ‘your’ petty life worthwhile ... such a magnanimous ushering-in of the already always existing peace-on-earth is ‘your’ crowning achievement. The way to peace is not through war. Also, if you want me to respond to your last two E-Mails (those two which you sent privately to my personal E-Mail address) please re-post them to this Mailing List as I have no interest whatsoever in carrying on a clandestine correspondence. This timely dialogue about peace-on-earth is a public discussion as far as I am concerned and, what is more to the point, I am not interested in secretly ‘agreeing to disagree’ in any way, shape or form. Why on earth would anyone wish to surreptitiously ‘agree to disagree’ when all 6.0 billion of one’s fellow human beings are needlessly suffering? Can you not enter into an exploration and discovery of what it actually is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are? Do you wish to but endlessly seek in the dying embers of an ‘ancient wisdom’ that has had its day; to but unendingly try to find the selfish solution that has all but run its course; to but incessantly resurrect that primeval peculiarity which is doomed to be as the small-brained dinosaur in the history of consciousness mutation ... and thus never find peace-on-earth (which peace is the personified perfection of the perpetual purity welling endlessly as the consummate infinitude that this infinite and eternal universe is)?
RESPONDENT No. 4: What do you mean by a ‘perfect day’? RICHARD: I mean a faultless day; a flawless day; a spotless day; an impeccable day; an immaculate day; an unflawed day; an unblemished day; an unimpeachable day; an unsullied day; an unfaultable day; an untarnished day; a pure day; a salubrious day; a blameless day; an irreproachable day; an unassailable day; an unadulterated day; an uncontaminated day; an unpolluted day; a clean day; a wholesome day; an innocent day; a guiltless day; an irreprehensible day; an untouched day; an unmodified day; a fresh day; a clear day; a sparkling day; an unsoiled day; a bright day; a new, lucid day; a scintillating day; an original day; a brilliant day; an excellent day; a novel day; a superb day; a wonderful day; a terrific day; a splendid day; a fabulous day; a fantastic day; a marvellous day; an amazing day; a thrilling day and so on. In other words: a magical day. RESPONDENT No. 4: Richard, if that [‘an uncontaminated day; an unpolluted
day’] really is your definition of a ‘perfect day’ then I can only conclude that have not been living on this planet where
there clearly is contamination and pollution. RESPONDENT: You have to realize that Richard lives in his own world. RICHARD: Not so ... Richard lives in the actual world of this body and that body; the actual world of the mountains and the streams; the actual world of the trees and the flowers; the actual world of the clouds by day and the stars at night. It is no more my world than it is your world or his world or her world and so on. RESPONDENT: He doesn’t live in the same one you and I do. RICHARD: Indeed not ... I was born into the ‘real world’ and found it to be the pits. Consequently I abandoned ‘humanity’ and all of their bickering and squabbling and whinging and bewailing and landed in this pristine actual world ... I left the tear-soaked ‘Land Of Lament’ behind forever. RESPONDENT: His world has evil Christs and Buddhas lurking in it. RICHARD: Not so ... it is the ‘real world’ that is populated by all the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages. And they make no secret of the fact that the diabolical underpins the divine: they proudly declare that they have not eliminated the gross but sublimated and transcended it. I am not making this up ... this is their words: ‘The lotus blossom has its roots in mud’. RESPONDENT: With him with a superman outfit and a bold ‘R’ on the chest and a cape to save us from the evil gurus and avatars, saints and sages. RICHARD: Only in your dreams and schemes ... there is nobody to save the human race: your peace and harmony is in your hands and your hands only. Only you can save yourself ‘from the evil gurus and avatars, saints and sages’ and not me. There is only one person anyone can ‘save’ ... themselves. Any person who tells you otherwise is seeking to establish power over anyone gullible enough to fall for their blandishments and never-delivered promises. We are all on our own – beholden to no one – and who would have it any other way, upon sober reflection. Ain’t life grand!
RICHARD: ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ can never be here in this magical fairy-tale-like actual world for ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ am an interloper, an alien in psychological and psychic possession of the body: ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ do not belong here. All this is impossible to conceive, believe, imagine or in any other way visualise ... which is why it is essential to be confident that the actual world does exist. In order to mutate from a self-centred licentiousness to a self-less sensualism, one must have confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe. This confidence is born out of knowing that the grim and glum ‘real world’ is pasted as a veneer over the top of actual world that underlies everyday reality. This knowing is a solid and irrefutable knowing which is derived from the PCE and is an essential ingredient to ensure success. In such a peak experience everything is seen, with unparalleled clarity and purity, to be already perfect – that humans are all living in perfection – if only one would act upon one’s seeing. Because in a PCE, wherein apperception is operating unimpeded, it is irrefutably experienced that thought, thoughts and thinking happen of their own accord as is necessary ... for it is the function of the brain to do so. Consequently, this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware easily and delightedly writes about its on-going experiencing. RESPONDENT: You’re still an offensive, pompous putz. RICHARD: Do you not find it odd – maybe even peculiar – that someone would be offended by a fellow human being delightedly reporting on his discovery of the already always existing peace-on-earth? Do you not find it peculiar – maybe even weird – that someone would feel that a delicious description of the magical perfection of this actual world is ‘offensive’ (synonyms: insulting, odious, nasty, distasteful, unpleasant, disgusting) and ‘pompous’ (synonyms: snobbish, conceited, stuck-up, snooty, high and mighty, pretentious, haughty)? Do you not find it weird – maybe even bizarre – that someone would adjudge such a writer to be a ‘putz’ (synonyms: a penis, a fool, an idiot, a time-waster)? Sometimes the response I get from people defies sensible comprehension. RESPONDENT: Realize that and be enlightened. RICHARD: If I may ask? What motivates you to advise me to ‘be enlightened’ ... and, in particular, what will be the result of entering into the ‘Enlightened State’? Does doing so mean an end – an absolute end – to anger and anguish forever? Which means: will I be happy and harmless (free of malice and sorrow) for the remainder of my life? Will I experience peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... and thus pave the way for the possibility of a global peace-on-earth through example as well as precept? Specifically: what goodies you are offering? Continued in ‘General Correspondence’: Page 12, No. 1
RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘C’ INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
