Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘C’
with Respondent No. 4
RESPONDENT: Richard, you like to talk a lot.
RICHARD: I do enjoy a dialogue and I do not mind engaging in apparently fruitless conversation for it is not my intent to forcibly remove the beliefs and opinions of others ... I am simply telling my story. I like a discussion because I am talking about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. Sometimes the other will recognise something to be factually true and pick it up, whereupon we can have a genuine exchange. Other than a handful of people, I am yet to find someone with something original to say; they have all regurgitated either the wisdom of the ‘real world’ or the wisdom of the received teachings from some ‘Greater Reality’. I find it amazing that people are content to live on pap ... and then proceed to complain to me that life is, literally, a vale of tears.
Strangely enough they will brush aside the facts I proffer with a stony face and a glazed look in their eyes ... and then continue with their undertaking to fill me with their borrowed beliefs, their scrounged ideas, their cadged ‘truths’.
RESPONDENT: That’s mighty fine for you but it’s space-consuming on a list. Still such a fine point will no doubt prove insufficient to curtail such excesses which have probably habitual after so many years.
RICHARD: Maybe – just maybe – it is because I am arraigning the trillions and trillions and trillions of words contained in the Sacred Scriptures of all cultures (which is what verbosity is if there ever was). If so, then how would a few pithy one-liners à la Mr. Bob Hope succinctly explain the root cause of human suffering ... especially when there is so much misinformation – and disinformation – bandied about? I do like to discuss peace-on-earth even though I fully comprehend that it is impossible to combat the ‘wisdom’ of the ‘real world’ or the ‘Greater Reality’ ... for their worldly ‘wisdom’ is cynical, and cynicism decries actuality. For a person to acknowledge a fact would require that they betray their basic belief, their fundamental faith, their core certitude, their tragic trust:
They would have to admit that life-on-earth is in itself inherently perfect ... and this would go against their pre-digested judgment so dearly held firmly to their bosom.
RESPONDENT: However, I hazard a guess that you are poor communicator if your objective is to move people into actual freedom/PCE’s out of the ‘nape of the neck’ or whatever and to no longer be part of the 6 billion which you claim are part of the human condition unlike yourself.
RICHARD: No, my objective is to have fun talking about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and I am successful in this endeavour each moment again. I thoroughly enjoy describing how I experience life on this planet and to enquire into how it is for the person I am discussing with. You and I are, after all, both in this game of life together with 6.0 billion fellow human beings ... and it is fascinating to compare notes, as it were, on what sense has been made out of what it is to be here as living, breathing human beings.
This is my position: we are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic – we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition – and we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence – we gather that it is also inherent to the human condition – and we want to know why. We all report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it.
I, for one, am not taking the back seat.
RICHARD: The solution to all the ills of humankind requires one to step out of the grim and glum ‘real world’ (the everyday ‘reality’ for 6.0 billion peoples pasted as a veneer over the pristine and consummate actual world by the affective faculty) into the actual world of the sensate faculty as is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) ... and leave ‘yourself’ behind in that blood-soaked ‘Land Of Lament’ where ‘you’ belong.
RESPONDENT: I don’t really know much about the ‘human condition’ or the 6 billion – be more down-to-earth.
RICHARD: The last time I checked it out all the 6.0 billion people were still on earth (complete with their human condition intact) ... how much more ‘down-to-earth’ can I be than discussing the animal instinctual passions?
RESPONDENT: Just exactly how did you enquire into the condition of 6 billion people when you haven’t left Byron Bay?
RICHARD: The same way that I ascertain anything about anybody and everybody ... I ask and I listen. Plus I read about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers and on the internet. I watch TV, videos, films ... whatever media is available. I travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life and have been scouring the books for nineteen years now for information on an actual freedom from the human condition ... but to no avail.
This is because, despite of the fact that every single human being has had at least one pure consciousness experience (PCE) – and usually more – in their lifetime, they somehow can not differentiate between that peak experience of apperception (wherein ‘I’ and ‘me’, the thought and felt ‘being’, temporarily quits the scene and the actual world becomes apparent) and their pre-conceived notions that everyday reality is an illusion disguising some metaphysical ‘Greater Reality’. The Glamour and the Glory and the Glitz of the Altered State Of Consciousness has a tenacious grip upon the minds and hearts of a benighted humanity. It is indeed strange, to the point of being bizarre, that so many persons will turn their backs on the purity of the perfection of being here – of being fully alive – at this moment in time. Here in this actual world, which is where this flesh and blood body is living anyway, is the peace that everyone says they are searching for. All that is required is that one comes to one’s senses – both literally and metaphorically – and spend the rest of one’s life without malice and sorrow.
One will then be blithe and benign, gay and carefree.
RICHARD: The mystics have been transmogrifying the real world ‘reality’ into a ‘True Reality’ via the epiphenomenal imaginative/intuitive facility born of the psyche (which is formed by the instinctual passions genetically endowed by blind nature for survival purposes) for millennia ...
RESPONDENT: ([I] snipped 12 lines). I didn’t ask about mystics fascinating as it maybe on a sleepless night ...
RICHARD: I am well aware that you did not ask for an actual summary of what I am on about ... but as peace-on-earth is my discovery I needs must explain as I see fit. The antics of the mystics are an integral part of the investigation ... the understanding of the workings of dissociation is vital if peace-on-earth is to become apparent. They and their gullible acolytes have been stuffing up the works for millennia.
RESPONDENT: Gulp – more reading must obviously be required.
RICHARD: Only if you wish to ... it is your life you are living; it is you who either reaps the rewards or pays the consequences for any action or inaction that you may or may not do. For so long as you comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols you will left alone to live your life as foolishly or as wisely as you wish. I can only suggest ... what you do with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to you.
Your peace and harmony is in your own hands.
RICHARD: I am fully conversant with that hallucinogenic and delusory ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ realm from my own intimate experience over eleven years ... its understanding is vital if there is to be peace-on-earth ...
RESPONDENT: ([I] snipped 24 lines) How conversant is ‘fully’?
RICHARD: Why on earth would you want to know this ... seeing that you have dismissively snipped the very valid explanation for me writing this sentence in the first place? Which means: why do you wish to know how fully conversant I am with something you do not want to read about? However, for what it is worth: I lived that hallucinogenic and delusory ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ fantasy for the twenty four hours of the day for a full eleven dissociated years and, as I thus experienced it intimately, I therefore know it the full 100%.
RESPONDENT: I wondered what dimensions it had.
RICHARD: And now that you know ‘what dimensions it had’ , in what way has this information made you more peaceful, more harmonious?
RESPONDENT: So far they [Richard’s words] are only tying up valuable time.
RICHARD: May I ask? What do you consider is a more valuable way of ‘tying up time’ than investigating the root cause of human suffering? Just curious.
RESPONDENT: So far, no result to show for reading your 1000’s of words.
RICHARD: If I may make a suggestion by presenting what another co-respondent wrote to me some time back? Vis.:
As I remarked before: the only proof worthy of the name is precisely explained in the ‘copy and paste’ paragraph.
RICHARD: It is for reasons like this [to uncover the root cause of 160,000,000 sane people being killed by their sane fellow human beings in wars alone in the last 100 years; to uncover the root cause of 40,000,000 killing themselves in the last 100 years; to uncover the root cause of the 34 wars occurring as you read this (wherein people are actually killing and wounding and being killed and wounded); to uncover the root cause of all the murders such as the someone, somewhere who is being murdered and the someone, somewhere who murdering as these words scroll past you; to uncover the root cause of all the tortures, as detailed by ‘Amnesty International’, which are going on right now; to uncover the root cause of all the domestic violence such as the someone, somewhere who is being beaten up at this very instant in some unsafe home; to uncover the root cause of all the child abuse wherein somewhere some child is being brutalised, frightened out of their wits at this very moment; to uncover the root cause of all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide all over the world ... such suffering is going on in uncountable numbers of utterly miserable lives] that I pushed the envelope all those years ago and got out of the institutionalised insanity known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ ... and yet you say: ‘okay, that is a description’. It is a description of why all that misery and mayhem is actually happening globally ... and all that anguish and anger is most definitely not a dream.
RESPONDENT: Many of us know it’s not a dream – that’s very patronising.
RICHARD: Hmm ... just as I know it is not ‘okay, that is a description’ (which is very dismissive).
RESPONDENT: No it’s indicative. It indicates that your description is not immediately practical.
RICHARD: I demur ... my description is indeed ‘immediately practical’ for it clearly and concisely portrays and personifies the root cause of all the ills of humankind. Allow me to re-present the particular paragraph which you dismissed as ‘okay, that is a description’ so that you may see for yourself:
For an example of how defining and clarifying the problem, through portraying and personifying the root cause, provides the necessary basis for an investigation into all the ills of humankind I need only recall my own origins: I was born in Australia, of an English/Scottish Hong Kong-born father and an English/English Australia-born mother. With this British background, I was enculturated into believing that I was, literally, an Australian citizen ... but with British blood. Now, blood is blood ... there is no such ‘thing’ as an ‘Australian’, an ‘American’, a ‘German’, a ‘Japanese’ and so on. Thus the wars and the suicides – the blood shed and the tears shed – are precipitated because of the absurdity of identification ... is not all this acculturation ridiculous! However, as an infant, a child, a youth and then a man, I was so programmed as to be unable to discriminate fact from fiction. I had no terms of reference that I could use as a standard to determine which was which, as every single human being on this planet was not simply a flesh and blood body ... but similarly conditioned into being an ‘ethnic’ human being.
Thus I bought the whole package. Hook, line and sinker.
As I slowly started to unravel the mess that humankind was deeply mired in by unravelling it in me, I discovered a second layer under ‘my’ acculturated ethnicity ... ‘I’ was brainwashed into being a ‘man’ and not simply a flesh and blood male body. Under the enculturated layers lies a further identity ... the genetically-inherited animal ‘self’. It took me years and years of exploration and discovery to find out that ‘I’ was a ‘me’ – a ‘being’ – and not simply a flesh and blood body. By identification as ‘me’, a psychological/psychic entity was able to ‘possess’ this body. It is not unlike those Christians who are said to be possessed by an evil entity and require exorcism. Only this ‘possession’ was called being normal. Therefore, every human being is thus possessed by an ‘alien entity’ ... I discovered that a ‘walk-in’ was in control of this body and that this ‘walk-in’ was ‘me’.
So, superficially there is a composite conditioned social identity that encompasses:
These are related to roles, rank, positions, station, status, class, age, gender ... the whole organisation of socialised hierarchical control. As a social identity one is already nothing but the product of brainwashing ... yet behind all that – underlying all the social classifications – is the persistent feeling of being an identity inhabiting the body: an affective ‘entity’ as in a deep, abiding and profound feeling of being an occupant, a tenant, a squatter or a phantom hiding behind a façade, a mask, a persona; as a subjective emotional psychological ‘self’ and/or a passionate psychic ‘being’ (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) inhabiting the psyche; a deep feeling of being a ‘spirit’; a consciousness of the immanence of ‘presence’ (which exists immortally); an awareness of being an autological ‘being’ ... the realisation of ‘Being’ itself. In other words: everything you think, feel and instinctually know yourself to be that makes you an alien in an alien world.
There, and only there, is the root cause of animosity and anguish.
Cultural brainwashing (either metaphysical and/or humanistic) is but the surface problem ... your very deepest feeling of being – the real ‘me’ – is the base of all the ills of humankind. This ‘being’ is evidenced when one says: ‘But what about me, nobody loves me for me’. For a woman it may be: ‘You only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it may be: ‘You only want me for my money ... and not for me’. For a child it may be: ‘You only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. That deep feeling of ‘me’ – that ‘being’ itself – is at the core of identity. It arises out of the basic instinctual passions that blind nature endowed all human beings with as a rough and ready ‘soft-ware’ package to make a start in life. These instincts – mainly fear and aggression and nurture and desire – appear as a rudimentary self common to all sentient beings. This is why it is felt to be one’s ‘Original Face’ – to use the Zen terminology – when one accesses it in religious/spiritual/mystical meditation practices and disciplines. This is the source of ‘we are all one’, because ‘we’ are all the same-same blind instinctual self that stretches back beyond the dawn of human memory ... it is a very, very ancient genetic memory.
Hoariness does not make it automatically wise, however, despite desperate belief to the contrary.
RICHARD: The complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ is the end to all the ills of humankind.
RESPONDENT: Okay, that is a belief.
RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I do not ‘believe’ in peace-on-earth ...
RESPONDENT: Well, you said ‘The complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ is the end to all the ills of humankind’ ... you haven’t proven that so it’s a belief.
RICHARD: I have indeed ‘proven that it is not a belief’ ... 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. No belief system can produce such consistency ... let alone such consummate flawlessness.
RESPONDENT: Why don’t you call it ‘Peace on Richard’.
RICHARD: Simply because it is not my peace: I did not manufacture, invent, concoct, contrive or in any other way create this already always existing peace-on-earth ... I simply discovered it. And it being so perfect I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence ... what they do with this information is their own business (which includes calling it ‘Peace on Richard’).
RICHARD: I experience peace-on-earth twenty four hours a day, day after day.
RESPONDENT: So claim the gurus ...
RICHARD: I beg to differ ... none of the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages have peace-on-earth on their agenda, hence their anguish and anger – and other peccadillos – as recorded more and more frequently these days.
RESPONDENT: What ‘peccadillos’ do they have that you don’t? (a brief list will suffice for now).
RICHARD: Briefly then: spiritual enlightenment is shot full of inconsistencies, contradictions, hypocrisies, self-righteous justifications, lame-duck excuses ... and so on.
RESPONDENT: And the same world still exists. You haven’t changed it ...
RICHARD: Again I demur ... it is immaculate and impeccable here in this actual world. As nothing dirty can get in neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’ have any existence whatsoever. That is a major change by any criteria.
RESPONDENT: God men say that there is no good and evil in reality too.
RICHARD: Except that their ‘reality’ is the ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ after-death ‘Greater Reality’ where there is no messy physical body to cause duality (according to them). In other words: blame the physical body and not the identity lurking around inside the ‘temple of the soul’. Whereas I am talking of living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, as this flesh and blood body, in peace and harmony. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in this actual physical world; ‘good’ and ‘evil’ exist only in the ‘real world’, where 6.0 billion peoples live and shed blood and tears, because all sentient beings have instinctual passions. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in a flower, a lettuce, a rock, a brick, or a ... um ... a cup and saucer, for example, for there is no instinctual passions. It is this simple: eliminate the instinctual passions and you are free.
Thus peace-on-earth is possible ... right now at this moment in eternal time just here at this place in infinite space.
RESPONDENT: And nor have they – and you admit that there is not peace on earth is most of your text.
RICHARD: Indeed ... I have said on many an occasion: do not hold your breath waiting for global peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: So it’s ‘Peace on Richard’ only.
RICHARD: Thus far in human history, as far as I have been able to ascertain, I am the only person to have successfully eliminated the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Therefore, instead of saying ‘so it’s ‘Peace on Richard’ only’ , it is that so far ‘only Richard is living in the already always existing peace-on-earth’ ... which is why I went public with my discovery in mid-1996 to share my experience with my fellow human beings.
Someone has to be the first in any new venture ... why is this difficult to comprehend?
RESPONDENT: Where is the proof?
RICHARD: I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an altered state of consciousness (ASC). Then ‘I’ as ego – sublimated and transcended as ‘me’ as soul – manifest as a god or a goddess (‘The Truth’ by any name) and preach unliveable doctrines based upon their belief that they are ‘not the body’. Doctrines like pacifism, for example.
RESPONDENT: All of the words? There are too many!
RICHARD: Maybe it is because I am arraigning the trillions and trillions and trillions of words contained in the Sacred Scriptures of all cultures ... now there is verbosity for you!
RESPONDENT: As I said: ‘All of the words? There are too many!’ And why should that constitute a proof?
RICHARD: Because it is then your own experiential understanding born of your own direct experience. I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see and experience for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings.
It is as uncomplicated as this: I am factually free of sorrow and malice irrespective of whether person (A) believes my words to be true. Also, conversely, I am factually free of sorrow and malice irrespective of whether person (B) believes my words to be false. My freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with what other people believe or disbelieve. Of course, if they believe my words to be false they close the door on their own freedom from the human condition and have to invent a synthetic freedom ... be it a freedom from human conditioning or whatever substitute for the actual they manage to spin out of dreams and visions.
Which means that their own freedom from the human condition – which is what is of crucial importance here – is dependent upon their remembering at least one of their PCE’s accurately ... and herein my words can play a part in affirming and confirming their personal experience of the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe.
RICHARD: Becoming free of the human condition is an irrevocable occurrence, wherein the ‘lizard-brain’ mutates out of its primeval state ... but if this mutation is not allowed its completion one becomes enlightened.
RESPONDENT: This sounds like speculation upon neuro-psychology theories ... are you claiming it is fact?
RICHARD: Yes ... this has been my on-going experiencing, night and day, for years now ... it is so ‘normal’ that I take it for granted that there is only perfection.
RESPONDENT: Er ... hum ... you have related it to the ‘nape of the neck – how do you know what goes on there?
RICHARD: My experiential sensate-feeling experience (sensation) tells me that it was the brain-stem (reptilian brain) where all the activity took place to free me from the human condition. As the result of this (when the activity ceased) is a twenty four hour a day freedom from the human condition then it is entirely reasonable to assume that the relationship was one of cause and effect. It does not take a genius to suss out that what the neuro-biologists are empirically discovering is right on the ball in regards the human condition.
RICHARD: Yet I did not say that they have ‘the definitive take’ at all ... I said that ‘what they are empirically discovering’ (note that the word <discovering> is different from the word <discovered> and you will get the drift) is ‘right on the ball’ . Only Richard has ‘the definitive take’ so far as I have been able to ascertain.
It is always cute to see how the cultured sophisticates respond to my stressing the importance of naiveté in becoming free of the human condition ... apparently the words <gullible> and <naïve> go hand-in-hand for them. Yet to be naive is to be virginal, unaffected, unselfconsciously artless ... in short: ingenuous. Naiveté is a much-maligned word, having the common assumption that it implies gullibility. Nevertheless, to be naive means to be simple and unsophisticated. Pride is derived from an intellect inured to naiveté (which is the closest a ‘self’ can get to innocence); to such an intellect, to be guileless appears to be gullible, susceptible, credulous, uncritical, unwary, unsuspecting, unsuspicious, trusting, stupid. In actuality, one has to be gullible to be sophisticated, to be wise in the ways of the ‘real world’. The ‘worldly-wise’ realists are not in touch with the purity of innocence; they readily obey the peremptory decrees of the cultivated sophistication which says: ‘I didn’t come down in the last shower’, or ‘I wasn’t born yesterday’, or ‘You’ve got to be tough to survive in the real world’, or ‘It’s dog eat dog out there’ ... and so on.
Such people are said to have ‘lost their innocence’: human beings have not ‘lost their innocence’ ... they never had it in the first place.
Innocence is something entirely new; it has never existed in human beings before. It is an evolutionary break-through to come upon innocence. It is a mutation of the human brain. Naiveté is a necessary precursor to invoke the condition of innocence. One surely has to be naive to contemplate the profound notion that this universe is intrinsically benign, friendly; one needs to be naive to consider that this universe has an inherent imperative for well-being to flourish; one can only be naive in order to see that this universe has a built-in benevolence available to one who is artless, without guile. To the realist – the ‘worldly-wise’ – this appears like utter foolishness. After all, life is a ‘vale of tears’ and ‘you must make the best of a bad situation’ because ‘you can’t change human nature’ and therefore ‘you have to fight for your rights’. This derogatory advice is endlessly forthcoming; the put-down of the universe goes on ad nauseam, wherever one travels throughout the world. This universe is so munificent in size – infinity being as abundant as it can be – and so magnanimous in its scope – eternity being as bountiful as it can get – how on earth could anyone believe for a minute that it is all here for humans to be forever miserable in? It is foolishness of the highest order to believe it to be so. Surely, one can have confidence in a universe so grandly complex, so marvellously intricate, so wonderfully consummate. How could all this be some ‘ghastly mistake’ (as more than a few people claim)?
To believe it all to be some ‘sick joke’ (as some other people claim) is preposterous, for such an attitude cuts one off from the perfection of this pure moment of being alive here in this fantastic actual universe.
RICHARD: To become spiritually free the ego-self (‘I’ as ego) must die/dissolve ... all genuinely enlightened beings point to a single edifying moment of awakening (with a variety of descriptions).
RESPONDENT: Who would you recognise as enlightened?
RICHARD: To give but three persons from the last 100 or so years as an example: Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer [description of the happening snipped]; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti [description of the happening snipped]; Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain [description of the happening snipped].
RESPONDENT: Yet you only point out that they are part of the problem ... why aren’t you also part of problem?
RICHARD: Simply and straightforwardly: because of the complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ ... which brought an end to all the ills of humankind in one flesh and blood human being.
RICHARD: Yes ... by neither creating nor perpetuating ‘the problems’ there are no ‘the problems’ either inside or outside my own doorstep. Other than a handful of people, of course all the others still stubbornly insist on doing life the hard way ... but that is their business. In actual freedom, life is experienced as being perfect as-it-is here on earth. One knows that one is living in a beneficent and benevolent universe – and that is what actually counts. The self-imposed iniquities, that ail the people who stubbornly wish to remain denizens of the real world, fail to impinge upon the blitheness and benignity of one who lives in the vast scheme of things. The universe does not force anyone to be happy and harmless, to live in peace and ease, to be free of sorrow and malice. It is a matter of personal choice as to which way one will travel. Human beings, being as they are, will probably continue to tread the ‘tried and true’ paths, little realising that they are the tried and failed ways. There is none so contumacious as a self-righteous soul who is convinced that they know the way to live as revealed in their ancient and revered scriptures ... or in their much-prized secular philosophies and psychologies.
So be it.
RICHARD: To explain: in my investigations into life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are I first started by examining thought, thoughts and thinking ... then very soon moved on to examining feelings (first the emotions and then the deeper feelings). When I dug down into these passions and calentures (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself . <SNIP>
RESPONDENT: I snipped the above this because it seems more like a rumination. I appreciate that you do this but it does not speak practically.
RICHARD: Okay ... I make no pretensions whatsoever of being a biologist ... I am a lay-person dabbling in an ad hoc general reading of the subject.
RESPONDENT: ([I] snipped 200 digressionary lines of quoted recommendations for a brain researcher). Definitely.
RICHARD: I submitted that practical data only because you had said ‘I snipped the above this because it seems more like a rumination ... it does not speak practically’ in dismissive reference to my report of my subjective experience. Now you dismiss carefully collected objective information as being ‘200 digressionary lines’ . If neither subjective reports nor objective data is what you wish to read from me, then what is it that you want to read? For example: do you want signed certificates and/or endorsements from someone whose opinion you esteem and respect?
RESPONDENT: You submitted the data without putting it in context, it would help if you would write specifically on a point rather than cutting and pasting text out of context.
RICHARD: Hmm ... your ‘context’ or my context? I only ask because you do seem to be insisting that you know best how to direct me in explaining to you something that you have no knowledge of or any remembered experience in. Therefore, if you could clearly tell me what ‘point’ it is which you wish me to ‘write specifically on’ it might save a lot of the ‘to-ing’ and ‘fro-ing’.
For example: what is your solution to the human condition?
RICHARD: It is important to comprehend that I am putting a story together ‘after the event’ so as to throw some light on what happened for me. My experiential sensate-feeling experience (sensation) tells me that it was the brain-stem (reptilian brain) where all the activity took place to free me from the human condition.
RESPONDENT: This speculation is unhelpful when you put it forward as fact.
RICHARD: Yet my experiential sensate-feeling experience (sensation) that tells me that it was the brain-stem (reptilian brain) where all the activity took place to free me from the human condition is not ‘speculation put forward as fact’ ... for the nape of the neck is indeed where all the activity took place. I then simply conducted an ad hoc reading of all the research painstakingly done by all those researchers with PET scans and MRI scans and so on so as to provide an empirical basis for other people. As I am already free I have no personal need for an interest in biology at all. The mystics report of activity in the nape of the neck too – amongst a myriad of other things – and similarly I have no need for an interest in their story for my sake. Since I began reporting my experience to my fellow human beings I have needed to find out about all manner of things. My way of becoming free was simple: I stepped out of the ‘real world’ into this actual world and left ‘myself’ behind where ‘I’ belonged.
RESPONDENT: And is as misleading as all the various speculations about chakras.
RICHARD: But as I have never, ever mentioned ‘chakras’ (I have no experience of them as they played no part in my freedom whatsoever) then it is this response of yours which is ‘misleading’ (this invention of yours about what I did not say is called a ‘straw man argument’). Thus you have reduced yourself to criticising your own invention.
RESPONDENT: No, not really, I never said that you spoke on chakras.
RICHARD: Ahh ... good, there is a chance for a sensible conversation yet. First I will re-present your sentence in context:
As your comment comes directly after me describing my sensate-felt experience of a physical sensation in the base of the skull/top of the neck as being in ‘the brain-stem (reptilian brain)’ then I take it that it is this nomenclature which you are objecting to. Which means that you consider empirical scientific data (physically demonstrable on demand with predictable physical results which are plain to view by anybody) to be as speculative as subjectively felt inner experiencing by the mystics (kundalini, chakras, spirits, astral planes and so on). Is this why you snipped ‘200 digressionary lines of quoted recommendations for a brain researcher’ for? Because, otherwise how can you make such an invalid comparison ... there simply is no correlation between the two? How then can I take your critique, regarding my describing of my physical experience as being ‘misleading’ , to be a legitimate appraisal ... and you are now saying that you were making what amounts to unsubstantiated references to unnamed other person’s unstated ‘speculations’ about some unspecified ‘chakras’ as if you are making some valid point about illegitimising my empirical (physical not metaphysical) sensation experience by doing so.
If, as you say, it is not a ‘straw-man’ then it must be a ‘red-herring’, eh?
RICHARD: I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’, which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings ... the deletion of blind nature’s software package which gave rise to the rudimentary animal ‘self’ is required. This is the extinction of ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which means that ‘being’ itself expires.
RESPONDENT: This seems no different from Patanjali.
RICHARD: I am somewhat bemused at your comparison ... the Patanjali Yoga-Sutras (also known as the Gonardiya Yoga-Sutras and/or the Gonikaputra Yoga-Sutras) are a categorisation of Yogic thought <SNIP> ... yet you say ‘this [what Richard wrote] seems no different from Patanjali’ whereas I see it as 180 degrees different ... could you elaborate?
RESPONDENT: ([I] snipped 200 digressionary lines quoted on 8-fold yoga [and I] snipped 100 digressionary lines quoted verbatim [and I] snipped 30 repetitive lines). No, because you did not make a true comparison but rather threw out verbatim texts about yoga.
RICHARD: Excuse me for breathing ... I would have thought that ‘verbatim texts’ from the Patanjali Yoga-Sutras themselves would be streets ahead of any vaguely remembered ad hoc readings? So, if the factual words from history’s record of mistakes do not provide ‘a true comparison’ then what manner of words will ... according to you? What else is there to talk about except facts?
RESPONDENT: Breathing and pasting is about all you have done – rather put in effort to contextualise your verbatim.
RICHARD: Ahh ... I take it that I have your permission to re-present the ‘verbatim text’ (because it was already in context despite all your protestations ... and your context into the bargain). Vis.: [Richard]: ‘I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’, which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings ... the deletion of blind nature’s software package which gave rise to the rudimentary animal ‘self’ is required. This is the extinction of ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which means that ‘being’ itself expire. [Respondent]: ‘This seems no different from Patanjali.’ [Richard]: ‘If I may ask ... how is it similar? I cannot see any correspondence whatsoever. Vis.:
Looking at what the ‘Patanjali Yoga-Sutras’ clearly say (‘control of the senses, detachment from the senses or the ability to withdraw the attention of the senses from outward objects to the mind’ ) as compared to what Richard says (‘to be living as the senses is to live a clear and clean awareness ... I am the sensations ... to live life as these sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and magic’ ) I ask you again: how is it similar ... I cannot see any correspondence whatsoever?
And while I am at it, the same question applies to your likening what I say to what Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) said:
Now, I cannot see any correspondence whatsoever between what I experience and describe (‘to be living as the senses ... no ‘I’ ... or a ‘me’ ... I am the sensations’ ) and what Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer experienced and talked about (‘the real ‘I’ or the Self is not any of the five senses’ ). Therefore, I also ask you again: ... how does it ‘sound like Ramana’?
I read what I am saying as being 180 degrees in the other direction to what any mystic says. Therefore, if I am to take your critique as being a legitimate appraisal of what I experience and write about you do need to provide substance to your contentions, your allegations ... if you are to make a valid point, that is.
RICHARD: Delight is what is humanly possible, given sufficient pure intent obtained from the felicity/ innocuity born of the PCE, and from the position of delight, one can vitalise one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive. Then one is no longer just intellectually making sense of life ... the wonder of it all drives all intellectual sensing away. Such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. Then, as one gazes intently at the world about by glancing lightly with sensuously caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and I am the experiencing of what is happening. But try not to possess it and make it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared.
RESPONDENT: And not so simple or persistent.
RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is the most simplistic thing possible (which is why naiveté is essential) and if one has the altruistic desire for peace-on-earth one will be perpetually living in this magical fairy-tale-like paradise, that this verdant earth actually is, for the remainder of one’s life.
RESPONDENT: Poetry ... but it’s not so simple to read so much verbosity.
RICHARD: I freely acknowledge that my writing is flowery – which is a polite way of saying ‘convoluted and over-ornamental’ as an editor once explained to me – but that is an idiosyncrasy that brings me great delight. I make no apologies for an extravagant exuberance with words ... I am conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself.
RICHARD: May I ask? Why do you find it to be a ‘pity’ that a fellow human being can enjoy and appreciate life on earth so much so that he can take great delight in conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself via an extravagant exuberance with words?
Sometimes the response I get from people defies sensible comprehension.
RESPONDENT: How many have you taught successfully?
RICHARD: First, I do not teach anyone ... the PCE does that. I am not required for the process of understanding (as in a ‘personality cult’ that can grow around a ‘charismatic leader’) ... <SNIP> ... as far as I have been able to ascertain there is nobody else living an actual freedom from the human condition ...
RESPONDENT: How did you ascertain that?
RICHARD: The same way that I ascertain anything about anybody and everybody ... I ask and I listen. Plus I read about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers and on the internet. I watch TV, videos, films ... whatever media is available. I have been scouring the books and talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life for nineteen years now for information on an actual freedom from the human condition ... but to no avail.
RESPONDENT: So you are the only one? You need more than one case to prove your claims.
RICHARD: Not so ... 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. Such a remarkable consistency of pristine purity is the only proof I need.
RESPONDENT: By the way, it wasn’t a request of proof for you.
RICHARD: Okay ... who was it ‘a request of proof’ for, then, and why? If it was ‘a request of proof’ by you for you ... can you not recall your own PCE’s, your own direct experiencing of actuality at various stages throughout your life? Everybody that I have spoken to at length over the last nineteen years – everybody – has had at least one PCE ... although most people cannot initially remember a PCE and may need a lot of prompting to retrieve it from their memory. An example by a man from Australia:
An example from a woman from The Netherlands:
Sometimes a PCE is also known as ‘a nature experience’ ... wherein one’s own personal experiencing is likewise the only proof worthy of the name. Being deep in a rain-forest goes some way towards making it all clearer ... or any wilderness, for that matter. As one travels deeper and deeper into this – initially ‘other’ – world of natural delight, one experiences an intensely hushed stillness that is vast and immense ... yet so simply here. I am not referring to a feeling of awe or reverence or great beauty – to have any emotion or passion at all is to miss the actuality of this moment – nor am I referring to any blissful or euphoric state of ‘being’. It is a sensate experience, not an affective state. I am talking about the factual and simple actualness of earthy existence being experienced whilst ambling along or sitting quietly without any particular thought in mind ... yet not being mindless either. And then, when a sparkling intimacy occurs, do not the woods take on a fairy-tale-like quality? Is one not in a paradisiacal environment that envelops yet leaves one free? This is the ambience that I speak of. At this magical moment there is no ‘I’ in the head or ‘me’ in the heart ... there is this apperceptive awareness wherein thought can operate freely without the encumbrance of any feelings whatsoever.
It is not my ambience nor yours ... yet it is here for everyone and anyone for the asking ... for the daring to be here as this body only. One does this by stepping out of the real world into this actual world, as this flesh and blood body, leaving your ‘self’ behind where ‘you’ belong ... because the reality of the real world is an illusion ‘I’ create by ‘my’ very ‘presence’.
This ambience delivers the goods so longed for through aeons.
RICHARD: This discussion is about consciousness being bereft of the invidious and pernicious identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... and a consciousness ‘unpolluted and uncontaminated’ by any feeling of ‘being’ whatsoever results in a perfect day in a perfect life in a perfect world day-after-day.
RESPONDENT: You refer to yourself as Richard and ‘I’ but claim that identity doesn’t exist for you. That doesn’t tally.
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body could, of course, write the offending paragraph thus: [quote]: ‘when this flesh and blood body goes to bed at night this flesh and blood body has had a perfect day ... and this flesh and blood body knows that this flesh and blood body 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 this flesh and blood body takes it for granted that there is only perfection. Plus this flesh and blood body can easily put it all into words so as to unambiguously share what this flesh and blood body experiences with this flesh and blood body’s fellow human beings. Thus this flesh and blood body can easily describe how this already always existing peace-on-earth became apparent: it was through the complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ as an irrevocable event’. [endquote].
Speaking personally, I prefer to use the singular (first person) nominative pronoun (I) or the oblique singular nominative pronoun (me, my) ... and favour the employment of the name already ascribed to each flesh and blood body (Richard, Rachel, Mark, Mary and so on) for ease and convenience. For any individual of undefined character, as representing a human being generally, I prefer to use the undifferentiated nominative/ accusative pronoun (one) with the added emphasis of such a body being sans identity. I do endorse the entirely sensible convention of utilising small quotes (‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’) when referring to the ubiquitous identity (the ‘inner self’ by whatever name) so as to differentiate betwixt the problem and the solution.
RESPONDENT: You talk about your day but say there is no feeling of being. How then can you write about your experience?
RICHARD: As is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), the flesh and blood body is entirely capable of thinking, reflecting, appraising and implementing considered action for benevolent reasons of its own accord. In fact it is remarkably simple: it is surprisingly easy to live and function without any ‘I’ and/or ‘Me’ or any ‘self’ and/or ‘Self’ whatsoever ... it is such a vast improvement upon ‘me’ doing all the daily tasks that it is a delight to just contemplate the difference. ‘I’ unnecessarily complicate this otherwise simple living with ‘my’ needs, ‘my’ demands, ‘my’ wants, ‘my’ shoulds, ‘my’ musts, ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ morals, ‘my’ values, ‘my’ principles, ‘my’ ideals, and so on. Not to mention ‘my’ sadness and ‘my’ empathy, ‘my’ likes and ‘my’ dislikes, ‘my’ loves and ‘my’ hates, ‘my’ fears and ‘my’ trusts, ‘my’ revenges and ‘my’ pardons, ‘my’ jealousies and ‘my’ faithfulness, ‘my’ blamings and ‘my’ forgiveness, ‘my’ loneliness and ‘my’ belonging ... the list goes on and on.
This body is eminently competent in functioning autonomously: the stomach tells the brain (wherein lies the will which, with its data-correlating ability, is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising organ of the body) when it is empty. The stomach secretes a chemical when unoccupied which triggers a receptor in the brain that gives rise to a sensation humans ignorantly call ‘I am hungry’. Indeed, tests have been done by people who delight in doing these things, wherein the chemical was injected into volunteers who had just eaten a full meal: the chemical caused them to feel hungry despite their distended stomachs. Thus ‘I’, thinking and feeling that ‘I’ am an important part of the process, step in and incorrectly say: ‘‘I’ am hungry’. ‘I’ am not hungry at all (how can a psychological or psychic entity need corporeal food) ... it is that the stomach is simply signalling its emptiness to the brain via the autonomic nervous system.
Likewise the bladder tells the brain when it is full, and so on. When ‘I’ says ‘I want to got to the toilet’, ‘I’ am not busting for a pee at all ... the bladder is merely indicating its fullness. Once again, a psychological and psychic entity cannot manufacture physical urine ... it is absurd. Furthermore, the empty stomach instructs the legs, via the will function of the physical brain, to walk to the cupboard for food. The eyes, seeing an empty cupboard and thus triggering remembered experience, will advise the legs, via the brain’s organising capability, to walk the body to a shop. An empty wallet will tell the legs to take the body to a bank ... and an empty bank account will demonstrate that it is time to get a job (or go on a pension or whatever). I am neither being pedantic nor facetious here ... it is actually this simple. Without an ‘I’ and/or ‘me’, one is this very sensuous flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware, living in the actual world of people, things and events ... not an ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ living in the grim and glum real world, forever cut off from the magnificence of this luscious actual world by ‘my’ unreal existence, thinking and feeling that ‘I’ have to make responsible and onerous decisions.
‘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: A communication is only successful when the listener understands it. I’ve tried to get Richard to realise that it’s not a solitary exercise; that he is not the only one here.
RICHARD: I do appreciate the fact that communication is a two-way street ... which is why I have asked for feed-back from you several times before. Vis.:
So far, in the absence of any response – let alone sensible response – you have effectively reduced the discussion to being ‘a solitary exercise’ ... I gain the distinct impression that I am indeed ‘the only one here’ . Therefore, so that you can demonstrate that you yourself understand that ‘communication is not a solitary exercise’ you may be inclined to clearly tell me what ‘point’ it is which you wish me to ‘write specifically on’ ... because it might save a lot of the ‘to-ing’ and ‘fro-ing’
Only if you are so inclined, of course.
RESPONDENT No. 5: When it came to handing over the goodies he [one new wannabe guru] was unusually reticent.
RICHARD: If I may ask? What, exactly, are ‘the goodies’ that a ‘guru’ (either ‘wannabe’ or for real) purports to be capable of ‘handing over’ ? Does their package specifically contain the elimination of the gross (which results in peace-on-earth) or the sublimation and transcendence of the gross (the lotus has its roots in mud) ... which results in an after-death metaphysical ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’?
RESPONDENT: Richard, where is this peace?
RICHARD: It is here, on earth, in this actual world of the senses ... there is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in the tangible physical world; ‘good’ and ‘evil’ exist only in the ‘real world’ (the ‘human world’ of the psyche), where 6.0 billion peoples live. It is this simple: eliminate the instinctual passions and peace-on-earth becomes apparent ... right now at this moment in eternal time just here at this place in infinite space.
RESPONDENT: Do you have it even when you have a headache?
RICHARD: Yes, nothing – but nothing – can disturb this peace ... because it is actual and not metaphysical.
RICHARD: I only ask because an accurate assessment of what is promised will save oodles of ‘copy and paste’ ... I would far rather write about the moment-to-moment steps taken to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent any day.
RESPONDENT: Where are the steps then?
RICHARD: It is essential to comprehend why malice and sorrow is endemic to all races, in all cultures, over all eras, at any age and in both genders: if one proposes a metaphysical cause one will seek a metaphysical solution through a sublimation and transcendence of the genetically endowed instinctual passions ... thus endorsing, enhancing and glorifying the instinctual ‘being’.
Thus the first step (once one appreciates that the physical cause of all the misery and mayhem necessitates the physical solution of the extirpation of the instinctual ‘being’ itself) is to recall an instance wherein the temporary absence or abeyance of ‘being’ is personally experienced ... a pure consciousness experience (PCE).
Otherwise all I write will be seen to be ... um ... abstractions or ruminations or some such thing.
RESPONDENT: So far I’ve seen mostly abstractions.
RICHARD: So I have gathered from your responses: yet there is nothing ‘abstract’ about the instinctual passions which all sentient beings are born with ... or the continued denial of this fact via a tenacious clinging to an outmoded ‘born innocent’ belief. The resultant metaphysical solution to the human condition, born of this false ‘Tabula Rasa’ premise, is an ‘abstraction’ if there ever was.
So as to assist me in seeing my writing through your eyes, could you point out what you see as ‘mostly abstractions’ in the moment-to-moment steps taken, to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent, which I have presented in response to your request for a brief description of the actualism method? Vis.:
Speaking personally, I do not find anything ‘abstract’ about minimising the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (as explained above) and activating the felicitous/ innocuous feelings, whereupon (in conjunction with sensuousness) the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. Because if it does not then one is patently well ahead of normal human expectations ... as the aim is to demonstrably enjoy and appreciate being just here right now for as much as is possible.
I see a tangible, concrete, win/win situation being described.
RESPONDENT No.3: 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?
RESPONDENT: Have you redefined harmless?
RICHARD: Not at all ... the word ‘harmless’ means ‘lacking intent to injure, devoid of hurtful qualities, marked by freedom from strife or disorder, innocuous free from guilt; innocent, blameless, faultless, irreproachable, lily-white; safe, non-dangerous, gentle, mild, peaceful, peaceable’.
Contrary to popular belief a pacifist is not harmless: it is malice and sorrow that is the problem and a coping-mechanism such as pacifism does not work to ensure peace and harmony. This is because pacifism is an ideal; in an idea of peace people are into altering behavioural patterns (rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic) whereas what I speak of is the elimination of that which causes the aberrant behaviour in the first place. As pacifists and their ilk (those who live the doctrine of non-violence) do not eliminate the source of aberrant behaviour then they have to imitate the effortless ease of an actual freedom from the human condition by making a big splash about their ‘goodie-goodie’ behaviour.
Where there is no identity extant there is no malicious ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ to be harmful ... and one is harmless only when one has eliminated malice – what is commonly called evil – from oneself in its entirety (the ‘dark side’ of human nature which requires the maintenance of a ‘good side’ to eternally combat it). By doing the ‘impossible’ – everybody tells me that you cannot change human nature – then one is innocent (free from sin and sinning) and thus automatically harmless ... which means that no act is malicious, spiteful, hateful, revengeful and so on. It is a most estimable condition to be in: one is then free to act or not act, in response to something or someone, as the state of affairs require. Thus, when there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul there is no need for pre-conceived truths or beliefs ... then one clearly sees the fact of the situation. The fact will tell one what is the most appropriate course of action.
For example: if one were to be devious enough to be a pacifist, then all of the pre-conceived truths – the beliefs which come with being a pacifist – dictate one’s course of action and not the facts of the situation themselves. Thus one never meets each situation fresh – which is pretty silly seeing that each situation is novel – and you would be getting nothing but the platitudes and pap from me that you get from others. As I am harmless (with no malice extant), if someone were to bop me on the nose I am free to bop them back – or not – dependent upon the situation and circumstances.
RESPONDENT: Can you guarantee that you would not harm another individual?
RICHARD: There is a 100% guarantee of being totally and reliably capable of spontaneously interacting in the world of people, things and events, in a way that is neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible, at all times and under any circumstance without exception. An actual freedom enables the ability to always be harmless (free from malice) at any time, at any place, in any situation. The Christians, for just one example, purport to comprehend this salient point:
But as even their saviour-hero could not live-up to his own ‘Teachings’ no one has taken much notice of this admonition. But, then again, as their ‘Heavenly Father’ is an angry (yet antidotally loving), vengeful (yet antidotally compassionate) and jealous (yet antidotally forgiving) god, then the ‘Source’ of the ‘Teachings’ is also corrupt ... so who can blame them for being recalcitrant?
For it is nobody’s fault ... ‘tis the once-necessary survival instincts that is the root cause.
RESPONDENT: A communication is only successful when the listener understands it. I’ve tried to get Richard to realise that it’s not a solitary exercise; that he is not the only one here.
RICHARD: I do appreciate the fact that communication is a two-way street ... which is why I have asked for feed-back from you several times before. Vis.: [Richard]: ‘I submitted that practical data [of empirical biological evidence of genetically encoded instinctual passions] only because you had said ‘I snipped the above this because it seems more like a rumination ... it does not speak practically’ in dismissive reference to my report of my subjective experience. Now you dismiss carefully collected objective information as being ‘200 digressionary lines’ . If neither subjective reports nor objective data is what you wish to read from me, then what is it that you want to read? For example: do you want signed certificates and/or endorsements from someone whose opinion you esteem and respect?’ [Respondent]: ‘You submitted the data without putting it in context, it would help if you would write specifically on a point rather than cutting and pasting text out of context’ . [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... your ‘context’ or my context? I only ask because you do seem to be insisting that you know best how to direct me in explaining to you something that you have no knowledge of or any remembered experience in. Therefore, if you could clearly tell me what ‘point’ it is which you wish me to ‘write specifically on’ it might save a lot of the ‘to-ing’ and ‘fro-ing’. For example: what is your solution to the human condition?’ [endquotes]. So far, in the absence of any response – let alone sensible response – you have effectively reduced the discussion to being ‘a solitary exercise’ ... I gain the distinct impression that I am indeed ‘the only one here’ . Therefore, so that you can demonstrate that you yourself understand that ‘communication is not a solitary exercise’ you may be inclined to clearly tell me what ‘point’ it is which you wish me to ‘write specifically on’ ... because it might save a lot of the ‘to-ing’ and ‘fro-ing’. Only if you are so inclined, of course.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I have all along been asking you questions.
RICHARD: Indeed ... you have asked thirty questions in all. Vis.:
May I ask? Given that ‘a communication is only successful when the listener understands it’ , which responses to which questions have not been ‘a successful communication’ (I have numbered them for convenience)?
Specifically: what is it about the instinctual passions that you have not understood?
RESPONDENT: That, I would think, qualifies as responding.
RICHARD: Let me see if I have understood your point of view: you say ‘a communication is only successful when the listener understands it’ ; therefore I say: ‘you have dismissed both subjective reports and objective data (as being ‘200 digressionary lines’)’ ; you say: ‘I’ve tried to get Richard to realise ... that he is not the only one here’ ; therefore I say: ‘I have asked for feed-back from you several times before’ ; you say: ‘asking you questions ... qualifies as responding’ .
If you dismiss my answers to the questions you have ‘all along been asking’ as ‘ruminations’ and ‘digressionary’ or ‘out of context’ and I receive no other response – let alone sensible responses – as to why both subjective reports and empirical scientific data is invalid ... how on earth can I prevent the discussion devolving into being ‘a solitary exercise’ ?
RESPONDENT: I have also asked a few days ago what are the ‘steps’.
RICHARD: Why? What is the point of asking someone (whose responses you snip as being ‘ruminations’ and ‘digressionary’ or ‘out of context’ ) what the steps are to implement the very condition which is explained by the snipped ‘ruminations’ and ‘digressionary’ and ‘out of context’ responses?
Why do you want to know what the steps are to enable such a ruminative, digressionary and out of context freedom?
RICHARD: My experience, for eleven years in the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’, was an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss: Love Agapé and unconditional Divine Compassion poured forth for all suffering sentient beings twenty four hours of the day. It was a truly euphoric state of being.
RESPONDENT: Richard, sounds like your Enlightenment was very pleasurable. Why have you criticised it elsewhere?
RICHARD: Because it is an absolute self-centredness (usually capitalised as ‘Self’) replete with all that inheres in a vainglorious expansion of self into being ‘All That Is’ (as in ‘I Am That’). The mystics who (accurately) report that the polar opposites become complimentary poles are well aware that the diabolical underpins the divine ... some call all the misery and mayhem ‘Lila’ (‘God’s Sport’ or ‘The Divine Play’).
All of which points to why peace on earth is not on their agenda.
RESPONDENT No. 8: Have you ever been in the company of a truly enlightened being?
RICHARD: Yes – night and day for eleven years – thus I have intimate knowledge ... and enlightenment sucks.
RESPONDENT No. 6: Richard, whose company was that?
RICHARD: The most optimum company possible for a ‘hands on’ exploration and investigation into the inner workings of ‘Tried and True’ solution ... the grandiose ‘Me’ that was inhabiting this body from 1981 to 1992. There was nowhere to hide.
RESPONDENT: Richard, what did you think, feel and say during that time of ‘enlightenment’? Please help me see that it is exactly the same ‘enlightenment’ that you have said others are talking about.
RICHARD: In 1980 I had a peak experience wherein I saw that perfection already always existed in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are and that ‘I’ and/or ‘me’, the psychological and/or psychic entity, was standing in the way ... and no-one else was preventing me from achieving the ultimate goal of being a human. In that peak experience I saw ‘myself’. ‘I’ was the end product of society ... ‘I’ was an emotional construct of all of the beliefs, values, morals, ethics, mores, customs, traditions, doctrines, ideologies and so on. ‘I’ was an emotional-mental fabrication ... a sense of identity with its conscience. I also saw that ‘I’ was a lost, lonely, frightened – and a very, very cunning – entity. Just as those Christians who are said to be possessed by an evil entity and need to be exorcised, I saw that every human being had been endowed with a social entity ... and it was called being normal. To say that I was amazed rather fails to adequately describe the feeling of relief that after all there was a solution to the human situation here on earth. I was ecstatic.
That proved to be my undoing – as far as actual freedom is concerned – as ecstasy led to euphoria and euphoria led to bliss. In the blissful state I manifested and became Love which led to an emanation of Compassion for all living beings who were suffering and in sorrow by virtue of the fact that they were ignorant of the Divine Order. The Absolute had been revealed to me in the Love and Compassion – it was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – and I had been chosen to bring this self-same Love and Compassion to earth. I was to go through a process, when I returned to normal, that would result in my being well-prepared to usher in this new age of Love and Truth to all humankind. As this revelation continued, I saw a new ‘me’ coming into existence ... a grand ‘Me’, a glorious ‘Me’ and a spiritually fulfilling ‘Me’. I was the Saviour Of Humankind!
Three nights later I had a similar experience and what I had witnessed in the first revelation was confirmed. Then nothing untoward happened for the next five months – this had been in late July 1980 – until on the first day of January in 1981 when I began a ‘process’ that was to last for nine months, culminating in my Divine Awakening. The ‘process’ was both prosaic and extraordinary: on the one hand I began undoing all the social conditioning that I had been subject to since birth and on the other hand I generated love for all and sundry. I examined all the social traditions and customs etc., one by one, and released myself from their iron grip. I diminished hate and anger and sadness and loneliness by surrendering to and living in love and oneness ... which is the best that a normal human could do by virtue of the socialisation process.
I moved in and out of sacred states of Heavenly Bliss and Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and immersed myself in the entire ‘process’ with dedication and resolution. I adopted the principle of pacifism (‘turn the other cheek’) and developed Goodness of the highest order. I cleansed and purified myself of all impure thoughts and deeds and worked both hard and industriously in my daily work. I practised honesty and humility in all my interactions with other people and pondered the significance and ramifications of the Divine Order. I totally believed in and had supreme faith in The Absolute and its ability to bring about the Peace On Earth so long promised. That I was to play the central role in this Divine Plan no longer came as a surprise to me, as I began to realise that I had long yearned to be part of the Salvation Process.
I understood that I had to die and be reborn and, consequently, went into a catatonic state that resulted in my being carted off to hospital and kept under intensive care for four hours until I came out of it. I was never to be the same again, as Divinity had been working on me whilst I was catatonic (known as ‘Samadhi’ in Hinduism) and from that date forward I was permanently in a state of human bliss and love ... I could do no wrong. About six weeks prior to the sixth September 1981 I had a revelation that I was going to really die this time, not become catatonic again, and that I was to prepare myself for it. I mustered all of my faith and resolution, renewed all of my trust and allegiance, and awaited the day. The night before I could hardly maintain myself as a thinking, functioning human being as a blistering hot and cold burning sensation crept up the back of my spine and entered into the base of my neck just under the brain itself. I went to bed in desperation and frustration at my apparent inability to be good enough to carry this ‘process’ through to its supreme conclusion.
The next morning I awoke and all was calm and quiet. Expressing relief at the cessation of the intensifying ‘process’ that had reached an unbearable level the night before, I lay back on my pillows to watch the rising sun (my bedroom faced east) through the large bedroom windows. All of a sudden I was gripped with the realisation that this was the moment! I was going to die! An intense fear raced throughout my body, rising in crescendo until I could scarcely take any more. As it reached a peak of stark terror, I realised that I had nothing to worry about and that I was to go with the ‘process’. In an instant all fear left me and I travelled deep into the depths of my very being. All of a sudden I was sitting bolt upright, laughing, as I realised that this that was !IT! was such a simple thing: all I had to do was die ... and that was the easiest thing in the world to do.
Then the thought of leaving my family and friends overwhelmed me and I was thrust back on the bed sobbing. Then I was bolt upright once more laughing my head off ... then I was back on the pillows sobbing my heart out ... upright, laughing ... pillows sobbing ... upright laughing ... pillows sobbing. At the fifth or sixth time something turned over in the base of my brain – in the top of the brain-stem – which I likened it to turning over a L.P. record in order to play the other side ... with the vital exception that it would never, ever turn back again.
It was over ... I had arrived.
Love had surrounded me and accepted me completely. I was immersed in Love; I was completely one with Love – Unconditional Love, Love Agapé – for I was home at last. Unexpectedly, I had all knowledge – all that I had ever heard or known had been swept away – and I knew all knowledge: I knew that death did not exist ... I knew that I had existed since the moment of creation; I knew that I shall always exist. I knew that all consciousness is in the act of becoming; I knew that there is no sin or evil; I knew what free will meant – that we choose everything – and I knew that choosing the Absolute had been the only choice to make. I had become Awakened to the Greater Reality. I was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion ... there was no separation between me and The Absolute.
I had a Divine Sense of Mission to spread The Word and I embarked on fulfilling my Sacred Duty. As Mr. John DeRuiter has said: ‘I am not my own – I belong to Truth. Whatever Truth does or says is what I do and say and that’s now what I’m here for’. Bewitched and beguiled by the Glamour and Glory and Glitz of the seductive state of ‘Being’, that ensues when one surrenders to the ultimate ‘Power and Authority’ known as ‘The Truth’, I spoke of love as being ‘the way; the means and the end’. ‘There was no such thing as death’, I would say, ‘for I know the secret of ‘Being’. I had realised the ‘Absolute’ and I lived only for ‘The Truth’: ‘The Truth must be spoken’, I would say, ‘though ‘The Truth’ be ineffable it must be told’ ... and so on and so on.
I spent the first three years swanning along in a state of ‘Oneness’ with everyone and everything. I was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion all rolled up into one ... and my reward for being the latest Saviour Of Humankind was to be able to live in an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss. All told, for eleven years I lived in the Altered State Of Consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ – night and day for eleven years means I have intimate knowledge – thus I had plenty of time to examine all its nooks and crannies ... and I found much that was murky and dirty lurking around in the outer darkness.
Whereas ‘Me’, at the centre of ‘Being’, was dazzling.
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.