|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence An Actual Freedom Lies 180 degreesin the Opposite Direction to All Spiritual Beliefs
RESPONDENT: You have a tendency to disagree with everybody. RICHARD: You may have misunderstood my oft-repeated ‘everybody has got it 180 degrees wrong’ statement ... it, of course, refers to matters of consciousness studies in general and, specifically, to where the answer to the problem of the human condition lies (in the world and not away from it). It is not meant to refer to all fields of human endeavour. RESPONDENT: (...) Are you sure actualism is 180 degrees opposite? RICHARD: Ha ... as I am this flesh and blood body only, and as this flesh and blood body being
conscious – as in being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, being sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is what
consciousness is (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition), I am most assuredly not disenchanted with
the body/ disenchanted with consciousness ... let alone fully released from same (and thus) discerning there is nothing further
for this world. RESPONDENT No. 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/ psychic entity’. RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter. RESPONDENT: I don’t dispute that. (... snip remainder of e-mail ...) RESPONDENT No. 87: Seems Richard simply cannot comprehend that with or without instinctual feelings the body remains consciously present. In other words apperceptively aware of itself as a conscious thinking body. RESPONDENT: Yes, that is exactly the point. RICHARD: Given you do not dispute that the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ (an amorphous affective presence, an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter) then what you are saying [quote] ‘is exactly the point’ [endquote] is, in effect, that with or without that feeling ‘being’ (that affective presence, that feeler/ intuiter) in situ a flesh and blood body remains conscious of currently existing ... unless, of course, asleep, anaesthetised, in a faint, knocked out (or in any other way rendered comatose). In other words, what you are saying [quote] ‘is exactly the point’ [endquote] is, in effect, that either with or without a feeling ‘being’ (an affective presence, a feeler/ intuiter) in situ a flesh and blood body is apperceptively aware of being a conscious, thinking flesh and blood body ... unless, of course, asleep, anaesthetised, in a faint, knocked out (or in any other way rendered comatose). You may find the following useful:
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 87): I am again thankful that you understand this simple observation. RICHARD: If I may point out? That [quote] ‘simple observation’ [endquote] is not the same thing as this report of yours:
No flesh and blood body apperceptively aware of being a conscious, thinking flesh and blood body would ever
say such a thing ... and to ascribe to a flesh and blood body the way a feeling ‘being’ (an affective presence, a feeler/
intuiter) experiences itself is to commit the vulgar error of automorphism You may also find the following useful:
RESPONDENT No. 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/ psychic entity’. RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/incipient intuiter. RESPONDENT: I don’t dispute that. RICHARD: What do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? (... snip remainder of e-mail ...) RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): (...) I had to get my head out of the mixer after reading his [Richard’s] email. It all sounds like dadaism [abstract literature] to me. RICHARD: If you could explain just what it is that you do dispute about what your co-respondent wrote (further above) it may very well be possible that it will all no longer sound like abstract literature to you ... and here is a clue (where you speak for yourself, about what you feel, and not about what you have read in books):
Here is what the word ‘core’ can mean:
And here is what the term ‘depths of being’ can mean:
Put expressively, ‘the depths of my being’/‘the core of my being’ is made evident when a person 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 might be: ‘you don’t want me ... you only want me for my bank account’. For a child can be: ‘you only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. This intuitive sense of self – which is ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’ – arises out of the basic instinctual passions that blind nature endows sentient creatures with as a rough and ready soft-ware package, as it were, to make a start in life with. So, what do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? RICHARD: (...) It is this simple: the very stuff of this body (and all bodies) is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe in that it comes out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed. I am nothing other than that ... that is what I am, literally. (...) RESPONDENT: But what does make the carrot grow? RICHARD: Put simply: nothing does make the carrot grow ... where there are conditions conducive to growth (such as fertile soil, potable water, and warm sunlight) the carrot grows of its own accord. RESPONDENT: What brings everything into existence? RICHARD: If by ‘everything’ you mean all space and all time and all matter (aka the universe) then nothing does ... the universe is already always existent. RESPONDENT: The boundary condition of life and that is the Principle, Truth, Infinite, Consciousness, Transcendent etc. RICHARD: Do you not see that it is the very asking of such a question – what is the (ultimate) cause of everything – which creates such an answer? To put that another way: upon closer inspection such a question, whilst appearing profound to more than a few peoples, is based upon an unexamined presupposition (that everything is not already always existent) which, of course, predetermines such an answer ... and which leads to all manner of twaddle, dressed-up as sagacity, about uncaused causes which, being noumenal, can only be apprehended intuitively. RESPONDENT: You say it, yes, of course, everything is already always existent. That is exactly what I have been trying to explain all the time along. RICHARD: It is not at all what you have been trying to explain all along – let alone exactly – as you make it quite clear that by ‘everything’ you do not mean all space and all time and all matter (aka the universe). This may be an apt moment to point out that it is impossible to marry actualism and spiritualism ... and to also point out there have been many who have already come and gone before you, on both this and other mailing lists, having tried in vain to do just that. An actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history. RICHARD: Where I say I am this living flesh and blood body I am not identifying with this flesh and blood body – identifying with this flesh and blood body as an identity be it intrinsic or not – as what I am describing is what I am (what, not ‘who’) ... only an identity would translate my descriptions as describing a particular core/a static essence/an intrinsic identity (or a true identity/a real identity or whatever). (...) Perhaps if I were to put it this way: being alive, being a living body, is to be a process of constant change – birthing, growing, ageing, dying – on all levels (microscopic and macroscopic and anywhere in between). Furthermore, nothing is ever static – everything, literally everything, is in constant motion, constant change; nothing, literally nothing, is ever stagnant, ever stays the same – thus all is novel, never boring, all is new, never old, all is fresh, never stale. In short: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis. RESPONDENT: What is wrong with saying: there are no permanent conditioned things? RICHARD: Because nowhere have I ever come across a [quote] ‘teaching’ [endquote] which says that ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’, is an impermanent conditioned thing ... on the contrary, all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have been saying that it is a permanent unconditioned thing (and, more often than not, the only permanent unconditioned thing into the bargain). This is what you had said (the modified version) in response to my initial query:
RESPONDENT: Is this statement at odds with actuality/your above statement? RICHARD: What is at odds with actuality/my above statement is that any [quote] ‘teaching’ [endquote] has ever said that ... spirituality is all about the permanence (aka immortality) and unconditionality (aka absoluteness) of ‘being’ itself. RESPONDENT: How about: all conditioned things are impermanent. RICHARD: If your phraseology ‘all conditioned things’ includes ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’ (quite often capitalised as Being or Presence upon self-realisation) then there is no problem with putting it that way ... this is one of the ways I have summarised it before (a modified version):
And I have summarised it this way because eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth – and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward – and is not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body (sans identity/affections in toto) ... just as western spirituality is not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body either (it is fundamentally all about avoiding a (specious) post-mortem punishment and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward). In short: peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritualism – nor in materialism for that matter – which is one of the reasons why I say actualism is the third alternative to both. The main reason why is, of course, in regards to the meaning of life. RICHARD: ... in short: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis. RESPONDENT: Thanks. I like putting it that way. RICHARD: Are you aware this implies you like putting it that the unconditioned permanence all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have found is, in fact, a conditioned impermanent thing ... when all the while the only permanent (aka immortal) unconditioned (aka absolute) thing has been this physical universe they erroneously took to be an impermanent conditioned thing? If so, do you now comprehend why I say that an actual freedom from the human condition is 180 degrees in the
opposite direction? RICHARD: I am referring to the very first sentence on The Actual Freedom Trust home page (immediately below the logo) ... RESPONDENT: What ‘A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom’? RICHARD: Yes, and the reason why I suggest paying particular attention to it is because it is only when the import of those very first words sinks in is it possible to read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site with both eyes open. * RICHARD: Otherwise you will be needlessly repeating the ‘Tried and Failed’ ancient wisdom in any future e-mail. RESPONDENT: OK, how about this then? Zen, Dzogchen, Advaita, all clearly say ASC’s aren’t It, all say ordinary, fresh perception without self-sense is the Way, the way of non-spiritual, down-to-Earth freedom (with or without caps). RICHARD: Hmm ... yet what they offer is an old, spiritual, away-from-the-world salvation – not a new, non-spiritual, down-to-earth freedom – as evidenced by Mr. Gotama the Sakyan (circa 400-500 BCE) having this to say about where the mystical solution to all the suffering which epitomises the human condition lies:
In short it is a totally away-from-the-world non-experienceable realm in that it has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system). In other words: a state of dissociation (‘vippayutta’ RESPONDENT: OK, one last try: can you say a ‘turning word’? Can you say something fresh, un-defensive, something that doesn’t come from ‘Richard’? RICHARD: Nothing on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site comes from the identity who parasitically inhabited this body all those years ago (it has all been written since that illusory/ delusory presence altruistically ‘self’-immolated in toto for the benefit of this body and that body and every body) thus what is typed out about life here in this actual world is a description coming immediately from the direct experience of this perpetual moment in eternal time at this seamless place in infinite space – there is this which is happening and the words form themselves in accord to the very thing being referred to as it is occurring – thus being already always fresh they are an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into the magical wonder-land this verdant and azure planet actually is. Then actuality speaks for itself. * RESPONDENT: It’s important for you to believe that you are in THAT condition right now, but nothing you’ve said to me has given me any confidence that you are. (...) I doubt very much whether you’re in THAT condition right now. RICHARD: That would be because I am not and never will be – I lived that/was that, night and day,
for eleven years and experientially found it wanting – and if you had actually read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust
web site you would cognisant of the fact that an actual freedom from the human condition is beyond spiritual enlightenment ... and
thus not be needlessly repeating yourself e-mail after e-mail Put simply: it was only when what I then called ‘The Absolute’ (aka ‘Ground of Being’, Truth, Being, Presence, THAT, and so on) became extinct – via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto – that this actual world became apparent. There is only this actual world. * RICHARD: Put simply: it was only when what I then called ‘The Absolute’ (aka ‘Ground of Being’, Truth, Being, Presence, THAT, and so on) became extinct – via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto – that this actual world became apparent. There is only this actual world. RESPONDENT: What a touching story! Those terms refer to the state of no-self, dolt: they refer to what’s still there when the self is gone ... RICHARD: Okay ... in regards to ‘what’s still there when the self is gone’ here is what you stated on the 18 October 2003 (‘There is nothing but THAT. You are THAT’) looks like in those ‘state of no-self’ terms:
That is what is still there when the *ego-self* is gone ... this is what is here when *identity in toto* is gone:
Which is why I reported (further above) it was only when what I then called ‘The Absolute’ (aka God/Goddess, Truth, Being, Presence, THAT, and so on) became extinct – via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto – that this actual world became apparent. There is only this actual world. RESPONDENT: I was wondering if you’re aware of the fact that many of the principles and ideas evoked by AF can be found in other practices, and when I say that I refer to fourth-way ideas. For me they are strikingly familiar. RICHARD: If you would post what you find strikingly familiar it would help considerably in
understanding what you mean ... you will find a précis of actual freedom at the following link: I would be most interested to see where the ‘fourth-way ideas’ are strikingly similar. RESPONDENT: Apart from this, I cannot figure out how Richard managed to ‘escape’ from his real ‘I’ (here in the sense of God, Self, etc.), that is if he has had One (which is the equivalent of saying one’s enlightened). So if you please can explain. RICHARD: Certainly ... a description of how ‘the sense of God, Self etc.’ disappeared out
of my life can be found at the following link: You will find there a description of a curious event, which occurred at midday on Friday the thirtieth of October 1992, due to my intense conviction that it was imperative that somebody was to evince a final and complete condition that would ‘deliver the goods’ so longed for by humanity for millennia. It is entitled ‘Appendix No. 3: Description Of Becoming Actually Free’. RESPONDENT: I had the experience of being enlightened, although for only three hours, and it seems to me to be Impossible to exist something beyond that, as this state contains all possibilities. RICHARD: I had the experience of being enlightened for eleven years – night and day for eleven years
– so I had plenty of time to find out how it worked in daily life. It was not until towards the end of the third year that I had
an experience of being beyond enlightenment ... you will find a description at the same link: It is entitled: ‘Appendix No. 2: Description Of A ‘Glimpse’ Of Actual Freedom’. RESPONDENT: Another aspect of that experience was that the ‘I’ was not mine, but belonged to a person I very much loved; the identity called No. 25 was not there during the period. Was not this a PCE, as in my memory it has all + many more of the characteristics attributed by AF language for a PCE? RICHARD: It most certainly does not match the descriptions of a PCE ... there is no ‘I’ to be loved, and no God or Self to do that loving, in a PCE. RESPONDENT: I must say I don’t know which were the exact causes for that, maybe the collapse of my identity, or maybe the suffering involved, or maybe the love played an important part in the process. All I know is that it Happened and was real. RICHARD: Oh, what you describe here is experienced as being real all right – very, very real indeed – but the important point to comprehend is that none of it is actual. RESPONDENT: What I don’t understand about AF is why do you ignore the fact (for me) that when this identity collapses, someone else gradually takes the space, and that is our true Self. Why do you ignore the Self? RICHARD: This is a very good question: just as ‘this identity’ collapses so too can the ‘true Self’ collapse (as per the description at the URL I provided further above). Thus it is not ignored ... it too ceases to exist. This is what makes actual freedom differ from spiritual enlightenment. RESPONDENT: Before having that experience I knew nothing about religion or have anything in common with any spiritual practice. RICHARD: Neither did I prior to my first four-hour PCE back in 1981. RESPONDENT: I’ve read your posts (and I fully agree with you) about some spiritual teachers, about their pretences, the lies and the hypocrisy involved as I was also part of a group. RICHARD: Good ... however it must be born in mind that I am pointing the finger at the enlightened state itself (and not just ‘some spiritual teachers’ ). RESPONDENT: It must be made a clear difference about what each one of us understands by the term ‘enlightenment’, as this term has been widely used and may now signify many different things. The best description I can find is in the term ‘4th state of consciousness’ as described in fourth-way terminology. I would also like to ask Richard if he understands the same this as I do by ‘enlightenment’? (Google, Yahoo: ‘fourth way’, ‘4th state’). RICHARD: I typed the words ‘fourth way’ into my search engine and it came up with so many URL’s that it would be best if you would post the paragraph, or paragraphs, that you find to be the ‘best description’ and we can take it from there. When I typed ‘4th state’ into my search engine it came up with URL’s for 4th states of matter (theoretical physics). I also typed the term ‘4th state of consciousness’ into my search engine and all it came up with was URL’s for TM (aka ‘Transcendental Meditation’). RESPONDENT: What I’ve found out was the truth that none of these present self-named, entitled enlightened beings are at present in such a state, at best in an altered state of consciousness. RICHARD: Here is a page that may be of interest: http://www.nonduality.com/morea.htm RESPONDENT: What I want to say is that this so-called Self, Absolute, I, God really exists, it’s alive and kicking and that the state in which you discover him is not an altered state of consciousness but the ultimate state available for humans. RICHARD: I did not invent the term ‘Altered State Of Consciousness’ (ASC) as it is a commonly used term for the ultimate state which has been available for humans up until now (spiritual enlightenment) . Now there is an alternative ... actual freedom. RESPONDENT: To be or not to be a bee? RICHARD: The whole aim of actualism is to cease ‘being’. RESPONDENT: As a matter, I really appreciate if you keep things simple and present your ideas one at a time. Again, I admit is also one of my faults for bringing in ‘Prakriti’ and ‘Purusha’ without first asking you what is your central point. RICHARD: Yet I do keep things simple because I have only one central point: everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT: Again, I notice there is so much pain and agony in your posts. Which is fine, but to me the posts also reveal a lot of disputatiousness and resorting to academic terms. This is my first feeling as I read the posts. All these breed some sense of fear. RICHARD: Of course you would see and experience disputatiousness ... of course you would experience fear. This is because everybody – including yourself – is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Therefore anything I have to say is automatically a dispute of the current wisdom. The ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘Tried and Failed’. RESPONDENT No. 31: As a matter, I really appreciate if you keep things simple and present your ideas one at a time. RICHARD: Yet I do keep things simple because I have only one central point: everybody is going 180
degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT: Your central point is a judgement of others? RICHARD: May I ask? Why do you attempt to stifle free speech? How will the human race become free of the human condition if each and every person adopted that NDA wisdom of ‘Thalt shall not be judgmental’ (which is but a re-hash of that ‘Tried and Failed’ Christian adage about ‘Judge ye not ...’ anyway)? Why? Do you really want 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 for ever and a day? Put it this way (about that being judgmental nonsense) do you personally:
Do you see what I mean when I repeatedly write about morals being those ‘unliveable edicts handed down by bodiless entities’? It is simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this ‘judging’ is called making a decision. And all those wannabe ‘angelic beings’ castigate anyone who thinks for themselves ... whilst secretly doing the very self-same thing. RESPONDENT: Do you include yourself? RICHARD: Are you asking: ‘Is Richard going 180 degrees in the wrong direction?’ No. RESPONDENT: And if you see an opposite is appropriate, do you not adopt this? RICHARD: Of course ... this is called making a decision after taking an appraisal of the situation and circumstances (what some would call ‘making a judgement of others’ ). * RESPONDENT No. 32: It is as if they are looking through a telescope from the wrong end. Just turn it around and you will see the love, compassion, beauty, delight and joy that comes from using the instrument correctly. RICHARD: By saying that ‘they’ are ‘looking through a telescope from the wrong end’ are
you telling me that you are not going 180 degrees in the wrong direction? If so, why do you promote the ‘Tried and Failed’
remedies like love and compassion and beauty? RESPONDENT No. 31: No, he is not telling that. How could he? That telescope is designed only for Richard. RESPONDENT: Agreement as to love’s success; compassion’s effectiveness and beauty’s encouragement. RICHARD: Yet the Gurus and the God-Men; the Avatars and the Saviours; the Masters and the Messiahs;
the Saints and the Sages have had 3,000 to 5,000 years to demonstrate the effectiveness of ‘love’s success; compassion’s
effectiveness and beauty’s encouragement’ ... and peace on earth is nowhere to be found. How much longer will a ‘Tried
and Failed’ system continue to be so highly revered despite its abject failure to produce the goods? RESPONDENT: I seem to agree to some extent with No. 5, but not to the extent of being mad with Vineeto. I also do not find anything radical in Richard’s teachings. I already am aware of most of this stuff thanks mainly to Osho and other eastern philosophies. RICHARD: I am well aware that many people initially get the impression that I am saying the same thing as do those people who are living in an altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment ... as detailed in Eastern spiritual philosophy. However, an actual freedom from the Human Condition is not an altered state of consciousness (ASC) wherein the identity transmogrifies ... it is an on-going pure consciousness experience (PCE) wherein the identity is annihilated in its totality. In an ASC the identity shifts its focus, when ‘I’ as ego undergoes an ‘ego-death’, and ‘me’ as soul realises its ‘True Self’ as epitomised in the phrase: ‘I am everything and Everything is Me’. The next step is the realisation that ‘Me’ and ‘God’ (not the god of the churches, temples, mosques and synagogues) are one and the same thing and, as such, one is ‘Unborn and Undying’. Thus, being now ‘Spaceless and Timeless’ one has achieved ‘Divine Immortality’ and one can confidently say – as Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain did – that one is ‘Never Born, Never Died, Only Visited This Planet’. Eastern mystical philosophy stipulates that the temporal world – the entire material universe – is but an illusion, and only God is real ... God as ‘Pure Being’ (The Brahman, The Buddha, The Tao, The Void, The Whatever) and not the god of the churches, temples, mosques and synagogues. Whereas in the PCE the identity disappears when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul is expunged, eliminated, extirpated ... as extinct as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. Then one is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware ... what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the world as-it-is (the actual world) by ‘my’ very presence. With the clarity and purity of apperception, one is aware that this physical universe is actual – not an
illusion – and its space is infinite and its time is eternal (this boundless expanse and an unlimited time is known as ‘infinitude’).
Thus the infinitude of this very material universe has no beginning and no ending ... and therefore no middle. There are no edges
to this universe, which means that there is no centre, either. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for there
is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go to. We are nowhere in particular ... which means we are anywhere at all. In the
infinitude of the universe one finds oneself to be already here, and as it is always now, one can not get away from this place in
space and this moment in time. By being here as-this-body one finds that this moment in time has no duration as in now and then
– because the immediate is the ultimate – and that this place in space has no distance as in here and there – for the
relative is the absolute. Thus one is always here and it is already now ... what one is as this body is this material universe
experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. I am mortal. RESPONDENT: I was thinking about ‘spiritualism versus actualism’. I think the reason why I still can’t differentiate between these two is perhaps a lack of PCE. To me both Satori and PCE look same. I have no experience of either. I practiced Vipassana irregularly and found that it made difference in my ordinary life. It did help to make me reasonably happy. I don’t care about what is the exact philosophy behind it. I don’t think that the spiritual practices are useless. RICHARD: It is this simple: the English translation of the Pali ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ is ‘Insight Meditation’. ‘Bhavana’ means ‘to cultivate’, and, as the word is always used in reference to the mind, ‘Bhavana’ means ‘mental cultivation’. ‘Vipassana’ means ‘seeing’ or ‘perceiving’ something with meticulousness discernment, seeing each component as distinct and separate, and piercing all the way through so as to perceive the most fundamental reality of that thing and which leads to intuition into the basic reality of whatever is being inspected. Thus ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ means the cultivation of the mind, aimed at seeing in a special way that leads to intuitive discernment and to full understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s basic precepts. In ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ , Buddhists cultivate this special way of seeing life. They train themselves to see reality exactly as it is described by Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and in the English-speaking world they call this practice ‘Vipassana Meditation’. Consequently, when a person who ‘doesn’t care about what is the exact philosophy behind it’ blindly practices ‘Vipassana’ it is a further withdrawal from this actual world than what ‘normal’ people currently experience in the illusionary ‘reality’ of their ‘real world’. All Buddhists (just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) do not want to be here at this place in space – now at this moment in time – as this flesh and blood form, walking and talking and eating and drinking and urinating and defecating and being the universes’ experience of its own infinitude as a reflective and sensate human being. They put immense effort into bringing ‘samsara’ (the Hindu and/or Buddhist belief in the endless round of birth and death and rebirth) to an end ... if they liked being here now they would welcome their rebirth and delight in being able to be here now again and again as a human being. They just don’t wanna be here (not only not being here now but never, ever again). Is it not so blatantly obvious that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan just did not like being here? Does one wonder why one never saw his anti-life stance before? How on earth can someone who dislikes being here so much ever be interested in bringing about peace-on-earth? In this respect he was just like all the Gurus and God-Men down through the ages ... the whole lot of them were/are anti-life to the core. For example:
It can be seen that he clearly and unambiguously states that he (Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) is ‘the eternally abiding, unchanging, fine and mysterious essential body’ even to the point of repeating it twice (‘the Tathagata is eternally abiding without any change’) and (‘the Tathagata eternally abides without any change’) so as to emphasise that ‘someone who is able to know that the Tathagata is eternally abiding without any change ... shall be born into the Heavens above’. And to drive the point home as to just what he means he emphasises that ‘the body that eats is not the essential body’ ... which ‘essential body’ can only be a dissociated state by any description and by any definition. Which all brings me to your next point. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘What appealed me most about actualism is that I don’t have to believe in it (the same thing I liked about Vipassana)’ [endquote]. If you did ‘care about what is the exact philosophy behind it’ you would find that you do indeed have to believe in ‘Vipassana’ ... but do not take my word for it; instead, shall we see what Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) had to say in 1981? Viz.: <snipped> This is what Mr. Eric Lerner had to say about Mr. Ba Khin:
Just in case this précis of Mr. Ba Khin’s teaching was too much for you to take in, may I leave you with
just one sentence of his (copied from above) to ponder upon? Viz.: [quote]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected
saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. [endquote]. And
just in case you miss the point, he is clearly saying that ‘the end of suffering’ (editorial
note So, can you now start to ‘differentiate between spiritualism versus actualism’? RESPONDENT: These are just word games in my opinion. When you see an elm tree and I see an oak, there are two distinct observations. There may or may not be non-dualistic seeing in either observation. RICHARD: I do not indulge in words games ... I am utterly sincere. The observer, rather than becoming the observed, is extinguished. This does away with all that ‘holistic vision’ and ‘unitary perception’ business that has been plaguing the human species for millennia. When you see an oak tree with ‘choiceless awareness’, you are looking with rose-coloured glasses clipped on over the top of the grey-coloured glasses everybody normal wears. Thus the glum and grim physical reality (duality) becomes the loving and compassionate metaphysical Reality (non-duality). What I am – what not ‘who’ – is apperceptive awareness. I see – by which I mean that apperceptive
awareness sees – the actual oak tree ... the oak tree as-it-is. RESPONDENT: ... ‘even though (except for a handful of people) virtually everyone tells me that I have got it all wrong’. This statement is very imprecise, and leaves room for misinterpretation, hence a distortion. What do you mean by ‘virtually everyone’? All of humanity? All on this list? All that you meet and whom speak to you? RICHARD: Okay ... to be precise, it is not only 99.9% of the people whom I interact with face-to-face
or via the written word, but includes virtually everyone living and dead. I am well aware, that for anyone listening whose psyche
is still in place, there is a psychic dimension wherein myriads of atavistic ‘voices’ are insistently whispering ‘wrong,
wrong, wrong’. Mostly people experience this as being that they ‘intuitively know’ that Richard has ‘got it wrong’ or
that a ‘still, quiet voice silently speaks the truth within’ and so on. RICHARD: It is vitally important to look at and touch physical things – trees, armchairs, ashtrays, flowers, whatever – otherwise one goes into an inner state, a trance state. One then enters into a mystical state of being ... which is to be of this world but not in it ... or in this world or not of it ... or whatever nonsense people come out with dressed up as sagacity. This is the mistake all religious and spiritual people make. One needs to come to one’s senses – both literally and figuratively – and then the ‘vast and luminous nectar of awakened consciousness or awareness’ becomes actual. RESPONDENT: What does this have to do with the death of the soul? It is just a matter of being ‘there’, awake to what one is actually doing. We touch things all of the time, but our thoughts are what wastes the energy needed to ‘be there’ in totality. RICHARD: This is precisely what I am getting at ... wanting to be ‘there’ , and not here,
is to chase immortality in a metaphysical dimension. I am suggesting that one turn one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposite
direction ... and be here. But be fully here as an actuality and not a reality. This is where this body is: here at this place in
space and now at this moment in time. Nobody wants to do this because it entails acknowledging death’s oblivion. I am mortal.
Death is the end. Finish. If you do not become free here and now whilst this body is breathing you never will. RICHARD: This is an opportune time to vitalise any sincere study of actualism with a pertinent observation: life is neither a random, chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe (the materialist experience) nor the deliberate, determined expression of a malicious/loving and sorrowful/compassionate divinity (the spiritualist experience). Rather it is due to the inevitable emergence of its intrinsic character that this physical universe is spontaneously personifying itself as a sensate, reflective and apperceptively aware human being: as such the universe is stunningly conscious of its own infinitude. To paraphrase/plagiarise: both materialism (aka western dualism) and spiritualism (aka eastern non-dualism) miss something essential; they have seen and scrutinised what has happened, and in each their own way how it has happened (movingly expressed in trillions of words), but they are shutting their eyes to this which makes human life possible, this which is here to be lived now. Which means that there is no fundamental significance in regards to people, things and events if humans miss the actuality of this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space whilst being the particular form perpetual matter is organising itself as; for such people remain embedded in either the huge surface crust of everyday reality or the massive subterranean core of Divine Reality. In actuality it is the magic of the perfection of the purity of the infinitude this physical universe actually is that peoples are unwittingly trying to analyse or subjectify; only when a person eliminates the human condition in its entirety can the factual significance of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, be directly experienced and thus intimately known. This experiential understanding is beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and schemes. RESPONDENT: A formula according to the dictionary is: a conventionalised statement expressing some fundamental principle/an utterance of conventional notions or beliefs. In your case: ‘everybody has got it 180 degrees wrong’ and, the most hilarious, ‘I am enlightened’ (therefore you know or see it all). RICHARD: Before you go on to develop your thesis further I will draw your attention to the following:
My oft-repeated statement ‘everybody has got it 180 degrees wrong’ refers to where both the meaning of life and peace-on-earth is to be found – here in this actual world, the world of the senses, the world all flesh and blood bodies are already living in anyway – and nowhere else ... thus your ‘translation’, being an error in fact, may very well be what is causing you to see my statement of fact as being [quote] ‘a conventionalised statement expressing some fundamental principle/an utterance of conventional notions or beliefs’ [endquote]. As your second piece of evidence to support your hypothesis that my words are formulae – ‘I am enlightened’ – has no substance it too is an error in fact ... for just one example (one among many):
Do you see that your hilarity was ill-founded? RESPONDENT: Therefore, you being ‘enlightened’, we don’t dispute, or put in cause or discuss what you say. You are ‘god’ [the perfect one, the omnipotent, the omniscient, a being of supernatural powers or attributes, etc] and all we have to do is to listen [rather ‘read’] you. Like ‘god’ you are also hidden. Only the poor fellow didn’t have the internet to spread the words! RICHARD: Again I would draw your attention to something like the following:
I have always found it well worth while to research a subject before mounting a critique. RESPONDENT No. 53: Richard, I was sleeping last night and having some dream and I got the sense that something was gonna happen and something was happening and I got this tightening feeling in the back of my head and at the top of my neck. Its still there almost 5 hours later. Right about where the back of the head curves down to the neck. This happened at about 3:20am. I woke up instantly and it was like my friend, who I was, was gone. But I am still very much here but perhaps in a different way. So far it feels like something has changed but nothing has changed. Make sense? Maybe not. I could elaborate but I will let some time pass. Anyways, since you are an expert in these affairs, perhaps you could tell me what you make of it, if anything. RICHARD: What I would suggest, at this stage, is to ask the American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal, or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples you referred to in another e-mail, as that person, having already become actually free from the human condition long before I did will have far more expertise than I do as I have only been apparent for a little over a decade now. It is your call. RESPONDENT: Nice answer, Richard. Is that the Actualist equivalent of a crack of the cane from the Zen master? RICHARD: Ha, the equivalence betwixt actualism and the form of spiritualism known as Zen Buddhism
exists only in your mind ... as is evidenced by your inability to successfully provide a passage, or passages, of mine – which
means from any page on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that has my name in the URL – that has/have a [quote] ‘remarkable
similarity’ [endquote] to that passage of Mr. Robert Linssen’s which you chose Specifically the passage, or passages, of mine would have to refer to:
‘Tis far easier to make an allegation than substantiate it, eh?
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
