Richard’s Selected Correspondence
On Here and Now
RESPONDENT: (For the ‘I’ everything stops, but for the native intelligence, doesn’t everything come together in a manner of speaking?).
RICHARD: In a manner of speaking ...yes (except that it has been together all along but could hardly get a word in edgeways, so to speak, and in those moments has no hindrance).
RESPONDENT: I experience that as something seemingly supremely-fine, and massively so (beyond massively), over and over and over and over ... as I’ve been reading. So, for what it’s worth, it’s clear to me what you are intending to do with your writing (as far as I’ve been able to see into it so far), and that it is having exactly the intended effect here.
RICHARD: The way I have put it previously is this:
RESPONDENT: It appears that Actual Freedom is akin to the effects of psychotropic drugs when not overdosed ...
RICHARD: That is how my condition appeared to the psychiatrist mentioned above ... when he was not likening it to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s experience that is. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: ... and when one does not loose oneself in the imagination, but stays in the here & now ...
RICHARD: As the term [quote] ‘here & now’ [endquote] is extensively used in religio-spiritual/mystic-metaphysical texts to refer to a metaphysical dimension (a spaceless and timeless realm) the utilisation of that spatial and temporal terminology is disingenuous to say the least. For example:
RESPONDENT: ... and without addicting qualities ...
RESPONDENT: Hi, this is all very interesting and delightful! I have been wondering if anyone else was having an experience similar to mine ... for the last year I have felt the barrier between the here and now and the illusory self-created now slowly but surely becoming transparent.
RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List, ... I usually wait for a week or two before replying, so that others can respond first, as I do not wish to dominate the mailing list anymore than I already do by being what I am (nor can I respond to each and every e-mail anyway) but as three-plus weeks have gone by it looks as if nobody else is going to pick-up on your query.
As I would have to recall events of over two decades ago, in order to relate to your experience of this past year, your query may be better served if I were to give a more general response: I can appreciate that, upon directly experiencing being just here, at this place in infinite space, right now, at this moment in eternal time, the normal here and now (what you describe as ‘the illusory self-created here’ and now) as experienced by maybe 6.0 billion peoples is seen as having been but an illusion. I can also appreciate that, whilst once more living in ‘the illusory self-created here’ and now, there seems to be a barrier betwixt the two worlds ... and that, further, the barrier can become ‘slowly but surely’ transparent.
What I would like to point out, though, is that any barrier is as illusory as ‘the illusory self-created here’ and now ... and, furthermore, so too is any transparency.
RESPONDENT: If you have arrived at your ‘destiny’ you should know that you have arrived at the height of your self-invented illusion.
RICHARD: May I ask? Are you of that school of thought that says that the journey is the thing ... that one never arrives?
RESPONDENT: Destiny? What is that?
RICHARD: Destination, of course. Which is here ... now. Where one is living at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space one is experiencing the purity and perfection of the infinitude of this very actual universe. One is this universe’s experience of itself as a sensate and reflective human being. This is one’s destiny.
RESPONDENT: Somebody in charge has created a state of being especially for you?
RICHARD: Contrary to popular belief, there is no one in charge of the universe. It is perfectly capable of looking after itself. There is no disembodied ‘intelligence’ that is creating anything. This universe is already here ... and it is always now.
RESPONDENT: I am familiar with the term ‘already always here’. Da Free John, the ‘enlightened one’ from California used it often. It was probably his destiny too.
RICHARD: He is a prime example of someone deluded enough to not only believe that there is god but to fondly imagine that he is it. He thus denies any ultimate reality to this material universe. Consequently his ‘here’ or his ‘now’ is a spiritual or mystical ‘here and now’ ... a dimension that is beyond time and space. Mr Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain used the term ‘herenow’ ... which is also a metaphysical dimension that has nothing to do with the actuality of this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space.
RESPONDENT: What is self-centred is the idea that I am the centre of the universe.
RICHARD: Aye ... that is indeed self-centred. However, there is no centre to the universe. As I have written before:
RESPONDENT: I disagree because ‘Timeless, Spaceless and Formless’ has nothing to do with an other worldly experience. Rather, it is the here and now experience of the ‘actual world’ when one is free of excess emotional and intellectual baggage and able to be simply aware.
RICHARD: Yet the ‘here and now’ of the God-Men and Gurus is a metaphysical ‘here and now’ that has nothing to do with literally being here now in actual space and actual time. Indeed, there is oft-times the use the metaphysical word ‘herenow’ to distinguish it from the spatial and temporal location ... and it is anywhere but here as this place in infinite space and anywhere but now as this moment in eternal time. When the mystics say: ‘I am Timeless and Spaceless; Unborn and Undying; Birthless and Deathless’ and so on, what do you take it that they mean? Because, as this physical body has a limited life-span, they can only be referring to themselves as being a non-physical ‘whatever’ receiving its post-mortem reward of immortality. Thus the reality of their immaterial ‘here and now’ is vastly different to the physical actuality of sensately being here now.
RESPONDENT: Creation ... which has never been before and will never be again.
RICHARD: The only thing that has never been before and never will be again is this moment in time and this place in space. By being here – as this body – at this moment in time and at this place in space, one experiences the infinity of space now and the eternity of time here. This is actual.
You see, what one is as this body is this material universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. The physical space of this universe is infinite and its time is eternal ... 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 too. 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.
RICHARD: Because there is no good or evil in the actual world of sensual delight – where I live as this flesh and blood body – one then lives freely in the magical paradise that this verdant earth floating in the infinitude of the universe actually is. Being here at this moment in time and this place in space is to be living in a fairy-tale-like ambience that is never-ending.
RESPONDENT: Does this fairy-tale-like ambience of yours have any borders?
RICHARD: None whatsoever ... the physical space of this universe is infinite and its time is eternal ... 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. You see, what one is as this body is this material universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. 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.
RICHARD: Meanwhile, here on earth in this never-changing moment, this ever-changing materiality keeps right on keeping on – ever-dynamic/ never static, ever-fresh/ never-stale, ever-new/ never-old, ever-novel/ never-hackneyed – being the veritable perpetuus mobilis it is.
RESPONDENT: If it is the experiencer that makes efforts to be aware and stay aware, the centre is strengthened, not dissolved, right?
RICHARD: Since when has naiveté been sudorific?
RESPONDENT: A PCE means that the centre is momentarily dissolved.
RICHARD: No, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is when the identity in toto, and not just its centre, is temporarily in abeyance ... so that one is nothing other than a flesh and blood body living life intimately on this verdant and azure paradise.
As one has been all along.
RESPONDENT: In order for that to occur, the illusion of being in time has to stop.
RICHARD: No, in order for a PCE to occur the identity in toto goes into abeyance ... then one is where one has always been: just here right now at this moment in eternal time.
Have you not ever noticed that it is never not this moment?
RESPONDENT: That is why awareness of death or impermanence can be a trigger. Whatever is being experienced now is not ‘going’ anywhere. It is just a mind thing, a movement of thought.
RICHARD: What one is as this flesh and blood body only is this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being and, as its physical space is infinite, and as its time is eternal, and as its matter is perpetual, then the infinitude which this universe actually is has no beginning and no ending and therefore no middle. As there are no edges to this universe, which means that there is no centre either, one is neither coming from anywhere nor going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go to.
By being here as-this-body now one is nowhere in particular – which means one is anywhere at all – and in the infinitude of the universe one finds oneself to be already here and, as it is always now, one cannot ever get away from this place in space and this moment in time anyway. Furthermore, 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.
In other words: one is always here as it is already now.
RESPONDENT: Psychologically there is no tomorrow. Tomorrow is just a projection and yesterday is just memory.
RICHARD: Aye, the past, although it was actual whilst it was happening, is not actual now; the future, although it will be actual when it happens, is not actual now.
RICHARD: I have never made a secret of what my agenda is in writing to this mailing list (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body) and I have no reservations whatsoever about endeavouring to persuade another to read with both eyes ... but to describe this pastime as ‘pushing a particular set of conclusions’ is to miss the point entirely.
RESPONDENT: I agree that if there is a PCE, for some people the memory itself can be a trigger for the actuality. But that doesn’t seem to be the case for most people.
RICHARD: One of the many things I did, in the years before I went public, was to ascertain whether people from all walks of life could recall having had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – as distinct from an altered state of consciousness (ASC) – for obvious reasons. Sometimes it took a quite a while for them to remember – once it took over three hours of intensive description/discussion – as being sans any affective content whatsoever the PCE cannot be stored in the affective memory banks (which is where the ASC is primarily located) ... plus they are much more common in childhood and require further reach.
Everybody I spoke to at length – everybody – could recall at least one PCE ... and usually more
RESPONDENT: Some of us find keen awareness of death or the truth of impermanence tends to trigger PCE but again, that does not seem to be so for most others I have talked with, unfortunately.
RICHARD: Mostly PCE’s happen for no demonstrable reason at all – as in being a serendipitous event – and quite often occur in everyday surroundings doing everyday things ... I can recall being on a farmhouse verandah at age eight, looking into the glistening white of a full glass of milk in the early morning sunshine, when it happened for the entity within.
RESPONDENT: When I was in ASC under the influence of Ecstasy, I was confused trying to sort out what had been going on. Then my friend said ‘BE HERE’ and hit the floor just in front of me.
RICHARD: Then your friend has hopelessly misunderstood what the sages having been saying for millennia ... the ‘be here’ of the god-men and gurus (and their ‘now’) is a metaphysical ‘here and now’ (a timeless and spaceless void) that has nothing to do with literally being here – now – in actual space and time. Indeed, Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain oft-times used the metaphysical word ‘herenow’ to distinguish it from the (physical) spatial and temporal location ... and it is anywhere but here as this place in infinite space and anywhere but now as this moment in eternal time. When the mystics say: ‘I am Timeless and Spaceless; Unborn and Undying; Birthless and Deathless’ and so on, what do you take it that they mean? Because, as this physical body has a limited life-span, they can only be referring to themselves as being a psychic entity receiving its post-mortem reward of immortality. Thus the reality of their psychic ‘being here’ is vastly different to the actuality of sensately being here.
RESPONDENT: And I got it with a belly laughter that the very searching itself is the hindrance of finding.
RICHARD: Yet if one does not seek one will never find; if one does not explore one will never uncover; if one does not investigate one will never discover that this moment is hanging in eternal time like this planet is hanging in infinite space. There is no beginning or end to the infinitude of this universe’s space and time, therefore there is no middle, no centre. Thus, here is nowhere in particular and now is nowhen specifically ... one is easily always here as it is already now. In apperceptive awareness – which is this flesh and blood body being conscious sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – there is the direct experience of the immediate being the ultimate and the relative being the absolute.
RESPONDENT: If you can, try asking that question without moving your tongue. Not moving your tongue is very effective in meditation. When we cease moving our tongue, our thinking quiets. As our thinking quiets, we merge more and more with the Now in the present.
RICHARD: I have never meditated (either with or without moving the tongue) so I cannot comment on your advice. However, if you are advocating this technique as being an effective method to ‘merge more and more with the Now’ it does expose the lie of your protestations about how you ‘do not ‘become love’; you are already Love’. In other words:
But never mind ... you would make a good engineer.
RESPONDENT: Richard, according to his own articulated dialogue, has not, in this lifetime, ever been in the Now.
RICHARD: Except that I repeatedly say that the ‘Me’ that was did live ‘in the Now’ for eleven years ... thus I have intimate knowledge of what you speak of. The exchange you are referring to went like this:
RESPONDENT: [Rajneesh quote]: ‘Religion is not any ideology. Religion does not believe in any ideals. Religion is to become aware of the impossibility of idealism – of all idealism. Religion is to live here and now, and idealism goes on conditioning your mind to live somewhere else’.
RICHARD: By clearly defining religion as ‘to live here and now’ then his ‘here and now’ is a metaphysical ‘here and now’ (a timeless and spaceless void) and has nothing to do with the secular ‘here’ – as in walking and talking, eating and drinking; urinating and defecating – and the secular ‘now’ as in the clock marking the passage of the sun through the sky ... would you not agree?
Secondly, as a secular consciousness is happening at this place in material space and in this moment in phenomenal time as a tangible flesh and blood body only, then where do you consider a religious person’s consciousness resides? Remember, Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain repeatedly said: ‘I am not the body’ ... and the body is most definitely here in physical space and now in observable time. Could you throw some light upon this matter for me?
Interestingly enough, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan said: ‘The Tathagata (...) is the essence which is the reality of matter, but he is not matter (...) he is neither here, nor there, nor anywhere else’. Is it not strange that he would clearly say that he is ‘not here’? How about this one: ‘The Tathagata has neither whence nor whither, and therefore He is called ‘Tathagata’. Is it not curious that he is ‘not whence or wither’ because a flesh and blood body has certainly come and gone? And last, but not least, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan said: ‘Since I became Buddha, there have passed infinite, boundless, hundreds, thousands, millions, trillions, myriads of eons’. As the Buddhists text place him circa 500 BCE (2,500 years ago) would you say that he comprehends time, as measured by the physical phenomenon of day and night, as we mere mortals do ... or is he highly confused?
RICHARD: (...) The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now and a hoped-for happiness and harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All one gets by waiting is more waiting. Thus any ‘change’ can only happen now. The jumping in point is always here; it is at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus, if one misses it this time around, hey presto, one has another chance immediately. Life is excellent at providing opportunities like this.
What ‘I’ did, all those years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective way to be able to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive each moment again (I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). It does take some doing to start off with but, as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes progressively easier to enjoy and appreciate being here each moment again. One begins by asking, each moment again, ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?
The more one enjoys and appreciates being just here right now – to the point of excellence being the norm – the greater the likelihood of a PCE happening ... a grim and/or glum person has no chance whatsoever of allowing the magical event, which indubitably shows where everyone has being going awry, to occur. Plus any analysing and/or psychologising and/or philosophising whilst one is in the grip of debilitating feelings usually does not achieve much (other than spiralling around and around in varying degrees of despair and despondency or whatever) anyway.
The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity/ innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way.
(...) Being ‘alive’ is to be paying attention – exclusive attention – to this moment in time and this place in space. This attention becomes fascination ... and fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only then – apperception can occur. An apperceptive awareness can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive right now. This moment is your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time than now. And, wherever you are, one is always here ... even if you start walking over to ‘there’, along the way to ‘there’ you are always here ... and when you arrive ‘there’, it too is here. Thus attention becomes a fascination with the fact that one is always here ... and it is already now. Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. As one is already here, and it is always now ... then one has arrived before one starts.
The potent combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – a way of seeing that can be arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking and thinking takes place of its own accord ... and ‘me’ disappears along with all the feelings. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity ... as a sensate body only, one is automatically benevolent and benign.
RESPONDENT: What one does in the present moment, obviously effects what one ‘incarnates’ as in the next moment.
RICHARD: Why do you put the word < incarnates > in quotes for? If it was the appropriate word to use it would stand on its own merits. The fact that you have to do so indicates that you are making a mystical word do something it is not intended to do.
RESPONDENT: One ends conflict now, or suffering has continuation through time.
RICHARD: It is possible to be free of the Human Condition in this life you are living now. In fact, if you do not become free of the Human Condition in this life you never will. Physical death is the end. Finish. Not that it matters at all then as physical death is oblivion.
RESPONDENT: Now is key. Death cuts the chain.
RICHARD: The ending of identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – can only happen now at this moment in eternal time and here at this place in infinite space ... yes. This death, however, does not ‘cut the ch ain’ ... it means the end of the chain.
RESPONDENT: Future lives in a physical sense is only a way of (falsely) procrastinating one’s responsibility.
RICHARD: One is always here and it is already now ... there can be nothing more permanent, more perpetual a continuity, than this very place here in infinite space now at this very moment in eternal time. What ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul was searching for in the ‘timeless and spaceless and formless’ dimension was already always here in time and space as form ... for there is nothing else than this actual world. And this actual world is an ambrosial paradise.
RESPONDENT: Are you saying that form is realized as formless, or that there is no formlessness to be realized?
RICHARD: There is no ‘formless’ outside of a person’s intuitive/imaginative faculty.
RESPONDENT: You said above that what I was searching for in the formless was always here in time and space as form. That seems to be saying form is emptiness. But then you clarify that you mean there is no actual formlessness.
RICHARD: Yes, ‘formlessness’ resides only in the intuitive/imaginative faculty ... for where else could it reside? As the physical infinitude that this very material universe actually is, is comprised of an unlimited amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time, then one must posit another realm other than actuality. Therefore it can only be fantasy and not fact ... and from whence comes fantasy? The intuitive/imaginative faculty.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t an interpretation of what is constantly changing as consisting of solid, static, and unchanging forms an image-based fantasy?
RICHARD: Yes ... because everything is actually in a constant state of flux. Nothing stays the same, each moment again everything is novel, fresh, vital, dynamic. One can never, ever be bored.
RESPONDENT: We know that in fact there is no ‘thing’ that exists separately in time, yet that is the way that reality is ordinarily perceived.
RICHARD: Yes ... the form, time and space of this very material universe is seamless.
RESPONDENT: The tree is never twice the same, each moment the tree is unique just as it is.
RICHARD: The tree has never been here before ... right now. We are all being in this particular moment at this particular place for the very first time ... this particular moment and this particular place has never been before and therefore exists at the ‘cutting-edge’ of certainty each moment again.
This is thrilling, to say the least.
RESPONDENT: So is the form of tree perceived as on-going real or is it but a projection of thought and memory?
RICHARD: All form (an unlimited amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties) is as actual as the immeasurable extent of eternal time is actual and is as actual as the unbounded reaches of infinite space is actual. And this actuality is enormous ... staggeringly stupendous. So staggering that it makes the humility (pride standing on its head) so praised by mystics seem trite in comparison. There is no comparison, actually.
RESPONDENT No. 33: I don’t understand this. Krishnamurti repeatedly said that if someone found the root cause of sorrow, sorrow ends, completely, once and for all. He also said that irritation (anger) is violence and if you see the danger of it, it ends, completely, and for all time. Do you think he was talking about a theoretical ending of sorrow and violence?
RICHARD: It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history).
RESPONDENT No. 20: Stepping out of the stream is not ‘so that it does not go on after physical death’. But so it does not continue in the here and now.
RESPONDENT: That is correct, for this is the only time there ever is to be timeless.
RICHARD: Where one lets the moment live one – rather than what is called ‘living in the present’ – it will be seen with startling clarity that this moment is eternal ... and not ‘timeless’. Anyone who succeeds in ‘living in the present’, which is experienced as being that fleeting moment sandwiched between the past and the future, is present as a self (albeit an impersonal self) in/as an oceanic feeling of oneness ... which gives the impression of being ‘timeless’.
This moment is not ‘timeless’ ... for, although the fact that it has no duration, as ‘then’ and ‘now’ and ‘then’ (was here then, is here now , will be here then), does not negate that this moment is already always here now (eternally here).
RESPONDENT: This is quite a shot in the arm. I realised with this exchange more clearly than ever before the difference between enjoying the moment and conditional pleasure seeking. I was riding my bike today thinking about how someone had said something to make me sad, because it reminded me of [whatever]. I tried to cheer myself up by thinking contrary thoughts. Then I yanked my head away and looked at the trees waving about in the warm summer air. They seemed gay to a point of being ridiculous. The whole world looked ridiculously gay and merry in a baffling way. The world seemed to be turning in on itself. It was stupendous! (Jan 4, 12:35 AM; #161xx)
RICHARD: G’day No. 45,
Before commenting on your above [quote] ‘enjoying the moment’ [endquote] post, I will first draw your attention to two specific portions of your 5th email to this forum (16 days after you subscribed).
Upon a closer inspection it will be seen how you have twice used the expression [quote] ‘in the moment’ [endquote].
There is another instance in your 11th email, coupled with the words [quote] ‘enjoy the moment’ [endquote], just as in your further above [quote] ‘enjoying the moment’ [endquote] current post.
Given you say [quote] ‘please correct me if I’m wrong’ [endquote] then I shall proceed to do just that because the expression [quote] ‘in the moment’ [endquote] also features in your later emails, as well as your earlier ones, such as the following post last month.
In that instance both ‘enjoy the moment’ and ‘be in the moment’ are combined, as in [quote] ‘to enjoy and be in the moment’ [endquote], thus demonstrating their congruence for you.
Indeed, in your 4th email to this forum you not only spoke of [quote] ‘present moment enjoyment’ [endquote] but referred to your sister’s children and small-town people in India throwing themselves [quote] ‘into the flow’ [endquote] of real-world time.
(It is only real-world time which moves – aka ‘flows’ from the past, into the present, and off to the future – as is demonstrated in a PCE whereby it is experientially evidenced that time does not move in actuality).
Please note I am *not* suggesting moment-to-moment real-world enjoyment (and appreciation) is to be abjured but, rather, drawing attention to the conflation of that real-world enjoyment (and appreciation) with being ‘in the moment’ and/or ‘in the flow’ (and/or ‘in the present’ and/or ‘in the now’ and so on and so forth).
Having established this critical point: a fortnight or so before your further above 10th of December email (#160xx) was posted the expression [quote] ‘in the moment’ [endquote] again appears.
As well as 3 days prior to that instance.
And, again, 10 days before that.
Plus 2 weeks prior to that one.
A month earlier as well.
As well as 2 weeks before that.
And the day before also.
A fortnight before that one brings this account of those instances back to August (the month you subscribed to this forum).
As well as 2 days prior to that occasion.
Plus there were 2 instances in the email 4 days before that one.
The reason why I am drawing these instances of the expression [quote] ‘in the moment’ [endquote] to your attention is because I make it quite clear, on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website, that it is not applicable to actualism.
(An online search using the search-term <‘in the moment’ site:actualfreedom.com.au> (sans the < and > symbols of course) will readily return all instances; similarly ‘in the present’ and ‘in the now’, and so on and so forth, can be substituted for that ‘in the moment’ search-term).
For example (from 2002):
The following instance (written in 2000) is more explicit as to why trying to live [quote] ‘in the present’ [endquote] is not applicable to actualism.
The parenthesised [quote] ‘rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present’ [endquote] will be self-explanatory, non?
In the following example, a co-respondent endeavoured to make out that my report of something radical – so radical as to be entirely new to human knowledge/human history – was not exclusive to actualism (from the year 2004).
It was obviously an insufficiently-researched anagraph – a trait all such criticasters display – because as early as 1997 (the year I first went public, online, with my discovery) I was making it quite clear I was not talking about [quote] ‘living in the moment’ [endquote].
Needless is it to add that Respondent No. 12 never did produce any such reference (there being no such thing, of course, for him to produce)?
Regardless, his running-mate tried the same line on me many weeks later.
I have, of course, made it equally clear that the variant expression [quote] ‘live in the present’ [endquote] similarly does not apply.
The following example (from 2001) goes into more detail as to why [quote] ‘living in the present’ [endquote] does not apply to actualism/ actual freedom.
I also point out (in 2003 for instance) how I have experiential knowledge of being/living in the now, in the present, in the moment – night and day for eleven years in fact – and found it wanting.
And that 2003 response of mine renders this an apt place to draw the following to your attention.
First of all, there is a ‘Selected Correspondence’ page – all the selected correspondence was personally chosen for their real-world relevance by feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ over a decade or so – where I have answered queries about Mr. Eckhart Tolle (aka Mr. Ulrich Tolle for 30+ years).
(There really is no substitute for taking notice of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website).
Second, as Mr. Eckhart Tolle is an unapologetic spiritualist it simply does not make sense to even think for a moment – let alone type it out and click ‘send’ – that anything he has to say would be applicable to something entirely new to human history/human knowledge.
Yet a month later you do so again (and not only expanding on that spiritualistic theme from Ms. Oprah Winfrey’s protégé, plus providing a video link to his syrupy recitation of Chapter 4 in his 2003 best-seller as well, but chose to drag in that mathematically-modelled relativistic (i.e., subjectivistic) ignis fatuus so beloved of theoretical physicists as well).
As already mentioned, the video link you provided is an oral rendition selected from Chapter 4: The Now (pages 37-47) of the book ‘Stillness Speaks’ ©2003Eckhart Tolle; Namaste Publishing, Vancouver, Canada. (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qcfueLfqxR8C).
In that chapter there are more than a few instances of him using the expression [quote] ‘in the Now’ [endquote].
Also needless is it to add I have already answered queries about [quote] ‘in the Now’ [endquote] in regards to actualism/ actual freedom?
And again (also in the year 2000).
In 2004 I provided a much more detailed response to a co-respondent’s [quote] ‘in the now’ [endquote] phantasies.
All of the above leads this account back to your ‘please correct me if I’m wrong’ email – your 11th post (already quoted towards the beginning of this email) – wherein you go on to detail just whom it was that implanted this ‘in the moment’ meme which features throughout your 230+ emails to this forum.
(There is no prize for guessing who those closet-spiritualists are).
First, I know I have said it before (in message No. 11915) but it is worth saying again: ‘tis for reasons such as the above that I advised a self-acknowledged [quote] ‘sincere practitioner’ [endquote], upon being asked for clarification, to ‘stop listening to the affers, period’ (and to ‘cease aiming to be aff, forthwith’).
(I am presuming, of course, that those purveyors of affism pronounce those [quote] ‘AF’ and/or ‘AFer’ [endquote] designators they use, for their mongrel state of ‘being’, in the way that the first syllable of, say, the word affectation is pronounced).
And I am again pleased to report how that ‘sincere practitioner’ not only turned their life around but has gone on and prospered, mightily, as a direct result of taking that advice.
Second, it should be obvious by now that the email exchange you addressed this current post of yours to was not [quote] ‘quite a shot in the arm’ [endquote] after all, inasmuch as your follow-up words – in your [quote] ‘I realised with this exchange more clearly than ever before the difference between enjoying the moment and conditional pleasure seeking’ [endquote] sentence – clearly refer to that hoary spiritual gnome of being/living ‘in the moment’ and/or ‘in the flow’ (and/or ‘in the present’ and/or ‘in the now’ and so on and so forth).
Lastly, and coming back to the remainder of your current email (your ‘quite a shot in the arm’ response in #161xx), here it is in an edited-for-brevity context.
Do you not see, upon a closer read-through, that although I definitively say ‘dependent upon no one, no thing, and no event’ you report how you looked at [quote] ‘the trees waving about in the warm summer air’ [endquote] which are clearly both things (‘trees’ and ‘air’) and events (‘looked at’ and ‘waving about’) by any definition of those two words?
More to the point, I also definitively say ‘perpetual, aeonian (beginningless and endless)’ solely by virtue of being alive/being here – as in, regardless of doing anything at all/of anything at all happening – as an engaged response to my co-respondent reporting just that ... to wit: ‘eventually the fascination *that it is this moment* sets in and I am once more enjoying life’ [emphasis added].
(Doing something pleasant/beneficial – or something pleasurable/beneficent happening – is a bonus on top of the sheer delight of being alive/being here).
This is why I oft-times say ‘it is all so simple here’ (here in actuality/ this actual world/ the sensate world).
Nothing, but nothing (no matter how unpleasant/ detrimental), can ever take away this sheer delight of being alive/being here at this very moment; one could be in solitary confinement, on that infamous bread and water diet, in some insalubrious penitentiary somewhere otherwise utterly displeasureable without this peerless perfection – this ‘perpetual, aeonian (beginningless and endless)’ purity of life itself/ existence per se – wavering one jot.
Verily, this verdant and azure planet is a pristine paradise.
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.