Richard’s Selected Correspondence
RESPONDENT: You might consider having a photo taken and going to Rabbit Photo; they will give you the photo on CD – in digital format – so you can have your image on the internet by this evening. Or you can keep limiting your exposure to your conceptualisation which in the end is as valid as mine; or Osho’s’; or Veeresh’s; or Ramana Maharshi’s; or Leonard Cohen’s; or Isaac Shapiro’s ...
RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with empty rhetoric again (with some brand-names thrown in for good measure).
RESPONDENT: Am I hearing that you consider each of these people – living or deceased – to have value ONLY as ‘brands’ – or alternatively, as fodder for the anti-branding brigade – rather than inherent value as an actual human person? In your way of seeing; do I have value as a person? Do you?
RICHARD: May I suggest taking my words at face value? I am always straightforward and up-front; there is no subterfuge, no hidden meaning, no secret agenda, no ulterior motive – I mean what I say and I say what I mean – and I have oft-times said that I like my fellow human being irregardless of whatever mischief they get up to. And if someone wants to be valued as an actual human being then they ought to get off their backside and do something about being actual instead of presenting an image for public consumption (although when that happens the whole notion of being valued is meaningless).
The term ‘brand-names’ has quite a common usage ... take the automobile industry, for example: Rolls Royce is a brand-name; Cadillac is a brand-name; Porsche is a brand-name; Lamborghini is a brand-name and so on. Each name conveys a quality according to public opinion or personal predilection ... consumers buy a car from a particular brand-name’s stable because of their track record; reliability, safety, after-sales service or whatever other criterion is considered valuable.
There is a corollary in the spiritual bazaar (given the billions of dollars that changes hands it is undeniable that there is a product being marketed with the discerning consumer in mind) and seekers are often uncompromising (sometimes to the point of being rabid) when it comes to lineage, for instance. And you mentioned some recognisable ‘brand-names’, to demonstrate your point, that are readily comparable to the commercial world of motor vehicles inasmuch as it could be said there is a Rolls, a Stretch Limousine, a Bentley, a Hearse and a Datsun Bluebird on offer.
RESPONDENT: I’ve come across a lot of stuff over the last several months, the actual freedom stuff included in the lot. Here’s a link to something that might go along with it. I’d like to know from you actualists out there if this seems like a method that would fit in with the endorsed way of working toward actual freedom; deals with an ‘original belief’ in the brain.
RICHARD: Rather than being a method of working toward an actual freedom from the human condition Mr. Wolfgang Bernard’s ‘Original Belief© Process’ is a method of working away from it … 180 degrees in the opposite direction, in fact.
RESPONDENT: Here it is ... www.wbern.firstream.net/. Read one of the top 2 articles to get the gist.
RICHARD: Okay … here is the gist of the first article, then:
An actual freedom from the human condition is what ensues when [quote] ‘our innermost being’ [endquote] altruistically ‘self’-immolates for the benefit of this body and that body and every body … which means that [quote] ‘the dimension of pre-sensory perception’ [endquote] also ceases to exist.
RICHARD: I have oft-times said that I have no solutions for life in the real-world ... the only solution is dissolution.
RESPONDENT: Yes, exactly Richard.
RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication here is what you have to say on your web site:
As you make it quite clear that you are ‘God Itself’ I do wonder just what it is that you are agreeing with ... because anybody who reads what I have to report with both eyes open is aware that by ‘dissolution’ I am referring to the extinction of identity in toto (which means not only ego-dissolution but the dissolution of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself, as well) whereupon Being, Presence, Self, Truth, or God by any other name, ceases to exist forever and the pristine purity of this actual world is immediate.
In other words: with no God to meddle in human affairs any longer one walks freely, as this flesh and blood body only, in the already existing peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: ‘Peace’ is an oxymoron, for all you ‘maroons’ out there. :-)
RICHARD: As the word ‘maroon’ variously means stranded, cut off, forsaken, left behind, and so on, I presume by ‘all you ‘maroons’’ you are meaning peoples who have the idea that they are a separate something or other, which keeps them locked in a body in time and space, when the truth is there is only God? Vis.:
May I ask? Just how much of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site have you read this last six months?
RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain’d, I stand and look at them long and long. They do not sweat and whine about their condition, they do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins, they do not make me sick discussing their duty to God, not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things, not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago, not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth. (Walt Whitman).
RICHARD: First of all it is pertinent to mention that Mr. Walt Whitman’s greatest theme, throughout his work, was a symbolic identification of the regenerative power of nature with the deathless divinity of the soul ... and although he was profoundly influenced by transcendentalist ideas, in particular the work of Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the following line of his perhaps best encapsulates his core experience/ understanding:
As for living with the animals: just for starters, anybody who considers that animals are ‘so placid’ (and therefore think to live with them and/or be like them and/or live as they do) can only be viewing them through a romanticist’s eyes ... by being born and raised on a farm being carved out of virgin forest I interacted with other animals – both domesticated and in the wild – from a very early age and have been able to observe again and again that, by and large, animals are not ‘so placid’ after all ... they are mostly on the alert, vigilant, scanning for attack, and prone to the fright-freeze-flee-fight reaction all sentient beings inherit.
Further to the point I was able to observe, and have maintained a life-long interest in observing, the correspondence the basic instinctual passions in the human animal have with the basic instinctual passions in the other animals ... to see the self-same feelings of fear and aggression and nurture and desire, for example, in other sentient beings renders any notion of living with them and/or being like them and/or living as they do simply ridiculous.
For some simple examples: I have seen a dog acting in a way that can only be called pining; I have watched a cat toying with a mouse in a manner that would be dubbed cruel; I have noticed cows ‘spooked’ and then stampede in what must be described as hysteria; I have beheld stallions displaying what has to be labelled aggression; I have observed many animals exhibiting what has to be specified as fear ... and even in these days of my retirement, from my comfortable suburban living room, I can tune into documentaries on this very topic: only recently a television series was aired again about observations made of chimpanzees over many, many years in their native habitat and I was able to identify fear, aggression, territoriality, civil war, robbery, rage, infanticide, cannibalism, nurture, grief, group ostracism, bonding, desire, and so on, being displayed in living colour.
It is easily discerned by those with the eyes to see that animals do not live in peace by being as they naturally are. The insistence that the animal state being a natural state and therefore somehow innocent which is held by many people is but a wistful ‘long lost golden age’ fantasy.
Now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal the blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto).
RICHARD: ... in regards the matter of ‘being’ itself: when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti talks of ‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’, and implies that there is no ego-self in ‘being’ (whereas there is in ‘becoming’), does this then not speak to you of being an impersonalised ‘presence’ (a soul-self by whatever name) ... rather than being an everyday ‘personality’ (ego-self) such as maybe 6.0 billion people are?
RESPONDENT: Yes, except for your term ‘soul-self’, which to me is identical with ‘ego-self’.
RICHARD: As the term soul-self refers to a spiritual identity, as in spirit-self for example, as distinct from ego-self which refers to a corporeal identity, as in body-self for example, are you saying that there is no spiritual dimension at all ... that everything is material including consciousness?
RESPONDENT: For me the spiritual dimension is the dimension beyond matter, its the essence out of which matter was born and to which it may be trying to return. (?)
RICHARD: Okay ... why then do you equate ‘soul-self’ (the spiritual-self) with ego-self (the material-self)?
RICHARD: For example: ‘We are going to concern ourselves now with what is called materialism. Materialism means evaluating life as matter, matter in its movement and modification, also matter as consciousness and will. We have to go into it to find out if there is anything more than matter and if we can go beyond it. (...) The brain, if you examine it, if you are rather aware of its activities, holds in its cells memory as experience and knowledge. What these cells hold is material; so thought, the capacity to think, is matter. And you can imagine, or construct through thought, as thought, ‘otherness’; that is to say, other than matter – but it is still matter as imagination. We know that we live in a material world, based on our sensations, desires, and emotions, and we construct a content of consciousness that is essentially the product of thought. We know that, if we do not just romanticise but go into it very deeply and seriously; yet knowing that, we say there must be an ‘otherness’, something beyond that. (...) We have this problem, which man right from the beginning has sought to solve, which is: Is all life mechanical? Is all life material? Is all existence, including mind and consciousness and will, matter? Is your whole life that? (Saanen, July 18, 1974; ‘Total Action Without Regret’ ©1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd.). Is this what you mean, when you say that soul-self is identical with ego-self, that any ‘otherness’ (that which is other than matter) is also material, a construct of thought operating as imagination?
RESPONDENT: Partly. I don’t think k is saying that the other is also material. But there is an ‘otherness’ that thought creates; a projection: ‘We say there must be an otherness’. That ‘otherness’ is material.
RICHARD: When I use the term ‘soul-self’ I am not using it in the sense of it being a product of thought but as that which is spiritual, non-material, other than matter, and so on ... would the term ‘spirit-self’ (as distinct from ‘ego-self’) serve the purpose of differentiation better?
RICHARD: As for being a spiritualist or of that ilk: he certainly was not a materialist; he spoke often of the ‘otherness’ (which he described as meaning ‘other than matter’); he spoke often of what it was to be truly religious; he declared that he had realised God or truth; he affirmed that what he was speaking of is enlightenment.
RESPONDENT: I don’t think K would appreciate you describing him as a spiritualist. That word has quite a lot of baggage, especially in Theosophical circles.
RICHARD: When I typed the word it had no ‘baggage’ whatsoever attached to it – and when I clicked ‘send’ it still carried none – so unless it accumulated some in transit, in the one-and-a-half seconds it bounced from earth to satellite to earth, the ‘baggage’ which you see can only have been added at your end. Here is the word I sent (plus some related words):
Also, I did add ‘or of that ilk’ just in case calling a spade a spade is not de rigueur.
RESPONDENT: But I agree that the ‘otherness’ is to be regarded as outside of ‘materialism’. If you have only black and white, that would make him the other colour.
RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is quite explicit on the subject:
It does seem that for him it is a case of ‘only black and white’ and, as he clearly defines what the word materialism stands for (‘materialism means ...’), it would indicate that ‘the other colour’ is indeed spiritualism.
Incidentally, seeing that for him the life of matter is [quote] ‘mechanical’ [endquote] it appears he never came across the third alternative to materialism and spiritualism:
RICHARD: As for living from the heart, rather than being in the head, the following quote may throw some light upon the matter: ‘There is no path to truth, it must come to you. (...) and it can come only when the mind is empty, when the mind ceases to create. Then it will come without your invitation. Then it will come as swiftly as the wind and unbeknown. It comes obscurely, not when you are watching, wanting. It is there as sudden as sunlight, as pure as the night; but to receive it, *the heart must be full and the mind empty. Now you have the mind full and your heart empty*. [emphasis added]. (August 1; ‘The Book of Life: Daily Meditations with J. Krishnamurti’; Published by HarperSanFrancisco. ©1999 Krishnamurti Foundation of America).
RESPONDENT: Yes, that highlighted sentence is representational of what K says elsewhere. It is one aspect of what he taught.
RICHARD: I demur ... it is central to what he was conveying (that only truth can set humankind free).
RICHARD: ... I am making the point that there are two aspects to identity: the thinking self (‘I’ as ego or ego-self) and the feeling self (‘me’ as soul or soul-self) and ‘me’ as soul, which is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, is ‘being’ itself ... and to be impersonalised ‘being’ itself (no longer ‘becoming’ or being an ego-self) is to be the enlightenment that is touted as being the peace which ego-bound peoples sorely need. Yet enlightened beings are still subject to anger and anguish, for example, as well as love and compassion. Hence my question a couple of e-mails back: if the thinking self can get such rigorous scrutiny as the mailing list gives it ... why not the feeling self? Is the feeling self sacrosanct?
RESPONDENT: Like thought, emotions or feelings (and these terms are not synonymous) are approached here in two basic ways. As an aspect of what we are, and as an aspect of perceptual distortion, or what we call images. For K, images are not to be taken as photographs in the mind, but involve an accumulation of emotional reactions, emotional memory. How we feel about an event becomes part of what conditions the memory, and past memories are part of what determines how we feel about what is currently happening. In this sense of distorting perception, and as a warehouse of these accumulated emotional memories, what you call the feeling self is treated along the same lines as the thinking self. Indeed, as we are speaking about the same sort of reactivity, the same mechanisms of conditioning, there is no reason to treat them distinctly. It all goes into the same pot. So the issue you raise comes down to the approach to emotion or feeling as descriptive of what we are. This approach to the facts of anger, fear, desire, hate, sympathy, kindness, caring, sensitivity, love, comes down to investigating the behaviour, how they function, how they effect us, how they arise, how they connect up with each other. That has the appearance of a theoretical or scientific discussion, yet for K that is not to really inquire into it. Inquiry requires an active state of observing, what he called choiceless awareness. That was not described as an affective state, nor as an aspect of thinking. The end point of this inquiry is perhaps where your question is heading. You seem to be saying that the end point must be freedom from these emotional states. But I think for K the end point was in the energy of that inquiry. That is the awakening of intelligence. Where that heads is not known, and cannot be directed. It simply unfolds as the action of that intelligence.
RICHARD: The end point of an enquiry into just what it is to be a human being is most certainly where my question is heading ... and I have always been upfront and out in the open about what that end point is: to be freed of identity in toto – of both the ego-self and the soul-self (an intuitive ‘presence’ or ‘being’ itself which is the affections and out of which ego arises) – so as to be living in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body only.
Because then, and only then, can the ‘meaning of life’, or the ‘purpose of existence’, or however one’s quest may be described, become apparent as an on-going experiencing.
RESPONDENT: P.S.: A friend of mine it’s very interested in your comments about Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Have you something written about it, or could you send me some comments? Thank you.
RICHARD: I found the following quote on the internet:
Amongst other things he is saying that he is not the body ... that he is the limitless being.
RESPONDENT: Do you Know Jim Leonard? He has promoted a method to enjoying all in life, he called it Vivation. It’s developed from the Rebirthing technique, but it’s completely opposite in essence. I insist you in exploring what Jim and Vivation proposes, because I think he is very near in his approach to yours. He emphasizes emotional dealing, as associated with spontaneous and mobile breathing. He promotes experiencing actually how ‘negative’ emotions can be ‘integrated’, in his terms, what means a transformation in ‘positive’ ones, for instance, anger integrates in determination, fear in alert, sorrow in gratefulness. I think you can study more carefully his writings, maybe in the web.
RICHARD: I found the following quote on the internet which speaks for itself:
RESPONDENT: Another approach you could maybe explore, for its possible similitude with actualism in a practice called Katsugen-undo, that means in Japanese regenerative movement. It consists in letting the involuntary system of the body operate freely. In this practice, there is a main insistence in the primitive brain, that control involuntary reflects and movements. By the practice, all the conditioning about the more primitive responses of the body dissolves, and the body recovers innocent spontaneity, and sensitivity. In this process also breathing arises spontaneously, and emotions, that also normalises. Both Katsugen-undo and Vivation process, can and should also be applied in daily life. The main introductor of Katsugen was Ichio Tsuda.
RICHARD: I found the following quote on the internet which also speaks for itself:
RESPONDENT: By the end, do you know about Douglas Harding? Explore also about him, he explains a path he calls the headless way. He, as you, states the inexistence of a perceptor, only the world is perceived in all its magnificence and extreme brightness. If you have the time to investigate on him, you will see by your own.
RICHARD: I found the following quote on the internet which clearly indicates, amongst other names, that it is the enlightened state he is talking about:
RESPONDENT: It’s very possible that you have yet explored about these people, in this case, please say me what do you think about them, if it is convenient. Thanks.
RESPONDENT: I stopped expecting any divine intervention to save me.
RICHARD: There has been no need for a Supernatural Agency all along. The ‘Human Condition’ is such that it can readily respond to the do-it-yourself method; the ability is within the human character to fix things up for itself. The intervention of some Divine miracle-worker is never going to happen anyway, for there is no such creature. Human beings are on their own, free to manage their own affairs as they see fit. Whenever one thinks about it, would one have it any other way? If that fictitious Almighty Being were to come sweeping in on a cloud, waving a wonder-wand and putting everything to rights, would not one feel cheated? Would not one question why human beings had to wait so long upon the capricious whim of some self-righteous God who could have acted long ago? It is all nonsense, upon sober reflection!
RESPONDENT: I became more sceptical as far as what other people say about these spiritual matters.
RICHARD: Humanity has been living-out a gigantic mass-hallucination for aeons ... all the Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons, all the battles that have raged throughout the ages are but a nightmare of passionate ‘human’ fantasy.
RESPONDENT: One does not become the other. They are two aspects of one actuality. So the interest in a non-dualistic approach is not becoming water or one with water but rather in understanding what is this fish that appears to be separate from the water? The issue is not how do I get what I want but rather, what is?
RICHARD: Indeed ... you are, more or less acceptably, describing the Advaita Vedantist approach, (with ‘Brahma’ and ‘Maya’ being two aspects of ‘That’), and that the aim is not to ‘become’ but to ‘be’; to realise that one has never been separate from ‘what is’ (as ‘Brahma’) in the first place because ‘what is’ (as ‘Maya’) is seen to be the ‘what is’ known in Hinduism as being ‘That’ (as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti describes so well in at the very end of seven dialogues over three days with Mr. David Bohm and Mr. David Shainburg). Vis.:
Funny how you described the ‘dualistic approach’ as ‘starting with a belief’ but were remarkably silent about the belief part of the ‘non-dualistic approach’ eh? Because ‘seeing in the false the truth’ is code-word for seeing in ‘what is’ as ‘Maya’ (the false) the ‘what is’ as ‘Brahma’ (the truth), and that ‘this seeing’ (that ‘Maya’ is ‘Brahma’) is a ‘state of meditation’ (which is another way of saying ‘one must start with freedom’) which is essential in order to come upon ‘the ultimate thing’ ... which is ‘That’ (the Hindu ‘timeless and spaceless and formless absolute).
It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. At the end of the line there is always a god of some description (‘supreme intelligence’), lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its ‘Teachings’. Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living? I have, and it is hideous. But, if it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing.
RESPONDENT: Richard I think you are an intelligent person, but I don’t think you have the awakening you think you do.
RICHARD: I had already distinctly gained that impression from your previous responses to what I write. May I ask? What has happened to your famed ‘telepathy’ that you have to resort to common or garden thinking when it comes to sussing me out? You have this ability to access ‘the astral universes’ and count ‘all the inhabitants’ there ... yet you ‘think’ that I ‘don’t have the awakening’ ? Where is the infallible intuition – aka your ‘totally accurate’ feelings and non-interpreted ‘ideas’ – when you need it most? Are you ‘trying to understand using your intellect’ ... and having some difficulty using that moth-balled-for-24-years machinery again to its full effect?
Thinking is such a delightful episodic event.
RESPONDENT: My experience is that almost 100% of awakened people went thru the agency of some teacher or guru, that this is not the sort of thing that can be self-taught. Did you do that?
RICHARD: First ... I am not ‘awakened’ (for although to awake in a dream is to be lucidly dreaming one is still dreaming nevertheless), I am actually free of the human condition. Any ‘awakening’ is still within the human condition.
RESPONDENT: And if so, who did you learn from? I myself had two teachers, Stephen Gaskin and John Panama. Also, if you are claiming realization, then you should be able to test it in others.
RICHARD: If I may point out? I am not claiming ‘realisation’ ... I am actually free of the human condition. This is an actualisation of the already always existing peace-on-earth ... not a realisation of one’s ideas, one’s inner dreams and hopes. If I may refer you to the following exchange? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: I claim to be able to do that as should you be able to. If you can come to the United States, I would be happy to meet with you and you could test me and I you. This may clear up some of the confusion.
RICHARD: I am not interested in ‘testing’ you (or anyone else) ... it is of no concern to me whether you are fully realised or not: spiritual enlightenment sucks. And for as long as you continue to see me in terms of ‘awakening’ or ‘realisation’ or ‘enlightenment’ or any other name for the ‘Tried and True’ you would be wasting your time ... there is no ‘being’ lurking around inside this flesh and blood body to put through the hoops. For example: an awakened ‘Spiritual ‘Teacher’ personally checked me out face-to-face some years ago ... and made me the subject of the nightly discourse, warning the faithful followers that Richard is an example of the dangers on the spiritual path. To wit: Richard is insane. As the ubiquitously called ‘straight’ people (regular society) in the West consider that anyone dabbling in things mystical are the ‘lunatic fringe’ (conveniently ignoring the fact that their ‘God On Earth’ is one of them), I am sure that they must find it quaint that one lunatic would ‘test’ another lunatic and declare him to be insane (thereby implying that the ‘tester’ is not).
RESPONDENT: ‘I’ as an ego can die, but are not these living cells what we mean by ‘soul’?
RICHARD: Living cells are not what I refer to when I say or write ‘‘me’ as soul’ ... I am referring to precisely what the religious, the spiritual, the mystical peoples are pointing to.
RESPONDENT: I realize that your arguments make you an atheist which makes you all knowing – knowing that there is no ‘otherness’.
RICHARD: It is my direct experience which produces atheism ... my ‘arguments’ are a story put together after the event, as it were, so as to describe my experience to my fellow human beings using their lingo.
RESPONDENT: Who made you God to know it all?
RICHARD: As it is your hypothesis ... I will leave it to you to answer. However, I am on record as oft-times saying that I am not an expert on everything – only on a freedom from the human condition – and any other knowledge that I have is what I call ‘encyclopaedic’ ... whatever is just enough information gleaned from other people’s explorations for me to get by on.
RESPONDENT: That seems rather strange for a person whose belief in atheism holds that there is no ‘all knowing God’.
RICHARD: But I have no ‘belief’ in atheism ... atheism is what is just here right now when one does not believe in gods and goddesses. Here is a useful working definition of what is actual (useful for a fledgling ex-believer):
RESPONDENT: I had been considering unsubscribing from the list again; as I find the constant belliteration on the part of the priesthood a bit difficult to interact with; but I have been remaining for the joy of reading No. 10’s Extremely Patient and Forthright and Perceptive Challenging of the Coagulating Cultic Communications. Please continue No. 10. You are being read, enjoyed, appreciated and acknowledged!!
RICHARD: As you included the correspondence addressed to me (along with your term ‘the priesthood’ ) in this post of yours you are obviously deliberately including me in your previous attempts to deprecate peace-on-earth, in this life-time as this flesh and blood body, by categorising actualism as a ‘religion’ and a ‘cult’ ... and now ‘cultic communications’. Vis.:
As I am on record as saying – over and again – that I lived the religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical and/or metaphysical ‘Tried and True’ solution to all the ills of humankind night and day for eleven years – and found it wanting by virtue of it being a massive megalomaniacal delusion – I fail to see what point it is you consider you are making. I am also on record as saying:
Your response (at the top of the page) is all the more curious bearing in mind that you posted a circular a little while ago promoting a spiritually-based workshop inspired by the teachings of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain (a self acknowledged never-born never-died enlightened being) who carefully and publicly set-up what he called his religion a few years before he ‘quit the body’ (as is evidenced in books published under his name such as ‘The Rajneesh Bible’ and so on) replete with an inner circle ‘priesthood’ of 21 acknowledged disciples. Vis.:
You are obviously more than just superficially involved in this organisation as you were able to offer a discount ... and a visit to the ‘Humaniversity’ Web Site elicits this information:
I see the words <spiritual>, <enlightened>, <mystic>, <osho>, <sannyasins>, <disciples>, <spirit> and <self-realisation> in this introductory paragraph on the ‘Humaniversity’ Web Site. Do you not see that you are but belittling yourself in your futile attempts to belittle an actual freedom from the human condition? Also, if you consider those series of responses, in the correspondence addressed to me which you included in your post, as being ‘Extremely Perceptive and Challenging’ then obviously you too cannot see the difference, between a channelled theosophy that glorifies the self by promoting it as being a bodiless spirit which is an aspect of a god named ‘All That Is’ – to the detriment of the body – and an actual freedom from the human condition which values salubrious physical existence and peace-on-earth in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body.
Because, in case you missed it, the central thesis of the wisdom of the spirit known a ‘Seth’, in the paragraph that initiated this thread, was a wisdom that promotes a ‘blessed natural aggressiveness’, by equating what a cat does with a mouse as being ‘playfully killing’ and thus ‘that innocent sense of integrity’ and ‘sense of justice’ wherein there is a ‘biological compassion’ because (and this is the central argument) the ‘consciousness of the mouse’ (and a ‘terrified mouse’ at that) ‘leaves its body’ via an ‘innate knowledge of impending pain’, as being a ‘‘new’ consciousness’ by virtue of the ‘emerging triumph’ known as ‘free will’ whereupon all these instinctual impulses are somehow ‘superseded’ by an ‘emotional reality’ induced by ‘the birth of guilt’ wherein committing all the aforementioned mayhem and misery is now felt as being a ‘suggestion’ to live by rather than a ‘rule’ ... and gratuitously called ‘freedom’.
This inhumane ‘suggestion’ and gruesome ‘‘new’ consciousness’ (condoning and/or advocating homicide as it is the body and not the consciousness which is killed) is identical to that divine wisdom found in the Bhagavad-Gita where Mr. Krishna (‘God’ by whatever name) assures Mr. Arjuna that it is quite okay to kill his relatives in war because he would not be killing the person anyway but only the body.
That is what a ‘religion’, a ‘cult’, a ‘priesthood’ and ‘cultic communications’ really look like ... seeking to save one’s spurious ‘immortal soul’ at the cost of peace-on-earth. Which is why all the religious wars have raged across the centuries ... not to forget all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like that have been perpetuated forever and a day via the ‘trickle-on’ effect of the morality and ethicality derived from their unliveable ‘Teachings’ (which ‘Teachings’ are based upon their belief that they are ‘not the body’). Doctrines like pacifism, acceptance, being non-judgemental and living in unconditional love, for example.
RICHARD: Perhaps you might like to reconsider the position you may have inadvertently taken?
RESPONDENT: The position I take has not changed an iota. I take the position that your disciples are more interested in being right than being free; and that the cult they are subsequently developing is as irrelevant to Actual Freedom as any other religious doctrine.
RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... but perhaps upon sober reflection you might like to reconsider this ‘your disciples’ are the ‘inner priesthood’ of an ‘actualism cult’ which ‘inner divinity’ propagate ‘cultic communications’ as does ‘any other religious doctrine’ position which you may have inadvertently rigidly stuck to, eh? Because nowhere in all the latest responses of yours have you even come close to addressing the key point of this thread: ‘The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit’. Just as the previous respondent passed-up three opportunities to focus upon the one and only point I am making, so too have you chosen to discuss all manner of things rather than attend to this ‘Ancient Wisdom’. And, of course, you may respond to this E-Mail in any way you see fit – or not answer at all – but the one thing, and one thing only that this thread is about, is the central reason as to why there is no peace on earth after 3,000 to 5,000 years of enlightened wisdom. To wit:
RESPONDENT: Earnest inquiry is to inquire into one’s own bias. As they say in Scotland, the rest is just Crrraap!
RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day?
RESPONDENT: LOL – what is it that seeks an ending?
RICHARD: The ‘earnest enquiry’ does ... else why so busy earnestly enquiring in the first place?
RESPONDENT: Just for the love of truth, not to get something for me.
RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to an earnest enquiry ‘for the love of truth’ ... or do you intend to earnestly enquire for ever and a day?
RESPONDENT: Look into a matter directly and there is no tomorrow.
RICHARD: There is no tomorrow anyway, whether you ‘look into a matter directly’ or not, as the past is not actual, the future is not actual ... only this moment is actual. Do you ever countenance an end to earnestly enquiring just for the love of truth and busily looking into matters directly so that there will be no tomorrow (when there already is no tomorrow anyway) ... or do you intend to be earnest and enquiring and loving the truth and looking into matters for ever and a day?
RESPONDENT: Attention that ‘sees’ is free of concern about coming or going, staying or arriving.
RICHARD: Then why is the ‘attention that ‘sees’’ so busy earnestly enquiring instead of getting on with the business of seeing attentively? Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? (By my estimate you have about 96 more stock-standard responses to work through before you scrape the bottom of the barrel ... shall we take the next 95 as read and thus cut to the chase sooner?). It is the intent that matters ... not this or that looking, seeing, attending and etcetera.
RESPONDENT: To truly listen is to lose interest in giving chase.
RICHARD: Are you so sure that by truly listening you will lose interest in ‘giving chase’ and earnestly enquiring for the love of truth so as to not get something for yourself about what it is that is seeking an ending through looking into matters directly in order to banish the tomorrow that has no actuality anyway whilst seeing attentively with the aim of being free of concern about coming or going and staying or arriving? On what do you base your certainty?
RESPONDENT: There are no means to communicate centre-less awareness to those that assume the duality of experiencer separate from experience. There is no one to give chase and nothing to chase after.
RICHARD: Yet I was not assuming ‘the duality of experiencer separate from experience’ ... I was expressing my appreciation to a fellow correspondent for so clearly demonstrating and explicating the outcome of ‘listening’. Vis.:
It was you who came in with all kinds of dualistic notions about earnestly enquiring for the love of truth so as to not get something for yourself about what it is that is seeking an ending through looking into matters directly in order to banish the tomorrow that has no actuality anyway whilst seeing attentively with the aim of being free of concern about coming or going and staying or arriving plus truly listening in order to lose interest in giving chase ... not me. I never have to earnestly enquire; I never have to have a love of truth so as to not get something for myself; I never have to directly look into matters so as to banish the tomorrow that does not exist anyway; I never have to attentively see so as to be free of the concern of coming or going and staying or arriving; I never have to truly listen so as to lose interest in giving chase ... I am already always just here right now.
At various points throughout your one-liner dualistic monologues I endeavoured to stem the flow of duality by advocating the activation of the intent to have it not go on for ever and a day – but to no avail – yet now you do some kind of backwards head-flip from the sitting lotus, levitate onto an airy-cushion of aloofness, and attempt to blarney your way out of your own cul-de-sac by telling me that ‘there are no means to communicate centre-less awareness to those that assume the duality of experiencer separate from experience’ ... even though all you are communicating is dualistic advice from your pseudo non-dualistic position.
RESPONDENT: Wisdom is openness to ‘what is’ which is ever-changing.
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I started being open to the ever-changing ‘what is’ in January 1981; earnest enquiry led to ‘what is’ blossoming and by September 1981 ‘what is’ flowered into the full bloom of its wisdom; earnest enquiry into the fully blooming wisdom of ‘what is’ flourished throughout the ‘eighties; earnest enquiry into the flourishing wisdom of ‘what is’ led to ‘what is’ beginning to wilt early in the ‘nineties ... and ‘what is’ died towards the end of October 1992. Thus ‘what is’ is dead, extinct ... and its wisdom is no more.
RESPONDENT: Do we see our aggressiveness, our ambition, our compulsion to dominate?
RICHARD: You will need to indicate what you mean by ‘we’ ... is it the royal ‘we’ aka No. 12? If so, as you have already informed me that you are earnestly enquiring into ‘what is’ (for the love of truth and not to get something for yourself) then it would appear that you apparently do see (or partly see) your aggressiveness, your ambition, your compulsion to dominate and etcetera. If by ‘we’ you mean to indicate ‘humanity’ at large then ... some of them do and most of them do not (at a guess). If by ‘we’ you mean you and me ... then, apart from your own seeing (or part seeing) of yourself, you have obviously not been reading my words with both eyes open: I see that I specifically wrote, in my previous E-Mail, ‘I never have to earnestly enquire ... I am already always just here right now’. Plus I have oft-times mentioned to you, in many, many past exchanges that, concomitant to the extinction of identity in toto (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in 1992, the entire affective faculty vanished, never to return. Thus ‘what is’ and the ‘truth’ is dead, extinct
RESPONDENT: It is clear that [we] often do not, and it shows in our behaviour.
RICHARD: Yes, ‘what is’ does show in the behaviour of ‘humanity’ at large. As for yourself ... that supple attempt in the previous E-Mail to blarney your way out of your own cul-de-sac, even though all you were communicating was dualistic advice from your pseudo non-dualistic position, certainly gives the impression that the ‘what is’ you nurse to your bosom (and which you are earnestly enquiring into for the love of truth) is firing on all cylinders. Do you ever countenance an end to an earnest enquiry for the love of truth ... or do you intend to earnestly enquire for ever and a day?
RESPONDENT: That which by its very nature is not striving can not be made into a continuity. The striving mind is that which seeks continuity as if peace could be imposed through choice or intent. What is not of time has its own constancy but it can not be rightly claimed as yours or mine. If there is insight into the nature of the problem of self, it is clear that it can not be solved through effort.
RICHARD: Yet all that I am asking is whether you ever countenance an end to an earnest enquiry into ‘the ever-changing ‘what is’’ or whether you intend to earnestly enquire for ever and a day. Perhaps some words from the man you like to quote may ease your way to addressing this simple question? Vis. (emphasis added):
RESPONDENT No. 12: Richard ... a few days ago I put forward my point of view that ‘Richard is an Artist and the material he works with is fools’. I have changed my viewpoint Richard. My current viewpoint is that ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’ is a vehicle and the driver they are using is a fool. My current viewpoint is that Richard you are being, or will be, used.
RICHARD: Hmm ... I recall that on 14/06/2000 you were proposing to the contributors to The Actual Freedom Mailing List that they consider participating in ‘... an actual freedom workshop, a weekend of exploring together what it means to be actually free on this planet in the year 2000 ... Byron Bay in the Spring’. This proposal of yours came just after your circular on 6/06/2000 advertising and promoting a spiritually-based tantric-sex workshop that you were collecting the $375.00 participation fee for. You are not the only person to try to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion ... and you will not be the last.
RESPONDENT: Richard, what do you mean by the phrase spiritually-based in the above statement: ‘... and promoting a spiritually-based ...?
RICHARD: I will provide a copy of the correspondence I wrote at the time and you may see for yourself:
I have always found that honesty and facts sit so well together and provide a firm basis for a sensible discussion 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.
RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard. You asked me to see it myself what you meant by the term spiritually-based. So you used the adjective spiritually-based for the workshop because the Humaniversity used words such as ‘spiritual connection’ and ‘human spirit’ in their introduction. And I do not understand neither their usage nor your usage of those terms.
RICHARD: Okay ... the word ‘spirit’ means:
... the word ‘spiritual’ means:
... the word ‘spiritually’ means:
Therefore ‘spiritually-based’ means based upon or sourced in the immaterial spirit as opposed to the physical body, hence a ‘spiritually-based workshop’ means ‘a weekend of exploring together what it means’ for the immaterial spirit ‘to be actually free on this planet in the year 2000’ and not ‘a weekend of exploring together what it means’ for the flesh and blood body to be experiencing an actual freedom from the human condition ‘on this planet in the year 2000’.
Consequently ‘a strong spiritual connection to the enlightened Indian Mystic Osho’ means a connection or a relationship to the immaterial spirit known as the enlightened Indian Mystic Osho and not an association with the physical body otherwise known as Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain. Similarly, ‘human spirit’ means that the Humaniversity is focused on the fulfilment of the immaterial spirit in the human body and not on the fulfilment of physical body itself.
As an ‘immaterial spirit’ is not a physical world actuality but an ‘inner world’ reality, I have always found that honesty and facts sit so well together and provide a firm basis for a sensible discussion 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. If a co-respondent wishes to talk about a spiritual freedom as distinct from an actual freedom it would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of E-mails if they would not persist in being duplicitous and fanciful ... to the point of ridiculousness.
RESPONDENT: Thanks again for explaining what you mean by the terms spirit, spiritual and spiritual based.
RICHARD: You are very welcome ... it is strange, is it not, that there be peoples who do not comprehend that terms like ‘the spiritual world’ and ‘spiritual freedom’ refer to the world of the spirit (the ‘inner’ world) with its subjective reality, called truths, and not to the material world (the ‘outer’ world) with its objective actuality, called facts?
RESPONDENT: Now I am curious, how you determine that the workshop was/is a spiritual based.
RICHARD: It did not take very much research at all as I recall ... the relevant URL’s were provided.
RESPONDENT: From your last message, I concluded that you determined that the workshop was spiritual-based merely because the Humaniversity used words such as ‘spiritual connection’ and ‘human spirit’ in their introduction.
RICHARD: Oh, no ... I went through the entire Humaniversity Web Page and the associated Web Pages. It is just that I cannot fit all of it into an E-Mail that I selected only part of their introduction as a summary.
RESPONDENT: If you really came to your conclusion as I have thought you did, then, for my taste, your method and hence your conclusion about the workshop may or may not be the correct one.
RICHARD: If you are at all interested I would recommend doing your own research on the relevant Web Pages so as to dissolve your ‘may or may not be’ dilemma ... as I said: I could not fit all of it into an E-Mail. I can, however, provide a short, edited paragraph where Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain talks about what he means by ‘spirit’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘therapy’ in these types of workshops. Vis.:
Again ... I have selected only part of his discourse as being but a brief summary. There is much, much more in this vein than the little which I have quoted.
RICHARD: As an ‘immaterial spirit’ is not a physical world actuality but an ‘inner world’ reality, I have always found that honesty and facts sit so well together and provide a firm basis for a sensible discussion 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.
RESPONDENT: I have no experience of ‘immaterial spirit’. And hence if I ask you a question relating to ‘spirit’ or ‘spiritual’, the question is going to be quite speculative and not totally based on facts.
RICHARD: Yet everything about ‘spirit’ or ‘spiritual’ could be called speculative as it is all a subjective ‘inner world’ reality anyway. However, as so many people have come upon the same, or similar, subjective ‘inner world’ reality, over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history, subjective reality has taken-on the appearance of being more valid than objective actuality.
Hence all the misery and mayhem goes on unchecked.
RESPONDENT: If you do not like that I will not ask you questions about things/ phenomena I have not experienced.
RICHARD: I am only too happy to talk about these ‘things/ phenomena’ so as to clear the way for a sensible discussion ... I have only ever been interested in peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.
RICHARD: ... and (as also mentioned in that same e-mail) at age twenty two or thereabouts she said that she sometimes wished she had had a normal child/father relationship as, unlike her then girlfriends who were getting married and having children of their own, she had ‘inherited’ a quest to pursue and could not settle down.
RESPONDENT: Do you know what happened to the quest she inherited, presumably, from your enlightened years?
RICHARD: Having openly and frankly discussed the events of her formative years on both that occasion and another a year or two later – plus having given her a copy of ‘Richard’s Journal’ and the address of The Actual Freedom Trust web site – there is every possibility that it has been shaken off.
RESPONDENT: What has that drive led her to investigate?
RICHARD: I do not know – being now an adult for many years she lives her own life completely independent of her erstwhile father – but going by what I recall, from the age twenty two or thereabouts conversation, she had investigated what some spiritual/mystical peoples have had to report ... specifically, and not surprisingly, where it pertained to love (in all its forms and variations).
RESPONDENT: The reason I ask is because the three people I know of that have achieved either an actual or a virtual freedom – yourself, Peter, and Vineeto – all went through a spiritual period. Do you find this to be merely coincidental ...
RICHARD: Yes and no ... yes, it is coincidental insofar as spirituality/ mysticality has been the only alternative to materialism (up until now) and no, it is not, because the drive which has (previously) led to that is, fundamentally, the same intrinsic urge which inspires investigation into the third alternative.
RESPONDENT: ... or is there some significance in it – such that would suggest that an inclination towards actualism is not likely if not preceded by an inclination towards spiritualism ...
RICHARD: It is the inclination to know, to find out once and for all, the meaning of life which precedes any such proclivity.
RESPONDENT: ... or that a prior interest in and pursuit of spiritualism has – even if by example of what not to do – been helpful in the practise of actualism?
RICHARD: Not specifically ... no; parenthetically ... yes, of course.
RESPONDENT: Do you know of anyone who has achieved a virtual freedom who has never had an interest in spirituality or held spiritual beliefs?
RICHARD: I am yet to come across anyone who has never had an interest in spirituality, in some form or another, or has never held spiritual beliefs (no matter how attenuated they might be).
RESPONDENT: Are there any practising actualists who have never had an interest in spirituality or held spiritual beliefs?
RICHARD: You might as well ask whether there has been any practicing materialists who have never had or held same ... religiosity/ spirituality/ mysticality/ metaphysicality, of some type or degree, is as ubiquitous as the human condition itself.
RICHARD: (...) Put succinctly: an enlightened/ awakened/ transformed identity is still an identity, nevertheless.
RESPONDENT: As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I ...
RICHARD: As you are on record as stating there is no difference between an altered state of consciousness (ASC) and a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is not at all surprising. Vis.:
Which could be why you snipped-off that which was being put succinctly. Vis.:
But, then again, it could also be because you say you have never understood the distinction between ego-self/ the thinker and spirit-self/ the feeler (aka soul-self). Vis.:
RESPONDENT: ... [As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I], Buddha, Huang Po, Wei Wu Wei, et al.
RICHARD: As Mr. Terence Gray, who published his scholarly works under the pseudonym ‘Wei Wu Wei’, was not free of the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) then his usage of such terminology is also quite rightly suspect.
RESPONDENT: They stipulate unequivocally that there is no identity to become enlightened.
RICHARD: Nowhere in the Pali Canon does Mr. Gotama the Sakyan deny the existence of self: what he expressly states is that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic, SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66). Vis.:
As for Mr. Huang-po ... here is what he had to say (from a translation found in Mr. Stephen Mitchell’s ‘The Enlightened Mind – An Anthology of Sacred Prose’, Harper Perennial, 1991):
RESPONDENT: Perhaps you mean that the identity is extant ‘after’ enlightenment?
RICHARD: Aye, the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) must also cease to exist in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition.
RESPONDENT: No argument there ... first there is a mountain etc.
RICHARD: What you are referring to is from a discourse attributed to Mr. Ch’ing yuan Wei-hsin. Vis.:
He then goes on to ask:
CO-RESPONDENT: I also have a link to share with you and perhaps you will find it of some interest: www.selftransformation.org/purpose.html.
RICHARD: The following words, from the second paragraph on that page, speak for themselves: [quote] ‘Transformation is the birth of a new human being, and it begins with speaking the truth about self to yourself. This will open the door to yourself, and when this transformational event happens in the individual, the old and trained conditioned self can die, and a new self can be born’. [endquote]. As do these: [quote] ‘Since that day November 19, 1979, and as I write these words, I have been living what could be called an in-the-body life, a life of living each second and watching every movement and emotion as they happen’. [endquote].
CO-RESPONDENT: Free from all beliefs.
RICHARD: On the contrary ... here is the mother of all beliefs (also from that second paragraph on the page you provided a link to): [quote] ‘Transformation of self will birth a new consciousness on earth, and it is this consciousness that will ultimately save us from ourselves’. [endquote].
RESPONDENT: I’m glad you have broken down what he is saying Richard. I have told [name deleted] time and again that he is spiritual which he still denies because he says he doesn’t believe in God so he thinks he is not spiritual. The way you have taken apart what he is saying makes it easy to say how he is spiritual. The dead giveaway for me is when he talks about love and oneness.
RICHARD: It only took me a few minutes to find the following (posted on Saturday, 25 Feb 2006):
RESPONDENT: I think I see your point here: What he is calling ‘unknown (creation/ intelligence)’ is God by any other name even though he says he doesn’t believe in God.
RICHARD: That new human being (aka a new consciousness/a new self/the self outside of time/the self not of thought), born of that transformational event, does not need to believe in a deity because that being, that consciousness, that self, is the truth.
RICHARD: ... just as the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) has to die, for spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment (aka transformation) to occur, so too does the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition. Put succinctly: an enlightened/awakened/transformed identity is still an identity, nevertheless.
CO-RESPONDENT: Perhaps you mean that the identity is extant ‘after’ enlightenment?
RICHARD: Aye, the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) must also cease to exist in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition.
RESPONDENT: If the ‘feeler’ (spirit-self) still exists does this mean that one is still spiritual?
RICHARD: When one is enlightened/ awakened/ transformed (or seeking enlightenment/ awakenment/ transformation) then ... yes.
RESPONDENT: I obviously still have a feeler but I don’t have any spiritual beliefs left that I know of. In other words, is one still spiritual as long as they have a ‘feeler’ even though they don’t have any spiritual beliefs?
RICHARD: That issue was extensively canvassed a couple of years ago ... most of which can be found at the following URL:
Just in case you cannot access that page here are the most relevant sections (edited for length):
RESPONDENT: I disagree only insofar as you present it to be a ‘discovery’ – I think this mode of perception has been around pretty long, together with different classifications as good – ‘happy and harmless’, or just beyond classifications – or bad – as some mental ‘disorder’.
RICHARD: I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching television, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty four years now, for information on being a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto), but to no avail.
RESPONDENT: From this, I gather that the usual phrasing that ‘beyond enlightenment, you become ‘perfectly ordinary’ is not what it means to be a flesh and blood body only.
RICHARD: As you go on to give Mr. Edgar Hofer, currently known by the acronym ‘OWK’ (from ‘Oh! Who Knows’) as an example of what becoming [quote] ‘perfectly ordinary’ [endquote] is after enlightenment then the following passage from his book may be self-explanatory:
If it is not this one should be:
RESPONDENT: Or – is it?
RICHARD: No, a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto hosts no identity at all/has no feelings whatsoever – thereby living a life free of both the duality and non-duality such a faculty/ entity automatically creates by its very presence – and is thus already always directly experiencing the ultimate experience ... whether doing something (such as writing) or doing nothing.
RESPONDENT: The typical Zen saying that mountains are mountains again, only a little more so?
RICHARD: What you are referring to is a Koan – from a discourse attributed to Mr. Ch’ing yuan Wei-hsin – and not descriptive prose. Vis.:
It is obviously not descriptive prose because he then asks:
Here is a clue: the second understanding is per favour the comprehension of (buddhistic) emptiness.
RESPONDENT: You certainly don’t depend upon hearing your ideas in their exact phrasing to recognize them.
RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not about ideals either ... or beliefs, concepts, opinions, conjectures, speculations, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, surmises, inferences, judgements, intellectualisations, imaginations, posits, postulations, images, analyses, viewpoints, views, stances, perspectives, standpoints, positions, world-views, mind-sets, states-of-mind, frames-of-mind, or any other of the 101 ways, of overlooking direct reports of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.
RESPONDENT: What distinguishes Actual Freedom from the Zen teachings of Hui-neng or Huang-po?
RICHARD: For just one example here is an edited-for-brevity version of Mr. Hui-neng’s final instructions (from Chapter X of the ‘The Treasure Of The Law’ sutra):
Whereas (for example):
And, by way of another example, here is an edited-for-brevity version of what Mr. Huang-po had to say (from a translation found in Mr. Stephen Mitchell’s ‘The Enlightened Mind – An Anthology of Sacred Prose’, Harper Perennial, 1991):
Whereas (for example):
In other words, when this flesh and blood body dies this mind also ceases to operate.
RESPONDENT: (They are both sources of Alan Watts, as you know, but I found the originals, at least Hui-neng, more exhilarating).
RICHARD: I did not know that Mr. Hui-neng and Mr. Huang-po were sources for Mr. Alan Watts ... and neither did I find either of them at all interesting, just now, whilst copy-pasting the above quotes (let alone exhilarating).
RESPONDENT: At first sight, there appear to me to be some similarities, so I would be delighted to learn precisely what it is that you do/experience differently from them.
RICHARD: Just for starters: there is this on-going experience of a world beyond their ken ... to wit: this actual world (the sensate world) which is the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum.
RESPONDENT: And could you describe, briefly, in what respect you moved ‘beyond Mr. Nagarjuna’?
RICHARD: You can only be referring to this:
Given that the above response of mine was to a co-respondent desirous of [quote] ‘explaining the metaphysics of the world viewed called actualism’ [endquote] to me then the briefest description would be to say that it is not all that difficult to go beyond a philosopher – any mystic is, by default, beyond a metaphysician – and especially one who received occult teachings from the nether world, such as Mr. Joseph Smith, of the ‘Book of Mormon’ fame, did for the west, which Mr. Gotama the Sakyan had (purportedly) considered too profound for his contemporaries to receive, seven or eight centuries prior, whilst he was then residing in a flesh and blood body.
In case that is still not clear: my co-respondent, who was not even self-realised (let alone fully enlightened/ awakened), was busily instructing me on how to become a metaphysician like Mr. Alan Watts, Mr. Nagarjuna, and all the rest, were ... even though it had been made clear, to my co-respondent, on many and varied an occasion that I had lived that/was that, which metaphysicians studiously review reports of and make erudite pronouncements about, night and day for eleven years.
RICHARD: Therefore, if you could provide web page links, book titles, magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever it is that you are privy to, wherein the words of the people can be found who have written about a [quote] ‘mode of perception’ [endquote] such as to occasion you to think it be the same as an actual freedom from the human condition, I would be most pleased.
RESPONDENT: A recent example for becoming ‘perfectly ordinary’ or ‘beyond enlightenment’, although inspired by Osho in the interpretation of his state can be found at the site of an Austrian [www.owk-satsang.com/]. The English version needs your overlooking grammar and spelling.
RICHARD: Both what Mr. Edgar Hofer and Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain mean by ‘beyond enlightenment’ is so piddling as to quite possibly qualify either of them for the title ‘Wankasaurus Of The Century’ ... were it not already taken. ()
RESPONDENT: And one more question: Are you saying that there are no other levels of physicality than this one, or could there be other ‘densities’ that could be tuned into?
RICHARD: To turn from the macroscopic – intuiting/conceptualising realities outside the universe – to the microscopic (intuiting/ conceptualising realities inside the universe) is the same movement away from the actual ... only in a different direction.
Of course it is understandable that, from a real-world perspective, another reality be proposed because there is another dimension, as it were, to that real-world reality – the actual world of the senses, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), which all people I have spoken to at length on the matter have recalled experiencing – but unless a PCE is occurring as you write then where you say ‘than this one’ you can only be referring to a real-world physicality and not the actual one.
RESPONDENT: That is levels of existence with finer materiality than this?
RICHARD: Nothing is either ‘fine’ or ‘gross’ here in this actual world ... all is pristine, pure.
RESPONDENT: Just as if you heat up something solid, it melts, and then eventually turns into a gas. Or do you put this in the ‘spiritual mumbo jumbo’ category?
RESPONDENT: (I’m not talking about gods etc.).
RICHARD: For the sake of clarification I will take this opportunity to point out that when I say ‘god’ I am not necessarily only referring to the popular usage of the word (such as the god of a church, a temple, a mosque, a synagogue, and so on) ... I am referring to any non-material otherness (other than physical) by whatever name.
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.