Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RESPONDENT: I find it worrying when a person claims to have found the only way to freedom.

RICHARD: I have not claimed to have found the ‘only way’ to an actual freedom from the human condition ... I have said the actualism method is the only way which has been demonstrated to work thus far.

RESPONDENT: Okay, but that’s very close to what I was complaining about – you claim to have the only way – so far! No one else has done better!

RICHARD: As nobody else is yet actually free from the human condition by any other method it is indeed the only one that has worked so far.

RESPONDENT: It is not new ...

RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition is new to human history then any method to enable this to come about is also new.

RESPONDENT: ... it is not the only method that works but it is fine.

RICHARD: As no one else is actually free from the human condition, as yet, then other methods are still in the experimental stage. Until one of them works then this method I offer – which worked for me – is the only one available.

RESPONDENT: The problem I have is with you setting up an organisation that takes your claims and makes a system of belief from them.

RICHARD: I am aware that this is your viewpoint ... these discussions serve to examine your viewpoint to see if it has validity.

RESPONDENT: I know a system of belief is not actual freedom; you do also ...

RICHARD: Yes ... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written.

Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer affirmation ... and confirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path.

RESPONDENT: ... and I know that what you are creating is a new system of belief that superimposes itself on top of the actual freedom you seem to cherish.

RICHARD: I am well aware that this is your viewpoint ... and, as I said, these discussion are serving to elucidate whether your viewpoint has validity.

So far it has shown no validity whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: Actualism’s elimination of the social and instinctual selves is identical with the elimination of the commanding self which is what the Sufis do (the real ones, not the dress-up-and-run-round-in-circles ones). See any of Idries Shah’s books.

RICHARD: Mr. Idries Shah died in London on Saturday 23 November 1996 and the ‘Telegraph’ published an obituary to him on Saturday 7 December 1996. Vis.:

• [quote]: ‘Idries Shah, who has died aged 72, was Grand Sheikh of the Sufis, and through his books *and example* the greatest living propagator of their spiritual insights. (...) *Shah could be angry* in the face of negativity or wilful foolishness, but more usually was warm and approachable, whether by the celebrated or the humble’. [emphases added].

RESPONDENT: Actualism is not new or original. It has been done before.

RICHARD: The ‘Telegraph’ obituary goes on to quote Ms. Doris Lessing (who reports that ‘he was a good friend to me, and my teacher’). Vis.:

• [quote]: ‘I met Idries Shah (...) in 1964. (...) He used to say he had never been asked a question whose answer is not in his books. (...) Shah remarked that *‘God is Love’* can be words scrawled on a placard carried by an old tramp in the street, or *the revelation of the greatest truth* ...’. [emphases added].

RESPONDENT: Richard’s source book: (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679723005/qid=999028434/sr=2-4/ref=aps_sr_b_2_1/103-0609686-1395062).

RICHARD: It is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Web Site that what (not who) I am is this flesh and blood body only ... yet this is what the URL you provide displays:

• [quote]: ‘The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing *Who You Are*, by Alan W. Watts. (...) Editorial Review; Amazon.com: Modern Western culture and technology is inextricably tied to the belief in the existence of a self as a separate ego, separated from and in conflict with the rest of the world. In this classic book, Watts provides a lucid and simple presentation of an alternative view *based on Hindi and Vedantic philosophy*. [emphases added].

First determination ... Sufism. Second evaluation ... Hinduism. Third assessment ...??

RESPONDENT: Douglass Harding, Byron Katie, Maximillian Sandor, bunches of folks in the ex-scientology camp (put ‘freezone’ into your search engine) are all, in their various ways, about using INSIGHT to deconstruct to iron grip of ego-self without getting caught up in the big SELF spiritualist experience of Ramana Maharshi, Bernadette Roberts, et al.

RICHARD: The following quotes may very well throw some light upon the matter:

• [Mr. Douglas Harding]: ‘Unself-conscious: The principle of this meditation is: never lose sight of your Self in any circumstances, and your problems are taken care of – including, strange to say, the problem of self-consciousness. For finding the Self is losing the self’. (‘The Results of Seeing Who You Really Are’; an article by Douglas Harding from ‘The Toolkit for Testing the Incredible Hypothesis’; www.headless.org/English/reallyr.htm).

• [Ms. Sunny Massad]: ‘And how was your relationship with your husband’s body?
• [Ms. Byron Katie]: ‘Uhhhh. [Sighs.] First time we made love it was just amaaazing. It was radical! Cuz it was God with God. And it was the receiving of it and the giving ah, it was just amazing! (‘An Interview with Byron Katie’; reprinted from ‘The Noumenon Journal: Nondual Perspectives on Transformation’; www.realization.org/page/doc1/doc107b.htm).

• [Mr. Maximilian Sandor]: ‘He [Gotamo Siddharto] summarised his message in ‘Four Special Truths’: (...) 2. The truth about how a Being alienates itself and becomes trapped in a Universe’. (‘A Summary of Gotamo’s Principle in Today’s Language’; ©1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.; http://orunla.org/pnohteftu/ch16.html).
• [Mr. Maximilian Sandor]: ‘Before a Being can withdraw from this Universe, every connection to it must be dissolved (which is tantamount to a complete integration of the Being)’. (The Buddha Paradox; ©1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.; http://orunla.org/pnohteftu/ch441.html).

• [The Editors]: ‘The Beingness-by-itself, the free, un-detached beingness is a factor outside the ‘playground’ of our world – in a broader sense outside of ‘the physically measurable’. Beingness-by-itself is the creator of consciousness, and consciousness is the creator of the world. An Individual evolves out of the Beingness-by-itself and brings itself into a ‘form’ with the help of consciousness. It is then subjected to the laws of freedom and compulsion’. (‘Central Statement’, ‘The Free Zone’; www.scientologie.org/se_nsumm.htm).

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:

• [Mr. Wolfgang Bernard]: ‘The acquisition of a (separating) identity automatically results in the alienation of our innermost being (…) questioning Original Belief means re-evaluating our identity to the very depths of our innermost being and letting go of the existential reference points which we have become used to since our early childhood in order to reconnect with where we come from: the dimension of pre-sensory perception’. (www.wbern.firstream.net/nlpeng11.htm).

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.

‘Twas but a massive delusion … which, incidentally, has held humankind in thralldom for millennia.

RESPONDENT: There are hints pointing towards your actual state in the 4th way system as well (one of its major sources are esoteric Sufi teachings), but it is said that it can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before.

RICHARD: If you could provide the hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition, which you say are in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings, I would be only too happy to read them.

RESPONDENT: So this being an already difficult thing to achieve for most people, it probably seemed pointless to develop the idea even further or to convey/design any specific method when there was no case.

RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying here: Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and/or Mr. Petyr Ouspensky, and some un-named esoteric Sufi teachers, achieved an actual freedom from the human condition, whilst ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, but it probably seemed to them pointless to convey to other human beings how they achieved it (let alone developing/designing anything else) as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people.

Am I understanding you correctly?

RESPONDENT: Your case seems to prove that ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? It would help considerably to read the hints, about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition which you state are in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings, that say such a condition can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before, before coming to the conclusion that my case seems to prove that it probably seemed pointless to Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and/or Mr. Petyr Ouspensky, and some un-named esoteric Sufi teachers, to tell other human beings about how they achieved it – let alone developing/designing anything else – as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people.

And referenced quotes would help even more.

RESPONDENT: (...) actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions.

RICHARD: As it is so obvious to you that there is and has been nothing at all aside from a particular god ...

RESPONDENT: No.

RICHARD: If that be the case then I would suggest you refrain from snipping out some parts of a post yet leave such a line as that in as it conveys the impression that it is indeed what is obvious to you.

RESPONDENT: Sure. Now let’s not compound the problem by expanding on what need never have been introduced.

RICHARD: If I may point out? It was you that introduced the ‘as other religions’ topic – not me – and in the following context (with the above portion highlighted):

• [Respondent]: ‘Even if no neurological changes occur, *actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions*. And why wouldn’t it? It’s simply a moral injunction to avoid ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ at all costs, and to arrange your life accordingly. (But don’t tell anyone, OK? It’s supposed to be brand new in human history, not just another way of conditioning yourself)’.

As your very last e-mail to this mailing list was the one with your [quote] ‘so obvious but so foreign to most westerners’ [endquote] comment about a particular god vis-à-vis the universe – and as I am not a mind-reader – surely it is germane to the topic you introduced to expand upon just whom you are referring to with your ‘it’s supposed to be brand new in human history’ comment ... especially as in that e-mail you specifically went on to say that the ‘direct experience that matter is not merely passive’ is hardly new and that neither is it a ‘third alternative’ (to either materialism or spiritualism).

*

RICHARD: (...) Just in case it is not obvious: nothing you have to say by way of explanation above demonstrates that actualism is indeed what you claim (a religion which ‘works’ just as well as others do).

RESPONDENT: Just in case it is not obvious: nothing in the elided section was intended to demonstrate that.

RICHARD: Now that you have made that clear how about getting on with demonstrating just that (that actualism is indeed a religion which ‘works’ just as well as others do) ... and, whilst you are at it, just who those people are whom you are referring to with your ‘it’s supposed to be brand new in human history’ claim.

In other words, you have made some assertions yet expended two opportunities on ducking the obvious.

*

RICHARD: Then again, maybe the above is nothing more than a device to embed the following self-serving question and answer into a pre-arranged context

RESPONDENT: And why wouldn’t it [‘work’ just as well as other religions]? It’s simply a moral injunction to avoid ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ at all costs, and to arrange your life accordingly.

RICHARD: The word ‘moral’, from the Latin ‘moralis’ (rendering Greek ‘ethikos’ or ethic) from the Latin ‘mor-’/’mos’ meaning custom (plural ‘mores’ meaning manners) + the suffix ‘-al’ with the sense ‘of the kind of, pertaining to’, refers to the values – ‘the principles or moral standards of a person or social group’ (Oxford Dictionary) – instilled from birth onwards to direct/guide human behaviour and/or conduct ... and the word ‘injunction’ (from the Latin ‘injunct-’ meaning prohibit or restrain) refers to ‘the action of enjoining [to prescribe/forbid] or authoritatively directing someone; an authoritative or emphatic admonition or order’ (Oxford Dictionary). How actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – can, even to the most jaundiced eye, be ‘simply a moral injunction’ has got me beat.

RESPONDENT: The ‘direct experience that matter is not merely passive’ is certainly not a moral injunction, I agree. However ...

RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however ...’ qualifier)? The direct experience that matter is not merely passive is the actualism which is both presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and discussed on The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List ... any other ‘actualism’ that what is so obvious to you persuades you to see in lieu of this is not what is being presented and discussed.

RESPONDENT: Is the daily business of trying to abort one’s psyche identical to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive?

RICHARD: The moment-to-moment experience of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible (virtually free from malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) is not, of course, ‘identical’ – synonyms: the same, indistinguishable, impossible to tell apart, one and the same, matching, alike, equal – to the direct experience of actuality but the nearest one can whilst remaining an identity.

Here is an example of how another subscriber described such a state only four months or so ago:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘There is an increase in sensory clarity, especially visual acuity. Along with this increase in clarity there is a ‘purity’ in everything one perceives. The words ‘immaculate’, ‘perfect’, ‘pure’ capture it quite well; everything is wonderful. Strangely, though, the word ‘beautiful’ does not apply. There is no (felt) affect whatsoever. The purity of perception (and the marvellousness of what is perceived) goes beyond affect, leaving only pure, calm wonder. It’s sensory delight without any emotional resonance at all. The sensory delight I’m talking about is not the usual kind of sensuousness/sensuality that one enjoys in an ordinary state. Rather than being ‘pleasurable’, it is appreciation of the perfection that seems to be inherent in what one is perceiving, which leads to enjoyment of a very different kind.
This is quite extraordinary. There is a sensation of softness in the air, which has a pellucid, jelly-like quality (metaphorically speaking). I’m reminded of something you once wrote about the eyes ‘lightly caressing’, as if one is seeing from the front of the eyeball. I also remember you saying ‘nothing dirty can get in’, and that’s exactly the way it is. Objects that would seem drab, dirty, sullied, soiled in ‘reality’ are immaculate in themselves; any ‘dirtiness’ is overlaid by ‘me’. (This is not an intellectual realisation but a direct perception of the fact).
In many ways this is like a PCE [a pure consciousness experience]. The mode of perception is strikingly similar to a PCE. But when I turn my attention to the writer of this message, something is different but I can’t put my finger on it. I’m not really sure whether ‘I’ am here at all, or whether ‘I’ am only a thought/feeling that briefly intercedes between perceptions and assumes itself to be the agent of this body’s actions. This sounds awkward in words, but there is nothing at all awkward or confusing about what I’m experiencing.
I am not sure that I would call this a ‘self’-less experience because, although there is no affect (none that I recognise, none whatsoever), there is still a sense of agency that could be given the name ‘me’ for convenience. (http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=910089700).

RESPONDENT: Both seem to go by the name ‘actualism’. In case it is unclear, I am referring to the daily process of aborting oneself and one’s feelings, not the ‘direct experience that matter is merely passive’.

RICHARD: Oh, what you are endeavouring to do is most certainly not ‘unclear’ ... it just seems to be such a convoluted way to draw attention to a truism (that a person not actually free from the human condition is not actually free from the human condition) that it is a wonder why you are going on with it.

*

RESPONDENT: (...) actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions. And why wouldn’t it It’s simply a moral injunction to avoid ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ at all costs, and to arrange your life accordingly.

(...)

RICHARD: (...) although you may say actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions (and, by way of explanation, that actualism is simply a moral injunction to avoid malice and sorrow at all costs and to arrange one’s life accordingly), you do acknowledge you cannot demonstrate that actualism is indeed a religion. Which means you cannot provide the evidence for the very basis of your many and various assertions, claims, and comments ... yet what do you go on to aver (immediately after your ‘to amuse myself by observing the games people play’ disclosure)? None other than this gem:

• [Respondent]: ‘Anyway, the evidence are out there. People who retain the capacity for independent thought will be able to draw their own conclusions’.

Needless is it to mention, being a trifle nonplussed by this adroit sleight-of-hand, I looked for the ... um ... the evidence being referred to?

RESPONDENT: Look around you. The evidence being referred to is the dozens of people who practice your method with varying degrees of dedication ranging from casual interest to rabid fanaticism without becoming actually free. The method doesn’t work any better than moral precepts/injunctions.

RICHARD: Perhaps an every-day-life metaphor might be of assistance: a person, wanting to be a concert pianist, asks a concert pianist how they changed from not being a concert pianist into being a concert pianist (as in ‘what did you do to become a concert pianist’ for instance) and the concert pianist says, amongst many other things about intent and dedication, for example, and practice and perseverance and diligence and application, for another, that they practiced a method of their own devising which has nowadays become known as the pianism method (for instance) and yet, after x-number of years of doing all that, the person concerned – whilst having achieved a level of excellence way beyond normal expectations – was still not a concert pianist.

Here is my question: how does that make pianism a religion (albeit devoid of metaphysical dogma and overt moral trappings)?

And here is my follow-up query: how does that make the pianism method not any better than moral precepts/injunctions?