What a touching story! Those terms refer to the state of no-self, dolt: they refer to what’s
still there when the self is gone ... ‘There is nothing but x’; substitute for ‘x’ any term ... 
What about the narcissistic feelings that come from over-immersion in something that claims to
be new and exciting? You could consider the possibility that part of the reason why you get so many objections is because people see in
your position nothing but another vacuous attempt at ‘originality’.
Sounds reasonable but hardly new.
There is nothing new under the sun.
There is nothing new in the idea of using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening. If
effort at self-mastery makes sense to you right now, so be it. The nondualistic approach is difficult to penetrate. To ask and stay aware
of what I am experiencing now is mindfulness. If it is a technique to bring about a desired result such as self-immolation or freedom from
conditioned reaction, it is effort at self-mastery in which the old me is gone and the desired state only remains, i.e.: attainment.
Dualistic approach is effort to bring about a desired result of freedom for me. It starts with belief that I know what is and I know what I
want, what should be, so I will work to get there.
Can you point out how the actual-ism is different from any other here-and-now-ism?
I also do not find anything radical in Richard’s teachings. I already am aware of most of
this stuff thanks mainly to Osho and other eastern philosophies.
I have studied long and hard and find much that is familiar to your method. Indeed it is
identical to some methods that would call themselves ‘meditation’ – it is all just words.
And ... at the end of the day (week, month, year), if I have concluded that indeed there is
something radically different and radically worthwhile going on here (i.e. a legitimate 3rd alternative able to at long last deliver the
goods ... i.e. AF), I will have no trouble, I assure you, in permanently re-adjusting my cognitive maps and models as you, Mr. Peter and
Ms. Vineeto have done, regardless of my ultimate judgement of any of the PROMOTERS and their integrity at any given moment. And finally,
just so you and everyone else here knows: I’m very comfortable being proven wrong, about things small or large.
This is completely untrue, in that it is the teaching of the school of the Dalai Lama, the
prasangika madhyamika or middle way consequence school that such is the case, and is spoken of somewhat frequently in teachings. It is also
the teaching of J. Krishnamurti, though he never refers to it directly, it is obvious that is saying that it is natural for a human being
to move away from pain toward pleasure as an act of insecurity, and for the memory function to function from a reference point of looking
back at the past and selecting a configuration of subjectively chosen details that eventually becomes a psychological center, due to fear.
This is also implied in many other teachings, such as the teaching of Christianity, for one.
It’s hard to believe that all the mystic traditions are just a vast conspiracy to suppress
and enslave souls. Has Richard ever met Michael Roads, a fellow Australian, author of works such as Talking With Nature, Journey into
Nature, Journey into Oneness? Michael is as unpretentious as they come ... and I find a lot expansiveness in his perspective on life. Check
him out and give me a critique if you please.
This is typical Taoism. Are other aspects of actualism also derived from Ancient Wisdom?
This sounds very much like basic Tantra teaching. Just replace your term ‘peace-on-earth’
with ‘enlightenment’ or ‘my Buddha nature’. ‘Enlightenment is already here, my Buddha nature is already here; it always has been
here and always will be here ... now. It is ‘me’ that stands in the way of this already always enlightenment being apparent, it is
‘me’ that stands in the way of my Buddha nature being apparent’. ‘When ‘I’ self-immolate in ‘my’ totality, then the
individual enlightenment, the individual Buddha nature is evident ... for one person’. ‘Then one is living in this actual world ... the
value-free world of the senses’. Is it so?
The direct experience that matter is not merely passive is not new in human history. What you
call ‘matter’ or ‘the universe’, they call ‘Allah’. However, you will not acknowledge this.
However, I do question some of the assertions that adorn your essential message. (...)
Furthermore, it is almost exactly what the Buddha taught, as was Krishnamurti’s teaching. The Buddha and Krishnamurti were both emphatic
that there is ‘NO SELF’ to be found (higher, lower or whatever) and that it is the holding on to this ‘illusion of self’ that is at
the root of all suffering!
[quote] ‘For thousands of years, human beings …’. [endquote]. [quote] ‘Now, for the
first time ...’. [endquote]. Hmmm ... Did a minute read and let’s see ... [quote] ‘Actual Freedom has nothing to do with the
traditional spiritual path of transcendence and avoidance ...’. [endquote]. Basic Buddhist mindfulness meditation stresses involvement
with life. [quote] ‘Enhancement of ‘good’ emotion ... denial of ‘bad’ emotion via sublimation’. [endquote]. Again, basic
Buddhist mindfulness meditation embraces all good and bad emotion. Read Nisargadatta ... better description. Hmm ... this Richard ... he
probably has reached constant pure awareness or maybe not. For some people here I suggest you study Western philosophy [and NLP] so one can
think, read, write and argue clearly, logically.
Did you read the ‘Being Here Now’ book by Ram Das? Do you recall the bit where the young
Richard Alpert is off to find the truth and comes across a holy man who just is not interested in his stories of the past, in his emotions
or imaginings, only in ‘Being Here Now’. Hence the title of the book. Could you explain how ‘your’ ‘Being Here Now’ is
different than the ‘Being Here Now’ of Richard Alpert, who, I am assuming, is, in your estimation, one of those gurus who has caused
the whole bloody mess this planet is in?
