Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RESPONDENT: 1. The man that really knows, doesn’t speak. 2. The man that speaks, doesn’t really know.

RICHARD: Who first spoke these ancient ‘Words of Wisdom’?

Man No. 1? Or ... Man No. 2

I am just curious. Because it cannot be Man No. 1 ... he does not speak.

Therefore it must be Man No 2.

As Man No. 2 does not really know what he is talking about, then this pithy aphorism is not worth even the paltry piece of rice-paper that it was written upon all those years ago.

Great stuff, is it not, to think for oneself instead of relying upon some hallowed but specious ‘wisdom of the ancients’?

RESPONDENT No. 28: I have two questions to both enlightened gentlemen: (a) Why is it [beyond enlightenment] so important, (b) How does one prove the validity of any answer to this question logically? Short and precise logical answers would be appreciated (below 5 KB’s).

RESPONDENT: One word is too much.

RICHARD: So, ‘one word is too much’, eh? This sound suspiciously like a variation on that pithy aphorism: ‘He who knows does not speak’ ... and it took you five words to say it.

This ‘ancient wisdom’ stuff is all so silly that it is puerile.

RESPONDENT: My point really is, is that any system that attempts to describe the actual must be flawed. How could it be otherwise?

RICHARD: What is flawed about saying that what I am (what, not, ‘who’) is this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto)? To be putting a flesh and blood body under a microscope, in the vain attempt to find an intrinsic identity, essence, core, or quality, is to be rightfully accused of reductionism.

There is no intrinsic identity, essence, core, or quality ... what is flawed is attempting to find/locate that phantasm, that ghost in the machine, when all that needs to be done is to altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. As there is no such ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) or ‘presence’ in actuality there is nothing to lose ... except ‘who’ you instinctively know, feel, and thus think, you are.

And therein lies the rub: ‘I’/‘me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/‘me’ am prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion.

RICHARD: The blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient courage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of the final goal ... the Unknowable. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the Self or Spirit ... and an ego-less Self or Spirit is still an identity, nevertheless.

RESPONDENT: Living in the unknown means to not know what to do at any mini second of one’s life, is just doing.

RICHARD: Yes, it is this ‘not knowing’ that has caused so many problems to be perpetuated. Amazingly, it has become a virtue to say that one does not know (‘he who is truly wise does not know’).

Why do you not want to face up to the appalling results of your ‘not knowing/just doing’ position?

Have you not had at least a glimpse of ‘The Unknowable’?

RICHARD: ... as what I write about life here in this actual world is a report coming immediately from the direct experience of this beginningless and endless moment – there is this which is actually happening and the words form themselves in accord to the very thing being referred to as it is occurring – it makes no difference in regards freshness on what occasion they are written. In other words: being already always fresh the words are an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into the magical wonder-land this verdant and azure planet actually is. Then actuality speaks for itself.

RESPONDENT: Richard do you understand that the words you are saying after they left your mouth are already old?

RICHARD: Respondent, do you understand that this is a flesh and blood body you are conversing with – one living in this actual world where time itself has no duration – and not an enlightened being living (albeit in a massive delusion) in the real world?

RESPONDENT: My kindly asking was Can you make one overview?

RICHARD: And my response is, as before, that a précis of what I have to report/describe/explain already exists.

RESPONDENT: Let’s say you met a friend in a bar and you try to explain him your way of seeing things, as you done with Vineeto and Peter.

RICHARD: Now here is an interesting thing: Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to what I had to report/describe/explain ... so much so that he was able to successfully explain it to Vineeto before she even met me.

You see, he was able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all his spiritual experience and learning/conditioning ... he never told me, for instance, with (borrowed) wisdom that the words that I was saying, after they left my mouth, were already old.

In short: he was ripe and ready for something new.

RESPONDENT: Can you do it once more?

RICHARD: Ahh ... but can you be another Peter (so to speak)?

RESPONDENT: So that we will begin to deal from there and avoid all these thousands of redirections?

RICHARD: Ha ... as I only deal from here – where what ‘all these thousands of redirections’ link to are ever-fresh – it would appear you are avoiding that which has been here all this while. Vis.:

RESPONDENT: ... this experience escapes any reference frame of thought, it’s pure consciousness as experienced by an individual.

RICHARD: Hmm ... are you so sure that it does indeed escape ‘any’ reference frame of thought?

RESPONDENT: You can easily and accurately describe how good it was last time you had sex with your partner. But these are only thoughts, they convey something ... but of what use they would be to me if I wouldn’t have any sexperiences?

RICHARD: I was questioning your ‘escapes any reference frame of thought’ statement ... am I to take it that your analogy with the sexual experience indicates it does not escape ‘any’ reference frame of thought after all (as in thoughts which convey something)?

RESPONDENT: Even Enlightenment can be described, that’s not the issue here.

RICHARD: Oh? This is the issue I am responding to:

• [Respondent]: ‘I set my aim to be happy & harmless and not to live in a PCE (I don’t know how it’s like). What’s on offer here, is both valuable and sensible in my view and it reflects, explains my personal experiences and observations in a very satisfactory and comprehensive way. But these words (aka thoughts) are derived from PCE’s. They can provide guidance, direction and assistance in the DIY process of dismantling the identity and help one assess which are the facts and which are the beliefs. But *they cannot induce/produce a PCE as this experience escapes any reference frame of thought*, it’s pure consciousness as experienced by an individual. [emphasis added].
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... are you so sure that it does indeed escape ‘any’ reference frame of thought?

RESPONDENT: I have pointed out to the distinction between thoughts and experience. The experience gives rise to thoughts, not the other way around, otherwise I will live through quotation-marks. Your thoughts cannot give rise to a similar experience in me (a PCE for instance), they can describe it, yes, but they cannot produce/induce it. Simple as that.

RICHARD: As ad hoc experience with other human beings has shown me there are some people, who listen to me/read my words with all of their being, that have been catapulted into the magical wonder-land that this verdant and azure planet is then what is (so far) the case for you is not the case for everybody.

It is as simple as that.

RESPONDENT: Everything can be described, take ‘torture’ for instance. It’s one thing to be tortured and another thing to intellectually understand torture as described by another person. Torture escapes ‘thought’ because it’s not an intellectual experience. You can describe it via thought but you can’t experience it via thought.

RICHARD: Of course not ... it almost goes without saying that one cannot (sensately) experience a sensate experience cognitively.

RESPONDENT: In this sense escapes thought, not in the sense that you can’t convey or describe it.

RICHARD: Sure ... but what has this got to do with you saying that the actualism words and writings [quote] ‘cannot induce/produce a PCE as this experience escapes any reference frame of thought’ [endquote] when they can do, and have done, that very thing (induced/produced a PCE)?

It just does not make sense to say that something which has happened, and does happen, cannot happen. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) This site is mainly the product of a person life *experience* translated into thoughts. It’s a huge mistake to think that by practicing ‘it’, you can arrive somewhere. Thoughts/ideas cannot generate *experience*, they can do all sorts of things: simulate, represent, imitate, emulate but they cannot *experience*.
Anyone who thinks that he experiences something different in terms of consciousness when immersed in a certain *thought* medium might simply fool himself. It’s at best a lab experience.
I raised this objection in my latest post to Richard ... ’. (Wed 25/02/04).

As I am the living evidence that practicing ‘it’ (the actualism method) does enable this actual world to become apparent it would appear that you are but tilting at windmills ... as is the following further on in the same e-mail:

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) I have extensive experience in the past with the ‘work’ language while in a spiritual group and a common ‘lingo’ is a sure sign of belonging to a ‘group’. The same excuses were used ... that it’s an exact language with no literary pretences, that its sole purpose is to accurately convey/describe the process and the experiences.
The early morning blue sky can be described in a million different ways ... even using the same words, but a person’s writing style is unique as his signature. And the writing style of Peter and Vineeto is very similar to the point that someone wondered if ‘they’ are not but one and the same person!’. (Wed 25/02/04).

Not all that surprisingly I am reminded of the following:

• [Respondent]: ‘Although I generally agree and enjoy many of the things stated on AF website, I have some doubts and I thought you might found them worth of attention. The first one concerns the writing style of some older actualists, like Peter, Alan and Vineeto, which is similar in its form and content with Richard’s.
• [Richard]: ‘Aye ... and that would be because each person, myself included, is talking about, referring to, or describing the same identical thing. For example, if you were the first to go outside in the morning to experience the weather, and consequently report that the sky is blue today, then when I too go outside to experience the weather I would similarly say that the sky is blue.
It is nothing more mysterious than an agreement that our experiences match.
• [Respondent]: ‘What I want to say is that when a person belongs to a group whether an actual or a virtual one, a characteristic he acquires is the lack of originality in its thinking, the ability to use new words in describing one’s experiences.
• [Richard]: ‘As none of the three people you mention belong to a group then your conclusion is a non-sequitur.
Just as a matter of interest: how many original ways can a person say ‘blue sky’ (bearing in mind that there are 6.0 billion people on the planet)? As for ‘new words’ ... this is how I answered someone else when they raised this same point last year:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘Speaking the same lingo [the same words] ... is a hallmark of cultism’. [Richard]: ‘Perhaps you may be able to assist me in something rather important? My computer is making both groaning and grumbling noises and when I type in run-commands there is no response ... this is my take on what is going on: I figure that the wheelbarrow is conflicting with the scotch mist – both of which, as you would know, share the same chewing gum – and I am wondering whether it would be best to replace the wheelbarrow or the scotch mist. Do you have any suggestions, tips, hints or clues that might assist me? Maybe I should replace both? Or should I make adjustments to the chewing gum ... and if so, what would be the best way to go about it?’ [endquote].
If there were 6.0 billion people all using ‘new words’ to describe the same thing then effective communication would be a thing of the past.

I will not, at this stage, ask you to provide the ‘million different ways’ you say the early morning blue sky can be uniquely described using the same words ... just 100 of them will do for now.

RESPONDENT: Richard, if a person reads about three or less words K spoke, nothing else is needed for truth stands by it’s self.

RICHARD: Good ... this is a clear answer. Will you provide some examples of ‘three or less words K spoke’ so that I can know what to look for in order to see what you mean by ‘nothing else is needed for truth stands by it’s self’ ?

RESPONDENT: The problem may well be that a truth spoken instantly becomes a lie. No. 10, speaking a truth.

RICHARD: Ahh ... this sentence of yours muddies the water somewhat and is no longer a clear answer. Are you now saying that any of the ‘three or less words K spoke’ are a lie ... even though further above you said ‘he just spoke truth’ ? Perhaps this is the answer to your question ‘I wonder why folks say Krishnamurti had a philosophy’ ... maybe its a philosophy what they hear whilst listening to the lies?

RESPONDENT: Each set of words in red after the name ‘No. 10’, are the answer your request about ‘quotes’ where I spoke truth.

RICHARD: No, they are not, they are lies ... because every single one of your words ‘instantly becomes a lie’ when spoken. As you are saying that the truth cannot be spoken without it becoming a lie ... why not just acknowledge that ‘the truth cannot be spoken’ and be done with it? Why try so desperately to make out that your ‘Transformation’, which has all the hallmarks of ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’, is different and stop befooling yourself? Incidentally, why do you go around knowingly telling people lies?

RESPONDENT: Richard, perhaps we can start here. While a truth is being spoken it is 100% true, the instant the words are complete the truth ‘dies’ (becomes a lie) and needs to be discovered anew.

RICHARD: Okay ... would you say that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words are ‘complete’ by now? If so, according to your philosophy his words have ‘died’ and ‘have become a lie’ ... which means that your statement ( ‘if a person reads about three or less words K spoke, nothing else is needed for truth stands by it’s self’ ) is not only a lie (because those words too have now ‘died’ ) but was incorrect whilst it was being spoken by you.

Perhaps this is the answer to your question ‘I wonder why folks say Krishnamurti had a philosophy’ ... maybe its a philosophy what they hear whilst listening to the dead words? Is this why you will not provide some examples of ‘three or less words K spoke’ so that I can know what to look for in order to see what you mean by ‘nothing else is needed for truth stands by it’s self’ ? How can a truth which ‘‘dies’ (becomes a lie)’ ever ‘stand by it’s self’?

RESPONDENT: Truth has a birth, a life and then a death, just as we do.

RICHARD: Oh ... I always understood the truth to be timeless and spaceless and formless ... and I do recall you indicating this to be correct when asked some time back. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 19]: ‘Is there a ‘being’ that transcends time and space within the organism of the human being?’
• [Respondent]: ‘Yes’.
• [Richard]: ‘Have I understood this so far? A capitalised ‘Human’ (as distinct from ‘just people’ ) has a transcendent ‘being’ (a ‘being’ that transcends time and space) living inside the flesh and blood body which makes them ‘energy filled’ and thus have ‘the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ which is to have an bodiless ‘Intelligence’ (which is not cognitive, affective or sensate) that is ‘millions of miles (years) beyond the non intelligence of this world’ (this physical world of mountains and streams) and they ‘speak the truth [which is not cognitive, affective or sensate] with themselves impeccably’ and they have a bodiless ‘100% Love [which is not cognitive, affective or sensate] for every person on this planet’ that would, if all humans were to ‘Transform’ (through starting with ‘ignorance’ ) and be an ‘open vessel’ for this metaphysical ‘Love’, it would transform ‘all of NATURE’ (including the animals) and all would live in a state of ‘not knowing’ ... and there would be peace on earth. Please correct me where I am in error’.
• [Respondent]: ‘You are only missing a part, and that is the ‘whole’ – you take a whole and break it into pieces, and wish to argue rather than ‘looking’ at what I say’.

Perhaps this is the answer to your question ‘I wonder why folks say Krishnamurti had a philosophy’ ... maybe its a philosophy what they hear whilst listening to the truth (which in your case is the truth chopping and changing its mind)?

RESPONDENT: Truth can be spoken, it is the ‘hearing’ of it that seems to be impossible.

RICHARD: You never, ever ‘speak the truth’ when you write to me ... whenever I have engaged you in a discussion basically all you have to say can be summed up with your ubiquitous ‘‘see’ the truth’ statement ... followed by some variation on your plaintive ‘have been failing anew for 19 years’ phrase. For example: [Respondent]: ‘This is rather impossible to transmit and I have been learning for almost 19 years from my mistakes a way to converse about it’ [endquote]. However, here is your opportunity to put all your prevaricating aside, once and for all, and ‘speak the truth’ . Either that or acknowledge that you too believe that ‘the truth cannot be spoken’ instead of blaming the listener for your failure.

Because I do not and will not have any problem whatsoever in ‘the hearing of it’.

RESPONDENT: The ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ seems to be another way of expressing the same realisation. Krishnamurti spoke sometimes in dualistic terms, e.g. – ‘the other’, and sometimes in non-dualistic terms, e.g. – a state of mind that knows no separation. Words are merely pointers.

RICHARD: Possibly the phrase ‘the universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ does appear to be the same way of expressing the same realisation ... except that I never wrote that phrase. I write: ‘I am this physical universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’.

As I compose all my posts in my word processor, before importing them into my E-Mail programme, I have all of my E-Mails to this Mailing List in a long document. Thus it is an easy matter for me to type ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ into the search function and send it looking for where I used that phrase. For the life of me I can not find it anywhere. Perhaps you could send me your copy so that I can make the necessary amendments to my version here on my hard disk.

Words are not ‘merely pointers’ they are accurate descriptions. They describe a reality – or an actuality – that exists. This dismissal of words ‘as not being the thing pointed to’ is intellectual masturbation. Words are all we have to communicate ... if you wish to dismiss them so cavalierly, then you would be well advised to stop reading and writing.

Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not pointing to a piece of chewing-gum when he said (not a direct quote): ‘there is that which is beyond thought, that which is sacred, holy. That I bow down to; that I would prostrate myself to’ . You know that, I know that ... and probably everyone on this List knows that. You are defending the indefensible.

Why?

RICHARD: I am autonomous and free; beholden to no one and no thing I stand on my own two feet ... instead of prostrating myself in abject humility and self-abnegation. This actual perfection is excellent and free. It is the freely available bonus of daring to be me as-I-am. Unadorned I am more free than a bird on the wing and cleaner than a sea-breeze on a sweltering summer’s day. To be me as-I-am is to be fresh, each moment again. Owing nothing to no one I am free from corruption ... perversity has vanished forever. Unpolluted as I am by any alien entity, my thoughts and my deeds are automatically graceful. Goodwill, freed of social morality, comes effortlessly to me for all internal conflict is over. I am gentle and peaceful in character. Freeing myself of the altered state of consciousness called spiritual enlightenment was the last step into actuality.

RESPONDENT: ‘I’ am the thought of being somehow separate in time apart from everything else. If there seems to be someone in time free from anything, that is duality. If ‘I’ am aware that I am aware, or aware that I am ‘free’, that is division.

RICHARD: So, according to you, if someone is aware that they are free ... then that is proof that they are not free? Are you for real? This is but a variation on that pithy aphorism: ‘He who knows does not speak’. Next you will be coming out with that tired and hoary maxim about ‘he who knows nothing, really knows’. Perhaps you may care to again peruse the following:

• [Richard]: ‘It is an amazing thing that not only are we humans able to be here experiencing this business of being alive ... on top of that we can think about and reflect upon what is entailed. In addition to this ability, we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input. One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before. It is silly to disregard the results of other person’s enterprising essays into the ‘mystery of life’ – unless it is obviously bombast and blather – for one would have to invent the wheel all over again. However, it is only too possible to accept as set in concrete the accumulated ‘wisdom of the ages’ and remain stultified ... enfeebled by the insufferable psittacisms passed on from one generation to the next. I would not be where I am today if it were not for all those brave people who went before me ... and I am so pleased that they left a record of their ventures’.

This is written by one who is aware that he is free – and says so unabashedly – and one who knows that he knows and is unrepentantly speaking. My attitude is this: if you know something, then say it ... and say it with firmness and boldness; say it with verve and vivacity; say it with daring and audacity.

All this being humble business is only for the faint of heart and the weak of knee, who piously hope to earn their way into some god’s good graces by deprecating and humiliating themselves like all get-out.

It is arrant selfishness to discover peace-on-earth ... and keep it to yourself!

RICHARD: Words are not ‘merely pointers’ they are accurate descriptions. They describe a reality – or an actuality – that exists. This dismissal of words as ‘not being the thing pointed to’ is intellectual masturbation. Words are all we have to communicate ... if you wish to dismiss them so cavalierly, then you would be well advised to stop reading and writing.

RESPONDENT: The description is not the thing. Seeing does not involve the symbolic. To say things like: there is nothing sacred, life is a beneficence, or other such nonsense may in fact be from seeing, but only images are projected.

RICHARD: I am well aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti repeatedly said: ‘the description is not the described’ and yet you are doing what he said not to do. To wit: ‘do not quote anyone, least of all the speaker’.

Unless you are living the actuality of that phrase ‘the description is not the described’ then you are mouthing empty rhetoric. You go on to demonstrate your lack of understanding by dismissing, as ‘such nonsense’, the seminal discovery that ‘that which is sacred, holy’ is but a delusion born out of an illusion.

As for ‘life is a beneficence’ being only a ‘projected image’ ... well, all I can suggest is that you continue to live in your grim and glum reality, with brief moments of a break-though into a loving and compassionate delusion as a reprieve.

Meanwhile, living in the ‘projected symbol’ called the actual world of people, things and events as I do, I will, without doubt, continue to experience the ambrosial beneficence of the infinitude of this material universe with a carefree gaiety. For concomitant to the extinction of malice and sorrow is blitheness and benignity. To be rid of animosity and anguish is to be happy and harmless. This benediction (‘benediction’: something that promotes goodness or well-being) has been going on for twenty four hours a day for the last five years.

Not bad going for a ‘projected symbol’ eh?

RESPONDENT: Knowledge is distorting perception.

RICHARD: We have been down this path before, you and I, and nothing has changed since then. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘People say they experience God or love or they want to have or know love. But what is known is of thought and memory, it is rooted in time, i.e.- the self.
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, using ‘thought and memory’, could readily recognise that which he variously called god, truth, that which is sacred, holy, the presence, the otherness and etcetera, each time again. For an example:

• [quote]: ‘That presence which was at il L. [two months previously at Il Leccio, Italy] was there, waiting patiently, benignly, with great tenderness. It was like lightening on a dark night but it was there, penetrating, blissful’. (June 27 1961; page 14, ‘Krishnamurti’s Notebook’, Harper & Row, New York 1976).

It does pay to read with both eyes open (rather than listen only to the ‘he who says he knows does not know’ style of rhetoric), eh? (www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m13677.html).

Now do you comprehend how I can say that listening to or reading another relating the very same experiencing, with the expertise which comes from the intimate comprehension which lived understanding endows, can in no way be described as interpreting ... if for no other reason than like recognises like?

RESPONDENT: Instead of observing with two eyes, can there be observation with ‘one eye’, i.e. with consciousness that is undivided?

RICHARD: Obviously there can be ... the latest estimate puts the number of one-eyed people at the 1.2 thousand mark.

RESPONDENT: It is possible to let what you see reveal what it is.

RICHARD: Only if it is hidden in the first place ... here in this actual world the ‘meaning of life’, or the ‘purpose of existence’, or however one’s quest was described, lies open all around.

As it has been all along.

RESPONDENT: This is so maybe because you cannot live any ‘teaching’.

PETER: To try and live a ‘teaching’ is clearly nonsense.

I was taught how to be an architect at a university and, in hindsight, the whole process was by and large a dismal failure. I was mostly taught by academics who had no idea of the hands-on business of being an architect, let alone any knowledge of the very down-to-earth business of building, and as a consequence when I graduated I knew very little about the practical business of being an architect and nothing at all about practical business of building a building. Over the years, by a process of trial and error, I taught myself to both be a good architect and a good builder – an accumulated expertise based on my own hands-on experience and accumulated common sense and supplemented by the many tips I took on board from other hands-on practitioners.

But working for money is only part of one’s life-skills. Because I live in a country that has moved beyond self-reliant agriculture, cottage industry and snail-mail communication, working for the necessary money to survive has been but an incidental part of my life activities. As for general life-skills and life-attitudes – the process of learning this began way back before I was even aware that I was a ‘me’ and I was unwittingly taught the usual set of morals, ethics and psittacisms that were fashionable at the time. Then at some point in my adult life, my real-world life fell to pieces and I found the wisdom of the Eastern teachings appealing for a while until I discovered that the revered Eastern spiritual teachings were nothing other than Eastern religion.

Having twice found the teachings of others to be lacking sincerity and efficacy, when I came across Richard and his discovery I was very careful to check out his bona fides. The first thing I did was to make it a point to clearly understand what he was talking about – no ifs and buts, no obscuration, no turning a blind eye, as I had done in my spiritual years – and I did this because this time I didn’t want to fool myself yet again. The other aspect was to check out how he was as a human being – was he walking the talk or was he a charlatan?

When I established a prima facie case for Richard’s sincerity and the sensibility of actualism, I then dropped everything else and set about finding out for myself whether I could become both happy and harmless – the essential core of the actualism practice of becoming free of the human condition. I found the process to be one of trial and error, lapsing back into old ways of being, becoming aware again and getting myself back on track. It’s an utterly simple do-it-yourself business. It is impossible to live someone else’s teaching vicariously but it is quite another thing to find out whether what someone else is saying works in practice.

Of course, to learn anything new demands 100% effort, otherwise the enterprise is sabotaged before it even starts. I found that out both in my work and with living with a companion – unless I fully committed to doing what I did at work the result was always unsatisfactory and unless I fully committed to living with my companion I always left the door open to failure, and it’s exactly the same with the business of becoming happy and harmless.

RESPONDENT: This site is mainly the product of a person life experience translated into thoughts.

PETER: I don’t know whether you have noticed yet but there are two sections to the website. One section is maintained by Richard and it contains both his writings and his correspondence and the other section is maintained by Vineeto and it mainly consists of Vineeto’s writings and correspondence and my writings and correspondence as well as cross-referenced links to Richards writings and correspondence. What is on offer on the website is far from an abstracted ‘teaching’ of one person.

RESPONDENT: It’s a huge mistake to think that by practicing ‘it’, you can arrive somewhere.

PETER: Unless one has some degree of interest in becoming free of malice and sorrow, reading what is written on the website will be by and large a waste of time and effort – at best only of academic interest to would-be plagiarists.

RESPONDENT: Thoughts/ideas cannot generate experience, they can do all sorts of things: simulate, represent, imitate, emulate but they cannot experience.

PETER: Thinking about whether or not one wants to become free of malice and sorrow is not the same as practicing becoming happy and harmless in one’s daily life. In my experience, prolonged thinking about whether or not to commit to anything merely leads to procrastination and postponement, which in turn leads to feelings of frustration and resentment, which in turn only fuels feelings of doubt and suspicion … and then the whole cycle starts over again.

RESPONDENT: Anyone who thinks that he experiences something different in terms of consciousness when immersed in a certain thought medium might simply fool himself. It’s at best a lab experience.

PETER: I was well aware of that when I came across Richard – but it wasn’t a thought medium I had immersed myself in previously, it was the thought-less feeling medium of spiritual teachings combined with the psychic powers of spiritual teachers. But then again I wasn’t a Krishnamurtiite, so I never was fully indoctrinated into believing that thinking was the root of all evil.

Because I had previously twice experienced the dangers of being trapped within a group-psyche, both as a normal bloke and then as a spiritual follower, I deliberately stopped sitting in Richards’s living room after a while and went out and road-tested actualism for myself, by myself. I also stopped reading his correspondence at this stage because I wanted to practically test the actualism method by myself in my daily life – and not try to hold it as belief or a theory or an ethic within some sheltered workshop.

RESPONDENT: I raised this objection in my latest post to Richard but it seems he’s on vacation.

PETER: It may well be that Richard has far better things to do with his time than respond to objections that are based on misrepresentations and/or misinterpretations of what he has written. If you care to peruse Richard’s correspondence you will find that a good deal of it is taken up with correspondents attempting to put words into his mouth that he did not in fact say and then accusing him of being pedantic and defensive when he takes the time to make it clear what he did in fact say.

RESPONDENT: This NEW possibility is actualised simply via the connection made between you and this Universe: pure intent.

PETER: This isn’t pure intent, this is the old ‘waiting for Godot’ scenario … or in secular terms, ‘waiting for Scottie to beam me up’. You have apparently replaced whatever spiritual beliefs you had before with a new spiritual belief – pantheism. By believing the physical universe to be a metaphysical entity (Universe with a capital U) it appears you have created yet another mythical God with whom you only need to connect in order that He/She/It will bring you deliverance.

RESPONDENT: This connection already exists because you, as this body, are an integral part of the physical Universe; IT manifests itself/ affects via the people, things and events of your everyday life. So, the process of ‘self’-immolation is not your doing, but the effect life’s facts/events have on a non-physical entity known as ... ‘you’.

PETER: Well, I guess we had to have someone try and make actualism into a pantheist belief and take it up as a teaching. This mailing list does represent a potpourri of spiritual beliefs – and the only mantra they have in common is ‘above all, don’t try to change’.

RESPONDENT: The ‘PCEs’ (my opinion) are used by the hardcore actualists in order to endorse/sustain their ‘actualist-self’. Once you experience a PCE, all the (repetitive) lingo associated with actualism will simply die out.

PETER: I understood from what you have written on this mailing list that you have acknowledged that you cannot remember having had a pure consciousness experience. If this is the case, you seem to be basing your advice to others on what you think a PCE might be. And yet this is what you said above –

Thoughts/ideas cannot generate experience, they can do all sorts of things: simulate, represent, imitate, emulate but they cannot experience.

PETER: I also noticed that you made comment to someone else on this list as to the authenticity of his experience, based on what you think a PCE is supposed to be. Personally I found the expression he used to describe the experience – ‘it was like being a tourist in my own neighbourhood’ – not only original and unique but also one that I could relate to from my own pure consciousness experiences.

RESPONDENT: This ‘lingo’ is at least a warning sign that a person creativity, innate originality, authenticity are seriously affected. The PCE is supposed to be the height of a person’s genuineness and naivety,

PETER: No. A PCE is a temporary experience of the total absence of ‘me’ – i.e. the absence of ‘me’ and ‘my’ disingenuousness and cynicism.

RESPONDENT: … the infinite source for new and original thoughts;

PETER: No. A PCE is a temporary experience of the total absence of ‘me’ – i.e. the absence of ‘me’ and ‘my’ hackneyed feelings and visceral thoughts.

RESPONDENT: … it’s supposed to be as perfect, new and refreshing as each new moment.

PETER: No. A PCE is a temporary experience of the total absence of ‘me’ – i.e. the absence of ‘me’ frees this body to sensately experience the seamless flawlessness of this moment. To describe this moment as ‘refreshing’ implies that previous moments were wearying or dull whereas even normal attentiveness reveals that this moment is ever-fresh, as in it has never been experienced before and can never to be experienced again.

RESPONDENT: Look into the site and see how repetitive it all is.

PETER: Yeah. Every time I come up with a good phrase or term Richard pinches it. He’s probably already got his eye on ‘conditional atheist’.

The same thing also happens in my work – as soon as I came up with something that was good someone else would pinch it, exactly as I did whenever I found something good. It’s how we human beings learn to do things better. I use a good deal of Richard’s phrases in my writing, particularly the simple catch-phrases such as happy and harmless, because it made sense to me to do so. Having said that, the fundamental reason the website is repetitive is that what is being said is so utterly simple and not at all convoluted or complex.

By the way, I have just given three descriptions of a PCE and I invite you to use your browser’s search engine and search the website in order to determine whether the descriptions are merely repetitive ‘lingo’.

RESPONDENT: I have extensive experience in the past with the ‘work’ language while in a spiritual group and a common ‘lingo’ is a sure sign of belonging to a ‘group’. The same excuses were used... that it’s an exact language with no literary pretences, that its sole purpose is to accurately convey/ describe the process and the experiences.

PETER: This is quite a common objection. Apparently many people have been conned in the past and because of this have developed a hard shell and a suspicious attitude. This protective shell manifests both as a defence – a resolve to never fully commit oneself to anything again, lest one gets hurt again – or in some cases as an attack – a resolve to be cynical towards whoever is tempting one into fully committing to something again. Cynicism – a form of sublimated anger – was never my thing and for whatever reason I could never ever completely close down to the possibility that there must be someone offering something genuine in ‘the freedom market’.

This protective shell is a big issue for many people and I have seen many people succumb to these feelings in their lives and most simply settle for ‘acceptance’. But then again, I know of someone who stubbornly refused to let these debilitating feelings rule his life and recently has managed, after a 20-year struggle, to finally break free of them (without taking the usual route of ‘surrendering’ his will to a mythical God or an authoritarian Godman, I might add).

RESPONDENT: The early morning blue sky can be described in a million different ways... even using the same words, but a person’s writing style is unique as his signature. And the writing style of Peter and Vineeto is very similar to the point that someone wondered if ‘they’ are not but one and the same person!

PETER: Ah, my cross-dressing secret is out. No 23 can confirm that he has met someone who called herself Vineeto so the question remains am I but a figment of Vineeto’s imagination, Richard’s imagination, your imagination or the collective imagination of all of the list members?

RESPONDENT: Above, I am not questioning the teaching but the ‘self’ ability (cunningness) to deal with it.

PETER: Given that you have concocted your own version of actualism and made it into your own teaching t’is no wonder you are not questioning ‘the teaching’ … which makes the rest of your comment self-evident.

RESPONDENT: Peter and Vineeto, your comments are welcome.

PETER: I usually don’t bother commenting on the various teachings offered on the list nowadays … but you did ask.