Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RESPONDENT: (...) My experience, observation and reasoning tells me that unless it’s accompanied by an actual pathological process that causes damage to the brain (maybe even be random damage at that), the actualism process is naught but wishful thinking and (at best) a powerful placebo effect. It causes changes, sure ... but those can (best, IMO) be attributed to: (a) finding a meaningful purpose to pursue; (b) being fully committed to a single goal; (c) doing it with a like-minded individual; (d) practising a happy/harmless morality (because that’s all it is unless/until ‘self’-immolation occurs).

RICHARD: May I ask? Where you intending to write IMBO ... and inadvertently wrote IMO instead?

RESPONDENT: Am I my brother’s speaker?

RICHARD: As your older sibling is now around 43 years of age, and as you have said elsewhere you have had 30-odd years of experience of him, it follows that he was already a teenager during your formative years.

RESPONDENT: The possibility that a rare neurological condition was the driving force behind the remarkable events of your post-1980 life, and that your ‘followers’ were having themselves on, occurred to me right from the start.

RICHARD: Presuming that by ‘a rare neurological condition’ you are meaning something similar to what terms such as ‘a freak of nature’/‘a sport of nature’ refer to – and that, therefore, nobody else need even begin trying to emulate – when did it occur to you that ‘a rare neurological condition’ = ‘an actual pathological process’ (involving, caused by, or of the nature of disease or illness)?

RESPONDENT: As far back as December 2003 I was asking questions in an online neurology-related forum trying to find out what kind of conditions could result in the complete loss of imagination and affect.

RICHARD: It did not occur to you to ask (for instance) what kind of conditions could result in a totally peaceful and harmonious life ... as in a veritable peace on earth, in this lifetime, as a flesh and blood body?

RESPONDENT: (None of the information I received was fully consistent with what you report though).

RICHARD: Could that be, perchance, because the very nature of the questions you asked is what produced the answers you received?

RESPONDENT: As those inquiries predate <Respondent’s brother’s> awareness of your existence, he could not have planted the idea in my mind.

RICHARD: Which idea are you referring to ... the ‘rare neurological condition’ idea or the ‘actual pathological process’ idea?

RESPONDENT: Moreover, I would be surprised if anybody had not considered the possibility that your enlightenment and ‘self’-immolation had a pathological cause. And if they have considered that possibility, all the rest (i.e. the idea that actualism is a ‘religion’ based on ‘faith’ ... though it tries hard not to be) follows naturally from this.

RICHARD: Speaking of all the rest ... did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to finding a meaningful purpose to pursue also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)?

Furthermore, did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to being fully committed to a single goal also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)?

Moreover, did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to practising a happy/harmless morality also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)?

*

RESPONDENT: Before we close the subject of pathology, do you remember when you discussed TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) with No. 25 recently? (see above)

RICHARD: Aye, that was the discussion which elucidated how mystical experiences are not the inevitable and/or only outcome of TLE auras ... according to the source my co-respondent initially quoted they are rarer than four percent of the cases. Vis.:

• [Mr. Peter Fenwick]: ‘Feelings of ecstasy [during a temporal lobe type of attack] are uncommon but they do occur, in fact about 4% of all temporal lobe auras which have an emotional content are positive in quality. Some auras have the quality of a mystical experience *but these are much rarer*. [emphasis added]. (http://scienceandreligion.com/b_myst_2.html).

More to the point, however, is nowhere was it ever explicated that actual experiences have anything to do with the temporal lobe.

RESPONDENT: In wrapping up the discussion, you mentioned that the issue had been tabled with your psychiatrist ...

RICHARD: I canvassed numerous issues, of course, yet the only issue professionally diagnosed by two specialists in the field as having a demonstrable causative effect was my war-time experiences ... a diagnosis – ‘the process of determining the nature of a disease etc.; the identification of a disease from a patient’s symptoms etc.; a formal statement of this’ (Oxford Dictionary) – which clearly illustrates, by the way, that your older sibling’s assertion that Richard has [quote] ‘a severe and incurable psychotic disorder of *unknown aetiology*’ [emphasis added] is nothing but rhetoric (the art of using language so as to persuade or influence others).

RESPONDENT: ... and, I can’t quite remember how you put it, but I was left with the impression that you were somehow familiar with TLE at the time.

RICHARD: Just as I was familiar with a momentary other-worldly crystalline-like clarity which can immediately precede an acute migraine attack (for example) via extensive discussions with a next-door neighbour of my first wife’s parents ... or just as I was familiar with a similar uncanny acuity which can occur in persistent malarial attacks (for another instance) from numerous ad hoc discussions with quite a few peoples over many years.

RESPONDENT: Are you able to say whether you have a close blood relative with TLE? Or a close blood relative with some other significant neurological abnormality?

RICHARD: For obvious reasons I will not be responding, either in the negative or the affirmative, to any such queries about any living person having a genealogical linkage ... what I will say, though, is this: I do find it cute that both you and your elder sibling are saying, in effect, that peace-on-earth is a disease, an illness, with an unidentified cause.

RESPONDENT: As for my ‘near certainty’ that your condition is pathological, I am of course talking through my hat.

RICHARD: I see ... and were you also talking ‘foolishly, wildly, or ignorantly; bluffly, exaggeratedly’ (Oxford Dictionary) when you wrote the following? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I think there is every possibility (for me it is almost a certainty now) that Richard’s ‘pure intent’ was itself pathological, a part of the same pathology that eventually did ‘him’ in. (Sunday 15/05/2005 5:22 PM AEST).

The reason I ask is that, otherwise, not only is peace-on-earth a disease, an illness, with an unidentified cause but even the very intent itself to actually be peaceful and harmonious is just as much a sickness.

RESPONDENT: Instead of saying I am ‘nearly certain’ that your condition is/was pathological, I should say that I simply have not ruled it out ...

RICHARD: I see ... so you have not ruled out that neither the intent itself, to actually be peaceful and harmonious, nor the outcome of that intention involves, is caused by, or is of the nature of disease or illness, then?

RESPONDENT: ... and its degree of likelihood mysteriously increases when I am throwing a tantrum.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

*

RESPONDENT: (None of the information I received [in an online neurology-related forum] was fully consistent with what you report though).

RICHARD: Could that be, perchance, because the very nature of the questions you asked is what produced the answers you received?

RESPONDENT: Of course. I was familiar with your own interpretation of your condition ...

RICHARD: If I might interject? How did my [quote] ‘report’ [endquote] of my condition all-of-a-sudden become my [quote] ‘interpretation’ [endquote]?

RESPONDENT: If I may begin to answer a question with a question: is it your opinion that every person on this planet is best able to explain his/her own condition, i.e. that they are best placed to provide an accurate ‘report’ of what is happening / has happened to them?

RICHARD: As I have not, obviously, read every person on this planet’s report of what is happening for/has happened to them I would need to be pretty silly to have such an opinion.

RESPONDENT: Would it including the guy who thinks he’s the King of the Space Lizards, put on earth to locate and seduce the Queen of the Earth Worms in order to breed the Butterfly who ... ?

RICHARD: Just so as to inject a little commonsense into this exchange might I remind you that the condition under discussion is so strikingly similar to what is experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is virtually indistinguishable?

And, as every person I have personally spoken to at length has had at least one such moment of perfection in their life (usually more often in childhood), it is quite reasonable to assume that neurological diseases/illnesses play no essential part, if any, in actuality becoming apparent.

RESPONDENT: If not ... why not?

RICHARD: Because, whilst I may be a lot of things, silly I am not.

Speaking of silliness ... does it not strike you as being the heights of absurdity to propose that the pristine purity and peerless perfection of this actual world – as evidenced in PCE – can only become apparent 24/7 via a neurological disease/illness?

Just curious.

RESPONDENT: I think in your discussions with Konrad, there was a mention about some thing that happened to your brain. Unfortunately the archives are not available. (...) In your discussions with Konrad there was some acknowledgement about the brain damage, I am pretty sure.

RESPONDENT No. 20: In that the archives are not available, Konrad’s posts to the list cannot be reviewed. Perhaps it may help if I add what I recall to what you have said. I do not remember any discussion between Konrad and Richard where Richard’s brain damage during the war was mentioned. I remember that Konrad claimed that this is what Richard had told him, and that this supported his theory as to what accounted for Richard’s behaviour.

RESPONDENT: So it seems that Konrad was wrong in that claim, despite his assertion that that was what Richard told him, and there is no way of knowing whether it is true or false.

RICHARD: Au contraire ... there is a very simple way: write and ask Konrad himself. Just in case you do not get around to it I wrote to him yesterday and received a long e-mail in response ... here is the relevant portion of that post: [Konrad]: ‘You have no brain damage whatsoever as far as I know. You have never mentioned to me that you had’. (Re: A Personal Issue; May 19, 2002). So endeth the speculation. Now to get back to your original issue: [Respondent:]: ‘A personal issue: Richard once mentioned that his brain was slightly damaged in some war era. Perhaps that is one factor to consider. (...) Given this factor why are we (including myself) spending so much energy about proving and disproving his points?’ (Re: Much Ado About Spiritual Enlightenment; May 14, 2002). You will surely have to acknowledge by now, seeing that ‘this factor’ is not the given which you say it is, that the validity of your question has fallen flat on its face ... that you have indeed built your case out of nothing. I do look forward to your considered response.

RESPONDENT: I was not building my case against or for you and out of nothing.

RICHARD: You were indeed ... you explicitly said [quote] ‘Richard once mentioned that his brain was slightly damaged in some war era’ [endquote]. As it has now been demonstrated that Richard never, ever mentioned what you said he mentioned you were most definitely building your case out of nothing.

All that is needed now is your acknowledgement that this is so and this thread is finished ... over and done with.

RESPONDENT: It amazes me why you did not reply as simply you did now (where you post your correspondence with Konrad and No. 20) earlier.

RICHARD: What amazes me is that you did not do as I did only yesterday (write to Konrad yourself) instead of speculating whether he did or did not say this or that about me ... it being such a simple and obvious thing to do.

As for posting my previous correspondence with Konrad ... I did (but you took no notice). Vis.:

• [Konrad]: ‘By the way, I think you are right about *my opinion* of you being mentally damaged. *It is flawed*. I have learnt a lot about the human brain lately. And I know it can adapt to anything and everything. So I think that it is possible to switch off the emotions as you assert it can’. [emphasis added].

Incidentally ... I have had no correspondence with No. 20 on this issue.

RESPONDENT: Instead you posted pages and pages of correspondence in earlier posts that I am still having difficulty wading through, due to lack of time.

RICHARD: You had specifically said [quote] ‘unfortunately the archives are not available’ [endquote] so I provided you with a URL to the sixteen pages comprising all of my correspondence with Konrad so that you could see for yourself (after I had sent my search engine through them and provided the only quote (above) regarding ‘damage’).

If you had indeed had access to the archives it would have taken you far, far longer to wade through them as they comprise of thousands and thousands of pages.

RESPONDENT: ‘Falling flat on its face’ is again your imagination ...

RICHARD: I beg to differ ... it has factually fallen flat on its face because of the textual evidence provided.

RESPONDENT: ... because there was already a possibility of taking your word for it as far as the brain damage is concerned.

RICHARD: We have been down this road before ... you are taking my word for it that I was in a war in the first place (all that I write about myself is a personal report) so, following your rationale, you cannot even start your argument thus:

• [Respondent:]: ‘A personal issue: Richard once mentioned that his brain was slightly damaged *in some war era*. Perhaps that is one factor to consider’. [emphasis added].

In your attempt to avoid acknowledging that you were in error, after my first detailed response, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a mire of your own making.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps what falls flat in the face is your inability to deal with simple questions ...

RICHARD: I did deal with the simple question easily and straightforwardly ... I categorically declared, in my first response, that I [quote] ‘unambiguously state that I never received any bullets, shrapnel wounds or blows to the head at all’ [endquote].

Apparently that was not sufficient for you and so on and on this issue has gone (just as it is in this e-mail).

RESPONDENT: ... but you deal with it with complex ‘artificial intelligence like’ cut and paste, piecing of words ...

RICHARD: If you see my providing of textual evidence to demonstrate a point I am making as being something other than as an aid to sensible discussion then that is your business. You, apparently, would rather rely upon vague recollections that somebody might have said something or another somewhere at at some unspecified time.

RESPONDENT: ... self defined semantics software ...

RICHARD: I have no clue whatsoever what this phrase is supposed to mean ... I use the standard English language as defined in a dictionary.

RESPONDENT: ... that indeed does indicate some brain disorder.

RICHARD: I see that you are still trying to find some basis for your original question (no matter how meagre or how silly it has become by now). Vis.:

• [Respondent:]: ‘Given this factor [supposed brain damage] why are we (including myself) spending so much energy about proving and disproving his points?’

Maybe the question should now read: ‘why am I (Respondent:) spending so much energy about proving brain damage in Richard?’

Is it because the points I raise are valid points, well-backed by accredited quotes, which cannot be refuted by sensible discussion and that you have had to revert to attempting to discredit the soundness of the brain that is putting forward these points (and quotes) for thoughtful consideration?

‘Tis only a suggestion, though, as I am not a mind reader.

RESPONDENT: There is some ground for assuming that Richard indeed suffers from some form of schizophrenia.

RESPONDENT No. 66: Schizophrenia n. – Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioural, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors.

Being in contact with between 12-14 Schizophrenics per day, 5 days a week for 40 plus hours I find it highly disingenuous that someone would classify R so. That would only show someone’s ignorance of schizophrenia or that they have some sort of agenda. I have NEVER met a schizophrenic who does not hear voices and/or see hallucinations (and to say R is ‘not admitting’ to having these symptoms is ridiculous, since he so freely admits to a host of symptoms that fall under the category of ‘Mental Illness’).

R’s condition is exactly as he has supplied: depersonalization (by the way-basically all enlightened ones would fall into this classification), derealization (by the way-basically all enlightened ones would fall into this classification), anhedonia (many enlightened folk would score high here too), and alexithymia (some enlightened people would be here too).

I’m open minded enough to entertain that non-normative mental functioning need not necessarily by either a disease or bad for you. I’m likewise reasonable enough to understand that it may be pathological also.

I could within about 15 seconds of meeting R know if he is schizophrenic or not as there are many nonverbal clues to one having this disorder. To suggest that Peter and Vineeto are so clueless, blind, foolish, imperceptive, insensitive simpletons to not be able to recognize the difference between someone who has lost their sense of identity and someone who is lost is a world of visual hallucination, ‘voices’ and scrambled thinking (i.e. the inability to carry on a logical conversation) is preposterous.

By the way, I have never met a truly happy schizophrenic either. A few have seemed happy when one only sees them for a few hours, but when one spends 8 hours a day, 5 days a week with them, the facade comes down. I do work with one fellow who is so pumped with anti anxiety, depressants, anti-psychotics, and other such meds that he is smiling quite a bit.

However, he is only awake about 6-8 hours a day and can barely get about within the home from being so drugged. Yet he still has found time to beat the shit out of staff and attempt a rape. Happy and harmless ... hardly.

Reasonable objections to actualism are one thing (and not that hard to come up with either), but this is a wankfest if I ever saw one. Why someone would be so desperate to fling such factually ignorant accusations could well speak volumes about such individuals. Re: schiz·o·phre·ni·a Wed 12/01/2005 11:42 AM AEST

RESPONDENT: Can you people verify what this man called Richard is saying?

RICHARD: What this man called Richard is saying can verified by recalling a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – which authentication is the only verification worthy of the name – just as he has made abundantly clear on the home page of his portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site for anyone to read. Vis.: [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all 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 (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name)’. [endquote]. So as to forestall an obvious question the following may be well worth re-posting: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Before one can investigate beliefs, morals, etc does there have to be a recalled memory of a PCE? [Richard]: ‘No, there is sufficient information presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima facie case worthy of further investigation – rather than capricious dismissal – which examination may very well induce recall ... or a fresh pure consciousness experience (PCE). The PCE enables one to know, for oneself, that actualism is not a philosophy’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: He can be right or scizophrenic.

RICHARD: There are two main ways the word ‘schizophrenic’ is used. For some examples: ‘schizophrenic: 1. (psychiatry) characteristic of or having schizophrenia; 2 (transf. & fig.) characterised by mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements, attitudes, etc’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of, relating to, or affected with schizophrenia; 2. of, relating to, or characterised by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of schizophrenia: relating to or resulting from schizophrenia; 2. offensive term: an offensive term meaning characterised by conflicts and contradictions (insult)’. (Encarta Dictionary). As only a psychiatrist – who, unlike a psychologist, is a medical doctor as well – has the necessary professional qualifications to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia (and who would be able to spell the word correctly) it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. As it is you who makes the allegation it behoves you to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally.

RESPONDENT: The fact that I spelled the word scizophrenic instead of schizophrenic, does not change the fact or the meaning.

RICHARD: That is what is known as a ‘straw-man’ argument (wherein a respondent invents something neither said nor implied and then answers their own invention as if they are having a meaningful discussion) ... the above is simply an explanation as to why it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word.

Besides which it would take a rash psychiatrist indeed to make a diagnosis by e-mail, anyway.

RESPONDENT: The word schizophrenic is not the fact of shizophreny.

RICHARD: And your allegation is not the fact of mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, either, until you substantiate your contention with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates it to be so.

RESPONDENT: The word book is not the book.

RICHARD: Neither is the word allegation ... yet the allegation itself still sits there, still unsubstantiated, looking even more silly than the first time around as this opportunity to substantiate it with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates what is being communicated gets frittered away on grade-school semantics.

RESPONDENT: Is just a symbol for communicating.

RICHARD: Indeed ... and what you are communicating has no validity unless you substantiate it with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions.

RESPONDENT: So why are you so much bothering about the spelling?

RICHARD: Oh, it is no bother at all to point out that somebody with the necessary professional qualifications to make such a diagnosis would be able to spell the word correctly ... just as it is not a bother to point out that you have yet to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally.

It is your call.

*

RESPONDENT: I don’t want to play games with you.

RICHARD: Yet, even so, you still go ahead and do so anyway, eh?

RESPONDENT: I am Psychiatrist.

RICHARD: Well then ... on what two (or more) of the ‘Criterion A’ symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR do you (rashly) base your e-mail diagnosis that this man called Richard can be schizophrenic?

RESPONDENT: You said that a psychiatrist will know how to spell the word schizofrenic. But because I am Italian, I can misspell many words.

RICHARD: Hmm ... in what way is the word spelt in Italiano, then?

RESPONDENT: Cool down.

RICHARD: Ha ... it is winter here, on this part of the planet, and a gentle rain is softly falling all about.

RESPONDENT: The word in Italiano is ‘scizofrenia’.

RICHARD: If I may point out? The word in question is schizophrenic (‘schizofrenico’, or ‘schizofrenica’, in Italiano) ... not schizophrenia (‘schizofrenia’ in Italiano).

RESPONDENT: Everybody can see one camouflaged anger in your email ...

RICHARD: Not even a duly qualified psychiatrist can be cognisant of what [quote] ‘everybody’ [endquote] can see in my e-mail.

RESPONDENT: ... [Everybody can see one camouflaged anger in your email] which is not in accord with the person you claim to be.

RICHARD: As camouflaged anger is not one of the two (or more) ‘Criterion A’ symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR, for a professional diagnosis of being schizophrenic, perhaps you might care to try again?

RESPONDENT: May be narcissistic personality disorder?

RICHARD: Am I to take it that you have all-of-a-sudden changed your mind? If so, on what five (or more) of the symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR do you (rashly) base your e-mail diagnosis that Narcissistic Personality Disorder may be indicated?

Before you reach for the keyboard again the following is well worth bearing in mind:

• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t want to play games with you’. [endquote].

*

RESPONDENT: I wonder though how you could not find that through your’s so called PCE’s?

RICHARD: First of all PCE’s are not [quote] ‘so called’ [endquote] – they are indeed called PCE’s – and, secondly, only an identity can have a PCE and, lastly, a PCE does not bestow omniscience.

RESPONDENT: Do you see your stupidity?

RICHARD: As that falls into the category known as ‘the fallacy of many questions’ (as in the classic ‘have you lost your horns’ and the more popular ‘have you stopped beating your spouse’ examples) your query cannot be answered as-is.

RESPONDENT: I am not crude, I describe you as you are.

RICHARD: The word crude is not what immediately leaps to mind upon reading the way you describe somebody ... it is the word pathetic which does.

Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand, as it is you who (rashly) makes the diagnosis it behoves you to either validate your determination, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates those two (or more) ‘Criterion A’ symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR, or withdraw it unconditionally.

Over to you.

*

RESPONDENT: Can everybody understand the difference between a person with love and the cruel psychopath named Richard?

RICHARD: As you have changed your diagnosis for a third time it is apposite to point out that the vague term [quote] ‘psychopath’ [endquote] has long been replaced by the name ‘Antisocial Personality Disorder’ (aka ‘sociopath’).

If that is indeed what you are now (rashly) diagnosing by e-mail then on what three (or more) of the symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR do you professionally consider such a disorder is indicated?

RESPONDENT: Dear friends, here we have to dill with a strwnge phenomenon.

Mr.Richard is saying that his was enlightened and he thought he was the parussia.In his own words. Then he met another person that was saying he was the parussia as well,and he said is impossible to be two parussias.Is like some craisy in the mental hospital saying he is Napoleon the grait and then he founds another one saying he is also Napoleon the grait.,so is not possible to be two Napoleons.....I have read about many so called enlightened persons,but nobody said I am Jessus or,this or that. The person,Mr.Richard was in halussination. I think nobody who read about Krishnamurti,Nisargadatta Maharaj etc,nobody said I am this or that. He(Mr.Richard) claims that he was enligntened for so many years,but he was just in one self deciving,halussinating state.

RICHARD: You may find a kindred soul at the following URL: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=910415321

Just in case you cannot access that link the essence of it is as follows:

• ‘(...) AF for me is the product of a failing enlightenment. Richard wrote me that he was the ‘parousia’and met another that was in the same state,so he thought two can not be Jesus and gave up. It reminds me of a person that things he is Napoleon the grate and meets another person,who things he is Napoleon as well and the most logical of them gives up. Was the state Richard was,one enlighened state?Or one religious psychosis? Till now,when I was reading about enlightenment,I never found one to be Jesus,unless he was in a state of psychosis,because that is what the Greek word ‘parousia’means,the second representation of Jesus. That means he was not enlightened.He is lucky he escaped the psychosis’. (Thursday 15/07/2004 7:19 AM AEST).

RESPONDENT: Richard, you thought you were Jesus when you were enlightened?

RICHARD: Another co-respondent gained a similar misconstruction from reading only the above quote. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... Richard himself destroyed all his writings during his enlightenment time, that is, when he thought to be the Paraclete (an appellation of the Holy Ghost).
• [Richard]: ‘If you could provide the text, with an appropriate reference, wherein Richard said he thought to be the Paraclete – a god spiritually, as distinct from fleshly, active in the world – for the eleven years 1981 to 1992 it would be most appreciated.
Incidentally, Richard burnt all what he had written, in that period, post-enlightenment/awakenment ... not during’.

The word Parousia – ‘Greek = presence (of persons), from pareinai be present’ (Oxford Dictionary) – in Christian Theology, and as distinct from the word Paraclete, refers to the Second Advent (aka the second coming) of the Christ (aka the Anointed One) on earth and is derived from the Latin ‘Christus’, from the Greek ‘Khristos’ (meaning ‘anointed’), from ‘khriein’ (anoint), as a translation from the Hebrew ‘masiah’ (Messiah) and refers to ‘The Messiah or Lord’s Anointed of Jewish tradition’ according to the Oxford Dictionary.

I mention all this because ... no, I did not think I was Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene when I was enlightened.

RESPONDENT: If you don’t won’t to recount the whole thing could you just point me to a place where this is discussed on the site?

RICHARD: Here is where the above beat-up stems from:

• [Richard]: ‘If you were to re-read what you have quoted (further above) you will see that it is [quote] ‘an emotional play in a fertile imagination’ [endquote] which is fuelled by an actual hormonal substance ... and there is no way that an emotional play in a fertile imagination is, as you make out, actual (as in your ‘and are actual’ conclusion).
To give an obvious example: for about a week, in the early days of being enlightened, I was ‘The Parousia’ and it was not until I met another person who was similarly afflicted that it dawned upon me it was but an emotional play in a fertile imagination ... there was sufficient rationality operating to comprehend there could not be two (simultaneous) manifestations of the ‘Second Coming’.
Incidentally, this other person was far more deluded than I was ... they had manifested the typical stigmata’.

And that is it, in its entirety, written to a person on record as saying they use Greek in their everyday vocabulary.

So as to clarify this whole business I will re-post the following:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What do you make of Krishnamurti’s dying statement that a great energy used his body and such an energy will not re-appear for many years?
• [Richard]: ‘He was accurately and correctly reporting his experience. That Christianity has their Parousia; that Buddhism has their Maitreya; that Islam has their Mahdi; that Hinduism has their Kalki; that Judaism has their Messiah; that Taoism has their Kilin and so on all comes from the same type of experience.
It is part and parcel of being enlightened (‘I Am That’ or ‘That Thou Art’).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Was he delusional by any chance?
• [Richard]: ‘All enlightened beings are deluded ... the altered state of consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment is a delusional state. I am not ‘guru-bashing’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti per se ... it is the ASC itself I am targeting.
I can use the accredited writings of virtually any enlightened being to demonstrate my points’.

All what a person does, when they liken the enlightened/ awakened experience of being the Parousia, the Maitreya, the Mahdi, the Kalki, the Messiah, the Kilin, and so on, to a patient in a psychiatric ward thinking they be Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte (or Ms. Marie Antoinette or whoever), is to air their ignorance of matters transcendental in public.

It is not a strange (as in atypical) phenomenon at all.

RESPONDENT No. 60 (to Richard): ... you seem for all money to be a prick that everyone bends over backwards to make allowances for on account of you having something to offer.

PETER to No. 60: It appears to have well and truly escaped your attention that by far the majority of correspondence that Richard has answered on this mailing list since he last had a break from writing has been from correspondents who are bending over backwards to personally attack him for the sole reason that not only has he something to offer and does freely offer it but also because he will not back down from having something to offer and from freely offering it.

RESPONDENT: What I find curious is that Richard is so compelled to respond to all these ^attacks^.

RICHARD: As Richard is not at all [quote] ‘compelled’ [endquote] to respond to any e-mail whatsoever then what you are not only finding curious but have even been motivated into taking extra steps about (of using both the time to type out and the bandwidth with which to send same) has no existence outside of your imaginative/ intuitive facility. Now, why someone – anyone – would do all that is surely something to be curious about, non?

RESPONDENT: If I was in his place I would deal with the flurry of gnats the same way I deal with Richard’s posts now – with the delete button. Presto!

RICHARD: As you are not in Richard’s place, but are kinda stuck in a solipsistic cul-de-sac, then the difference betwixt you and Richard is that he actually cares about his fellow human and thus would prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. Put succinctly: here in this actual world they are not experienced as if gnats, flurrying or otherwise, to be dealt with by deletion.

RESPONDENT: My momma always told me it takes two to argue.

RICHARD: Is there any other advice your mother gave you which you are not taking heed of?

RESPONDENT: Yeah ... don’t pick on crazy people.

RICHARD: While I appreciate your honesty (in acknowledging both what you are doing and what that is motivated by) you are targeting the wrong person. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) I am not insane ...’.

And this:

• [Richard]: ‘As I was insane for 11 years – and sane for the preceding 34 years – I can report from direct experience that there is a third alternative’.

And again:

• [Richard]: ‘There is, of course, a third alternative to either sanity or insanity (insanity is but an extreme form of sanity) ...’.

RESPONDENT: In all sincerity, your mental balance seems to be deteriorating.

RICHARD: As I intimately know, via first-hand experience, that what [quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to you to be happening has no existence outside of your intuitive/ imaginative facility then your sincerity is entirely misplaced.

Further to the topic of finding something curious: is it not a curious thing that a large majority of the e-mails to this mailing list, of late, have been mainly about the many and various things which many and various peoples feel/ intuit/ imagine/ infer about Richard – as in what seems to be so, what is apparently so, and so on – yet all the while wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so forth, are really happening all around the globe?

If that is an example of what [quote] ‘mental balance’ [endquote] looks like in action I am well pleased not to be sane.

CO-RESPONDENT: In all sincerity, your mental balance seems to be deteriorating.

RICHARD: As I intimately know, via first-hand experience, that what [quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to you to be happening has no existence outside of your intuitive/ imaginative facility then your sincerity is entirely misplaced.

RESPONDENT: No mad man would agree that he is mad, non?

RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following (so as to refresh your memory as to just what particular type of crazy person my co-respondent, in all their sincerity, has chosen to pick on):

• [Co-Respondent to No. 60]: ‘The man [Richard] is a textbook sociopath’. (Wednesday, 1/02/2006 12:43 PM AEDST).

That term (popularly known as ‘psychopath’) properly refers to a person with an ‘Antisocial Personality Disorder’ who, according to the DSM-IV, is someone who has a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others – as indicated by three, or more, of seven specific criteria – and for whom there is evidence of ‘Conduct Disorder’ (a repetitive and persistent pattern of behaviour, in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of three, or more, of fifteen particular criteria).

Now, whilst copyright regulations preclude me from publicly listing those twenty-two criteria, it would not have taken anyone with access to the internet very long at all to determine for themself that, as it is patently obvious that what [quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to my co-respondent to be happening most certainly has no existence outside of their intuitive/ imaginative facility, their sincerity is indeed entirely misplaced ... yet it would not be at all surprising if it turns out that you did not do such an elementary thing as that before reaching for your keyboard to type out your latest load of hogwash.

RESPONDENT: Do you talk like this in live interactions as well?

RICHARD: Were I to be having a verbal discussion with someone who, having previously sought to advise me in regards seeing both [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] and about looking at [quote] ‘the entire conversation as a whole’ [endquote], asked me whether it was true that no mad man would agree he is mad immediately after me having just said, to someone else present (in response to them having just informed me, in the context of their mother having spoken of the inadvisability of picking on crazy people, that in all their sincerity it seemed to them my mental balance was deteriorating), that as I intimately knew via first-hand experience what seemed to them to be happening had no existence outside of their intuitive/ imaginative facility their sincerity was entirely misplaced, then I would indeed talk like I wrote further above as that interlocutor’s contribution, to what had the potential of being a stimulating dialogue, rather than the dismissive intellectual argument it started out as, amounts to being nothing but yet another lot of worthless stuff and nonsense in that they obviously took no notice whatsoever of me having also just said that I was not insane and, as I had been insane for 11 years – and sane for the 34 years before that – I could report from direct experience that there is a third alternative to either sanity or insanity (insanity being, of course, but an extreme form of sanity).

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless