Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RICHARD (to Respondent No. 85): In regards to where you asked if I would ... (remainder snipped for reasons of space).

RESPONDENT: (...) It is beyond my comprehension that my wife’s report she couldn’t tell ‘that there were sensations’ and that ‘there was no experience’ should be ‘sufficient indication that dissociation was taking place’ and ‘some trance-like affective state of being’.

RICHARD: When someone – anyone at all – explains to another ... (remainder snipped for reasons of space).

RESPONDENT: You are indeed the master word twister.

RICHARD: Perhaps if the words you have responded to with your (unsubstantiated) allegation were to be examined, section-by-section, something might become progressively apparent ... and it must be borne in mind that they are a reply specifically addressed to you informing me (further above) that the appraisal given in my initial response, as asked for, was beyond your comprehension. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘When someone – anyone at all – explains to another ...’

I start off by making it clear that my response would be the same no matter who it was asking me for an appraisal of their experience.

• [Richard]: ‘... in the context of having had something happen at the base of their skull ...’

I make it clear that my appraisal, being contextualised, is specific to a situation in a given set of circumstances ... and provide a footnote to that effect. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... something happened at the base of my skull ...’. (Wednesday 6/04/2005 AEST).

Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

• [Richard]: ‘... where something shook and it was like it turned over, whereupon they ‘woke up’ ...’

Here is the remainder of the aforementioned footnote to that effect:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... something shook, it was like it turned over and I ‘woke up’. (Wednesday 6/04/2005 AEST).

Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.

• [Richard]: ‘... and are consequently enquiring as to whether they are either actually or virtually free from the human condition ...’

Here is the second part of the aforementioned footnote which explicates why they are consequently enquiring as to whether they are either actually or virtually free from the human condition:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... I played down the occurrence of the event that happened at the back of my brain – it was at the top of the neck, bottom of the brain – *it was exactly what Richard described* as a ‘turning over’ of something in the brain stem ...’. [emphasis added]. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).

And, just for the record, here is the related text:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘I am not sure if I am in Virtual Freedom or on the way to VF ...’. (Wednesday 6/04/2005 AEST).
• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘I don’t think I am at AF because I still get stressed – can you get stressed in VF/AF? (...) any thoughts back to me would be welcomed’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).
• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... if the turning over in the back of the brain is the process to AF, then I think I am in AF’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).
• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘If you [Vineeto] can ask Richard (...) then (...) we can test whether I am in AF or VF’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).
• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘If Richard could also look into this I would be grateful, as I am not sure ...’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).
• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... if I am in this state of AF (and I think I am ...’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).
• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘If you [Vineeto] could pass on the exercise to Richard I would be grateful, then maybe we can see if we are both in AF ...’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).

Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

• [Richard]: ‘... that when touching a porcelain cup five days after the wakeup ...’

Further enquiries have shown that it was actually seventeen days after the wakeup (and not five) ... even so there is no word-twisting there (let alone masterly word-twisting) as all it was is a dating error based upon the second e-mail being posted five days after the first.

• [Richard]: ‘... with eyes closed and without thinking ...’

Here is the text relating to that section:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘If you can ask Richard to test the following out like I have this morning (...) If Richard just sits there *without thinking* anything (...) You can ask Richard to try the same experiment as I did. I sat there with my *eyes closed*. A porcelain cup was in front of me. I touched the cup ...’. [emphasis added]. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).

As they are the exact-same words there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

• [Richard]: ‘... they could not tell there were sensations ...’

Here is the text relating to that section:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘I could not tell you the shape, form, temperature, size or anything of the cup, I could not even tell you it was a cup or that there were sensations’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).

Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.

• [Richard]: ‘... (specifically expressed as ‘there was no experience’) ...’

Here is the text relating to that section:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... no words could be applied to what it was that was being experienced as there was no experience’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).

Thus again there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

• [Richard]: ‘... yet all the while *feeling* they were not different from anything in the whole universe ...’

Here is the text relating to that section:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... I *feel* that I am not different from anything in the whole Universe ...’. [emphasis added]. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST)

Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

• [Richard]: ‘... (explicitly articulated as being not in terms of material but in terms of something indescribable) ...’

Here is the text relating to that section:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... not in terms of material, but in terms of something that is not describable ...’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST)

Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.

• [Richard]: ‘... there is, going solely by those words they chose to write, sufficient indication that ...’

As this is but a qualifier (which makes it clear that it is only the information considered both relevant and adequate, by the person concerned, which is suggestive enough for what immediately follows) there is no word-twisting there at all ... let alone masterly word-twisting.

• [Richard]: ‘... [that] dissociation had been/is taking place ...’

Here is the explanatory paragraph relating to that section:

• [Richard]: ‘To sit, thoughtless, touching a porcelain cup (presumably only with a fingertip) is to be cutaneously feeling something, even though it is not being recognised, just as the (seated) buttocks and thighs are also cutaneously feeling something – if only pressure – therefore it cannot be faithfully said, without dissociating, that there are no sensations/that there is no experience’. (Friday 22/04/2005 AEST).

Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.

• [Richard]: ‘... and it is more than likely that some trance-like affective state of being had been/is occurring ...’

In this section I provide a footnote so as to demonstrate what the words ‘some trance-like affective state’ are related to:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... I feel that I am not different from anything in the whole Universe – not in terms of material, but in terms of something that is not describable’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).

I could also, of course, have provided the following:

• [Respondent No. 85]: ‘... in this state/place, no words could be applied to what it was that was being experienced as there was no experience. (...) in my experience it is something that I cannot say in words. Respondent No. 89 tells me that the word for this is ‘Brahma’. I am not interested in the words to explain it, but from what he describes it seems to be accurate ...’. (Monday 11/04/2005 AEST).

As it is okay for you to appraise it as ‘Brahma’, without (presumably) accusing yourself of being a master word-twister, then it is surely okay for me to appraise it as ‘some trance-like affective state of being’ ... thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

• [Richard]: ‘... especially so when they then go on to write about how they are not sure that Richard saying he is the body is actually it.

Here is the commentary I provide as a footnote:

• [Richard]: ‘As a thoughtless and non-sensate feeling of an immaterial and indescribable undifferentiation from everything existent, coming post-wakeup as it does, might very well be otherwise expressed as ‘an oceanic feeling of oneness with all creation’ (or with words of that ilk) such unsurety is not, therefore, at all surprising’.

As the word ‘thoughtless’ literally means ‘without thought’ (the suffix ‘-less’ forms adjectives and adverbs from nouns with the sense ‘free from, lacking, without’) it is but another way of saying ‘without thinking’ ... therefore there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

As the word ‘non-sensate’ refers to the information provided about not being able to tell there were sensations then it is not a twisting of words to say that the feeling of being not different from anything in the whole universe is a non-sensate feeling ... let alone masterly word-twisting.

As the word ‘immaterial’ is but another way of saying ‘not in terms of material’ there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.

As the word ‘indescribable’ is but another way of saying ‘in terms of something that is not describable’ there is, again, no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

As the word ‘undifferentiation’ is but another way of saying ‘not different from anything’ there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

As the words ‘everything existent’ is but another way of saying ‘the whole Universe’ there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.

As the expression ‘an oceanic feeling of oneness with all creation’ (or words of that ilk) is quite a well-known way of expressing what a thoughtless and non-sensate feeling of an immaterial and indescribable undifferentiation from everything existent affectively feels like there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).

Therefore, whatever it is that your cavalier allegation – ‘you are indeed the master word twister’ – is based-upon it is not to be found in the text you appended it to in this e-mail.

*

RESPONDENT: Great for you!

RICHARD: As you did not substantiate your allegation – ‘you are indeed the master word twister’ – your exclamatory commendation is without substance.

RESPONDENT: You just take the words somebody says ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? I did not [quote] ‘just’ [endquote] take the words written ... I read them all carefully, referred to what else had been written previously to another, and considered each of them in the context of the sentence, the paragraph, the e-mail, and the thread they were in.

RESPONDENT: ... [You take the words somebody says] as it pleases your world view ...

RICHARD: If I may interject again? An actual freedom from the human condition is not a [quote] ‘world view’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: ... [You take the words somebody says] and then take them apart ...

RICHARD: If I may interject yet again? I took no words apart, either in my initial response or my follow-up, and it is only in this e-mail that I have gone step-by-step through the words somebody said ... my own words.

RESPONDENT: ... [You take the words somebody says] accordingly to your logic and ...

RICHARD: If I may interject even yet again? I read the words according to what is being directly experienced (an actual freedom from the human condition).

RESPONDENT: ... [You take the words somebody says accordingly to your] ideology.

RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition is not my [quote] ‘ideology’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: That is a fantastic method to put people off and you are certainly an over-achiever in that.

RICHARD: If I may point out? Here is an example of what remains of your accusation after all what is fantasy is left off:

• [example only]: ‘You take the words somebody says’. [endexample].

Do you see that the alleged [quote] ‘fantastic method’ [endquote] has no existence outside of your skull?

If so, do you see that there is nothing to purportedly [quote] ‘put people off’ [endquote] with?

And if you do see that, do you also see there is nothing for me to supposedly be [quote] ‘certainly an over-achiever’ [endquote] in?

*

RESPONDENT: I see zero benevolence here.

RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Why are you caring about your fellow human beings?
• [Richard]: ‘Put succinctly it is benevolence (a munificent well-wishing) ... the etymological root of the word benevolent is the Latin ‘benne velle’ (meaning ‘wish well’). And well-wishing stems from fellowship regard – like species recognise like species throughout the animal world – for we are all fellow human beings and have the capacity for what is called ‘theory of mind’.

It is because I wish well for my fellow human being that I responded, in the first instant with a carefully detailed reply which explained why I considered it not to be either an actual or virtual freedom from the human condition, and in the second with a carefully considered explanation of why I wrote what I wrote in the first ... and I would be doing neither person a favour if I carelessly replied, in either instance, with an ill-considered response.

RESPONDENT: I see zero happiness here.

RICHARD: Given that what you see is (1) the master word twister ... and (2) a person that just takes another’s words ... and (3) a person that has a world view ... and (4) a person that takes other’s words apart ... and (5) a person that accords other’s words to their logic ... and (6) a person that accords other’s words to their ideology ... and (7) a person that uses No’s 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as a fantastic method to put people off ... and (8) a person that is certainly an over-achiever in No. 7 then it is not at all surprising that you see no happiness.

RESPONDENT: I see zero harmlessness here.

RICHARD: Again, it is not at all surprising that you see no harmlessness, either.

RESPONDENT: All I see here is a master ability to take peoples’ accounts and interpret them as it fits into one’s world view best.

RICHARD: That would explain why you (a) see no benevolence ... and (b) see no happiness ... and (c) see no harmlessness.

RESPONDENT: Maybe I am just blind ...

RICHARD: There is no ‘maybe’ about it ... you are indeed blind.

RESPONDENT: ... but I doubt it.

RICHARD: You can, of course, doubt that you are blind all you will ... yet it will not alter the fact of your blindness one little bit.

*

RESPONDENT: [Irene, Richard’s ex-wife to Vineeto]: ‘I saw through Richard’s ‘peaceful’ living; it was (and is) expressed in glee for winning yet another argument, especially the one-up-man-ship he is so proud of having eliminated’. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listafirene.htm). That is so sick!

RICHARD: Aye, what my previous companion wrote there, in 1998, is indeed sick.

Now here is a notion for you to consider: why are those words on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site – the portion only I have authorial access to and which I have total editorial control over – if they be so damaging (else why quote it) as to render what is on offer on the entire web site null and void in one short sentence?

A trifle curious, non?

RESPONDENT No. 18: ... what on earth is pathetic about that?

RESPONDENT: ... do I really have to explain myself there? I have posted 15 or 30 posts since I have been here. He pulls one line out of one thousand and makes up a question and then answers it with one line out of 1000. Sorry, but you are smart enough to see that that is nothing short of pathetic. And extremely pathetic for someone of his intelligence.

RICHARD: Apparently I am not ‘smart enough’ as I cannot see how the above exchange is anything other than the straightforward sequence of a query/response dialogue ... as per any other straightforward discussion on this or any other mailing list I have ever subscribed to. Here is the context in which the ‘one line out of one thousand’ originated: [Respondent]: ‘On another note and a popular topic of discussion on this list: while I have brought this up in the past regarding Richards claim of being the 1st to be fully free of the human condition ( I will use the actualist term). First I would like to say that regarding the ongoing discussion between  Respondent No. 56 and the ‘defenders of the faith’ (my term – no offence intended referring to Richard, Peter, Vineeto, Respondent No. 18, et al) that I can clearly see  Respondent No. 56’s points. That said, how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing? Clearly the writings of Carlos Casteneda point to the Indians of the Mexican peninsula devoting their entire existence to such goals. One is not likely to find such evidence scouring the internet. [emphasis added]. You had distinctly said ‘on another note’ so I am obviously not taking it out of the context of the long e-mail the paragraph was situated at the end of ... (snipped for reasons of space).

RESPONDENT: You cut & paste, you rearrange previous correspondences in an absurd abstract manner ...

RICHARD: I did no such thing ... and I even explained this (above):

• [Richard]: ‘You had distinctly said ‘on another note’ so I am obviously not taking it out of the context of the long e-mail the paragraph was situated at the end of ...’.

First you say I pulled [quote] ‘one line out of one thousand’ [endquote] and now you say I ‘rearrange previous correspondences’ ... I do wonder what you will come up with next.

Incidentally, I copy and paste ... that way the original stays intact for future reference.

*

RESPONDENT: My original comment of ‘pathetic’ was referring to you pulling one line out of one thousand and posing a self serving question which would then be answered by that particular line of your choosing to illustrate your point. In fact, in the following correspondence, you rearranged lines and responses, mixing & matching from various posts according to your whims & purposes. You essentially fabricate a conversation of your choosing to state your case. It reminds me of a serial killer who leaves clues for the law by piecing together different letters and words from various periodicals.

RICHARD: I suggest you access the following URL before you remind yourself of something even more grotesque:

www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909115558

Just in case you do not get around to it here is the relevant text (in its native format):

RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: is this American
Indian/Mayan/Incan/Aboriginal person (or any other from such an
uprooted,
extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples) the first person
to become actually free from the human condition ... or was
there someone, somewhere, somewhen, before that person as well? Just
curious.
RESPONDENT: You are just goading me into useless banter.
[Richard]: Not at all ... I am asking a valid question: if (note ‘if’) the, thus
far abstract, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in
a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied
that they were the first to be actually free from the human
condition?
‘Tis a simple question, non?
RESPONDENT: So to humour yourself ... Richard ... I haven’t a clue ...
[Richard]: Do you realise that you are acknowledging you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether
an abstract entity was indeed the first to be actually free
from the human condition?
[Respondent]: I haven't a clue whether a particular entity was indeed the first ... (‘Re: A Question For The Expert’; Nov 26, 2003 18:50 PST; Author: Respondent).

Now I ask you ... where have I ‘rearranged lines and responses, mixing & matching from various posts’ in the formatted query/response sequence I have re-inserted at the top of this page so the remainder can be read in context (just as I did five days ago)?

The only out-of-sequence line is the ‘Respondent to Peter’ passage which I shifted from being a footnote in the original thread to being a header in this thread – again for the sake of being able to be read in context – and if that is what you are calling [quote] ‘extremely pathetic’ [endquote] then all of your ‘out of context’ protestations amount to nothing but bombast and blather.

As for what you say was me ‘pulling one line out of one thousand’ ... it was in direct regard to your comment that my repetitive responses to your repetitive replies (as in ‘I don’t care’/‘you cared enough to write to me’ for example) were [quote] ‘getting tres old & tres boring’ [endquote] and, for another instance, supposedly putting you to sleep (as in your ‘blah, blah, blah – wake me when it’s over’ response) so I cut to the chase and attended solely to the main point I was making that your proposition (that there be someone, somewhere, somewhen, who had already become actually free from the human condition long before I did) is nothing but an intellectual creation – an abstract entity – who is, of course, of no use whatsoever where it comes to everyday practicality (as in a flesh and blood human being sharing their experience/ expertise with you).

In short: your argument is as hollow as your protestations about the way I conduct my correspondence.

RESPONDENT No. 27: For me, the matter is simply a claim to be investigated – but it must be investigated in the manner in which the person making the claim specifies. If I am told that the only way to know it is the PCE, then that is what I have to investigate if I want to speak on equal footing.

RESPONDENT: Fair and reasonable all the way, but just for fun, here’s a bit of twisty logic to sink your teeth into:

In other words, according to this logic, the mere occurrence of a PCE proves the falsity of the Big Bang. Your own interpretation of the experience is irrelevant to R’s proof.

RICHARD: First and foremost: although you agreed it was ‘fair and reasonable all the way’ to investigate the claim in the manner specified (experientially) you immediately set out to investigate it in a manner not specified (logically).

Second, you say ‘if you accept R’s logic’ as if it was indeed Richard’s logic and not your logic – not being a logician I never present what you have presented above in my name – as the modus tollens rule (the rule that the negation of the antecedent may be inferred from the conditional statement) is not something I have any familiarity with ... and seeing what you have done with it have no interest whatsoever in ever gaining such familiarity.

Third, you base your entire logical conclusion upon an hypothetical answer to an hypothetical question – I did not write ‘(note ‘if’’)’ just for the sake of doing so – and even explained this in the following e-mail by saying I answered your hypothetical question as asked. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am simply trying to understand why you argue that, if time space and matter had not always existed, neither PCE nor AFftHC would be possible.
• [Richard]: ‘I am not arguing anything ... you proposed a hypothetical scenario and I responded as asked.

Fourth, if logic can indeed produce the result that you put into words (above) then I am well-pleased not to be a logician ... not being a logician I have to be rational instead.

Because if (note ‘if’) all time and all space and all form indeed had a beginning – as in there is no time, no space, no matter/there is time, is space, is matter – then there would be something other than the universe (an otherness which is time-less and space-less and form-less) which means that such a universe is not peerless (hence not perfect) thus a pure consciousness experience (PCE), the direct experience of the peerless purity this universe actually is, would not exist/could not happen ... and the summum bonum of human experience would be an altered state of consciousness (ASC) as ASC’s are epitomised by a non-material otherness by whatever name.

As it has been up until now ... and which highest good, I might add, you are doing your level best to reinstate in other e-mails by classifying a particular ASC (where the intuitive/imaginative faculty is still extant) as being a PCE.

As I coined the phrase ‘pure consciousness experience (PCE)’ you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to redefine it.

RESPONDENT: The Actual Freedom Trust will turn ‘your’ Actual freedom into a ‘pay-as-you-participate religion’, whilst all I and you do is write words.

RICHARD: Whatever it is that The Actual Freedom Trust may or may not do in some indeterminate future is purely speculative ... whereas, far from what you do is to merely ‘write words’, you have been and are currently attempting to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion.

RESPONDENT: I have not.

RICHARD: If I may point out? You have already acknowledged that you did (further above) where you agreed that you are not the only person to try to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion and that you will not be the last (‘exactly; my point exactly’) so as to demonstrate your theory that The Actual Freedom Trust will do likewise. You cannot have it both ways: either you did (and therefore your extrapolation is theoretically feasible) or you did not (and therefore your extrapolation is rendered unfeasible).

Put simply: your denial (‘I have not’) invalidates your prognosis (‘exactly; my point exactly’).

RESPONDENT: I have been pointing out the tendencies that are inherent in any organisational system to corrupt itself over time.

RICHARD: Not so ... you have been pointing out the tendencies that are inherent in any power-based hierarchical ‘organisational system’ to corrupt itself over time. I have no power or ‘powers’ whatsoever ... and there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation. With no ‘top dog’ or ‘queen bee’ sitting on their throne and initialising the inevitable ‘chain of command’, an ‘organisational system’ need never, ever become corrupt. Or, as one person famous in history put it:

‘Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

RESPONDENT: You display a degree of insolence by twisting my words to suit your agenda.

RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... thus from now on when I write something such as ‘you are not the only person to try to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion and you will not be the last’ and you reply ‘exactly; my point exactly’ I am to read that as you meaning ‘I have not’, eh?

‘Tis good that you now explicate your use of the English language ... it helps to explain all the confusion thus far.

RESPONDENT: The words of mine are clearly documented on various websites.

RICHARD: The specific words in question are just up at the top of this page ... there is no need for anyone to negotiate their way through your various websites.

RESPONDENT: They will stand the test of time; and your unwillingness or inability to address my questions directly is also documented permanently. An honest answer on your part in regard to many of the questions I ask of you would be ‘I Richard, am not willing to answer that question right now’. Given such an answer from you I would say ‘thankyou Richard for your answer’. But you keep twisting and turning like you want to save the world under your own efforts; by yourself, without the help of your companions; you will be seen as the one to destroy the dragon of the self, and you will be seen as the king who pulled out the sword from the rock with your own strength and ... and in the movie of the event you want top credits. It is surely obvious already to the more intrepid readers that you use your intelligent logical circuits when you so desire and at other times you merely twist the input to create the output you desire.

RICHARD: Basically what you are saying here is that I am not giving you the answers that you think I should be giving you.

*

RESPONDENT: The other day you insisted I am a follower of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain. This was already after I had told you I am not.

RICHARD: You must be referring to the following information:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am so glad to have had the opportunity to have been a sannyasin of bhagwan who latterly called himself osho; and then announced there is no more ‘sannyas’ in his point of view; there are only ‘Friends of OSHO’ ... It is sad and cute and laughable that there are so many people on the planet still calling themselves sannyasins; or arguing that sannyas is not where it is at; when the man who made it all up – out of the ancient teachings – and energised the whole phenomena in the 1970s and ‘80s on planet earth; stated clearly a few years before his death, that it had been great; it had worked; now it could finish. Some of the most PERCEPTIVE and FREE humans on the planet were drawn to the event over a few decades and some of us got the point. Some did not’.

I do comprehend that, after being ‘a sannyasin of bhagwan’, you did indeed cease being a sannyasin when he said to ... and became instead a ‘friend of OSHO’ as he said to a few years before his death. How could I not comprehend this when you made it all so clear by emphasising that you did what he said to do by telling me that ‘some of us got the point. Some did not’? Of course I comprehend ... you even said that it is ‘sad and cute and laughable that there are so many people on the planet still calling themselves sannyasins’.

RESPONDENT: I tell you again I am not a follower of anyone.

RICHARD: Let me see ... when you were ‘a sannyasin of bhagwan’ you were what could be and has been described as a follower of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain – a disciple sometimes known as a ‘Rajneeshee’ at the time – who supposedly was practicing total surrender to the master (if you were not a disciple practising total surrender to the master then you cannot describe yourself as having been ‘a sannyasin of bhagwan’).

Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain then came out with the notion, latterly known as ‘Friends of OSHO’, around about the time that the US authorities were scanning his credentials vis-à-vis entrance requirements (when he pretended to no longer be a religious leader replete with followers and came out with the farce that he had a lot of ‘friends’ he was living with in the good old US of A so as to be able to stay there). And, after he was no longer able to stay in the US (or pretty well anywhere else in the world), and wound up back in the Poona Ashram he had precipitously abandoned some years before, he declared that from now on he would no longer be known as ‘Bhagwan’, replete with followers (disciples known as ‘sannyasins’), but as ‘Osho’ ... replete with followers (disciples known as ‘friends of OSHO’).

That he found some references to ‘friends’ in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s words in regard to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s followers (disciples called ‘Bhikkhus’) that somehow would emphasise the devoted nature of the relationship between master and disciple only goes to drive home the point that a ‘friend of OSHO’ is most definitely a surrendered disciple ... or should be if they have understood him properly.

You did say to me that ‘some of us got the point. Some did not’ did you not?

RESPONDENT: You do not take my words at face value, you interpret them and twist them to illustrate that your simplistic classification scheme is correct. It is not correct and its only utility is creating dissent and malice and sorrow.

RICHARD: In this specific instance I disregarded your facile explanation of what a ‘friend of OSHO’ is and opted for Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s version ... I prefer fact to fancy any day of the week.

RESPONDENT: I repeat ... I am not normal; I am not spiritual, and I am not on your ‘third way’. How do you fit me into your paradigm Richard? I state I do not fit into your existing simplistic classification scheme and what do you do; you do not take my words at face value as you claimed you always do [and then get upset when I call your game in this respect] you attempt to squeeze me in so that you do not have to expand your scheme.

RICHARD: As I said: I opt for Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s classification ... I prefer fact to fancy any day of the week.

RESPONDENT: Good grief man ... do you even read what you write?

RICHARD: Indeed I do – at least three times, in fact, as clarity in communication is vital when writing about something entirely new in human history – just as I do with what my co-respondent writes: once immediately after having written it in the word-processor; again after having imported it into the web-page editor; and again after having exported it to the e-mail client preparatory to clicking ‘send’ ... each time re-reading what I am responding to so as to ensure it is both to the point and relative to the general thrust of discussion.

RESPONDENT: Do you not see the twisty games you play with words?

RICHARD: I did not come down in the last shower ... as you had used the words [quote] ‘twisty word play’ [endquote] in reference to the actualism writings in an e-mail to another only 16 hours previously I specifically provided a copy-pasted quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica so as to pre-empt more ill-founded comments of that ilk.

You are on a hiding to nowhere trying to maintain that advaita is non-spiritual.

RESPONDENT: If all you have is a spiritual brush, everything gets painted the same.

RICHARD: Well now ... you had better make your case to the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica as it was the copy-pasted quote from that publication which explicitly used the words ‘spiritual release’ in reference to the advaita insight into identity (that the self is nothing but that which is outside time, space, and causality). Vis.:

• ‘... Brahman is real and the world is unreal. Any change, duality, or plurality is an illusion. The self is nothing but Brahman. Insight into this identity results in spiritual release. Brahman is outside time, space, and causality (...). (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

I will say it again for emphasis: you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to maintain that advaita is non-spiritual.

RESPONDENT: I don’t know what kind of permanent change was effected in you, but it’s nothing I want any part of.

RICHARD: I see ... you do not know what it is you are dismissing but you are dismissing it anyway.

RESPONDENT: Oh, and if you don’t like advaita ...

RICHARD: It is not a question of like or dislike ... I lived that/was that, night and day for eleven years, and found it wanting: peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritual release.

RESPONDENT: Why do you keep posting this stuff about yourself, trying to make people believe it?

RICHARD: You have asked me a similar question before ... and I cannot improve upon my response to you back then:

• [Richard]: ‘I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how important 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’.

RESPONDENT: Only a fool would believe it because people watch what you DO, your tricks, how you tend to beat up on people when you feel they are intellectually weaker than you are, and how you twist the words of others to disguise your inability to meet those words adequately.

RICHARD: Hmm ... again this ‘you feel’ diagnosis of yours is as inaccurate as the conclusions you draw. Plus, experience has shown that when the other starts telling me that I am twisting their words it usually indicates that they have nothing of substance to say ... and that the discussion is about to be terminated.

‘Tis only a generalisation, though.

RESPONDENT: Either you are stone nuts or you are sinister.

RICHARD: I am well aware by now that anyone proposing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body, is considered to be ‘stone nuts’ (my condition has been officially diagnosed as a severe psychotic mental disorder) ... but this ‘sinister’ analysis of yours intrigues me (‘sinister’: menacing, ominous, evil, baleful, creepy, threatening). Especially since you have previously told me that I am ‘a scoundrel, ‘a deceiver’, ‘a liar of the worst kind’, ‘a vulture’, ‘a buzzard, ‘a mamba snake’ and that it is ‘a shame to have all that verbal ability and to use it so nefariously’ (‘nefarious’: wicked, evil, despicable, immoral, reprehensible, disreputable).

And you say that it is I that displays ‘paranoia’, eh?

RICHARD: Before you become too effusive in your congratulations you may wish to view some quotes relevant to the topic. So as to save you wading through a rather long post I will supply the pertinent quotes here: (snip quotes from archives). It would appear that the ‘perspective’ he refers to is an ... um ... an all-embracing perspective where it concerns suffering.

RESPONDENT: You sure do like to bring up the past whilst advocating memorizing a certain phrase to free you from the past.

RICHARD: First, 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.

Second, if you see that I am ‘advocating memorizing a certain phrase’ then you are demonstrating that you cannot read what I have to say with both eyes open.

Last, I am not advocating, and never have advocated, freeing oneself from ‘the past’ ... I have consistently advocated freeing the body of its parasitical entity in toto (the instinctual passionate ‘being’).

RESPONDENT: You are truly a twisted individual.

RICHARD: No ... it is your misrepresentation, of what I clearly enunciate, that you are finding ‘twisted’.

RICHARD: To make it crystal clear I will leave you with the following paraphrase of your ‘admonitions’ to another: [paraphrase]: ‘Phrases and words like ‘can never be known’ ought to be spoken with great caution because they indicate mere strong opinion that is conceiving itself to be universal fact. Although you have the right to assert your belief, you might at least consider that they are based only on logical principles, premises that are wholly arbitrary, and which you can’t possibly verify. You simply don’t have the knowledge or experience to make finalistic statements, as you do, with any degree of earnestness and accuracy. It is completely bogus to say ‘can never be known’ . That is the sheer stubbornness of belief. Nothing more’. [end-paraphrase]. If you sincerely wish to have a genuine discussion ... the way to do so is in your hands and your hands alone.

RESPONDENT No. 19: I think that all Richard is trying to point out is that you are admonishing him for what you yourself are doing. Don’t you know better than try and debate with Richard by now. He’ll use your words, his words, and everybody else’s words to wrap around your neck and hang you from the nearest post – and then, he’ll bite you on the leg like that Mamba snake you accused him of being. By the way, what is a Mamba snake? I never heard of them. Are they native to Australia?

RESPONDENT: Actually, Richard is playing games, as he usually does. For example, in the above he is taking something I said to another – in a different context and for a different reason – and attempting to make it apply in this particular case. He knows what he is doing and why: He doesn’t want to discuss with me because I am capable of exposing the flaws in his actualistic beliefs. It’s easy then, for a fairly sharp mind to escape by using the past, by taking things out of context and twisting them in a manner which attempts to discredit the rationality of the offending person, thus enabling the escapee to bow out – public image remaining intact. I encounter that not only with Richard, but in all walks of life, including Listening-l. I don’t mind it. I just acknowledge peoples’ right to end the discussion for whatever reason and at any instant they choose. It is simply what fear does when one feels trapped. By the way, a mamba snake is, as far as I know, a particularly deadly and aggressive snake, native to Africa. I don’t know if they are also native to Australia.

RICHARD: I see that you have analysed Richard and dismissed him for lacking your capacity to expose flaws in others ... so let us say, in order to bring to an end all this to-ing and fro-ing, that he is indeed a fool to try to match your skills with his meagre intellectual resources.

Your article of faith – ‘reality can never be known’ – still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory, despite your adroit dismissal of the messenger.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: Never mind the ‘Mamba snake’ – they have no world-wide distribution – as the one to watch out for is colloquially called (in Australia anyway) the ‘Trouser Snake’ ... which is why it is always advisable to type all posts to mailing lists with both hands (for females typing single-handedly it would be called the ‘Panties Snake’ and, even though only the head of the snake is visible, the same-same narcissistic self-stroking activity happens just the same).

*

RESPONDENT: Actually, Richard is playing games, as he usually does. For example, in the above he is taking something I said to another – in a different context and for a different reason – and attempting to make it apply in this particular case. He knows what he is doing and why: He doesn’t want to discuss with me because I am capable of exposing the flaws in his actualistic beliefs. It’s easy then, for a fairly sharp mind to escape by using the past, by taking things out of context and twisting them in a manner which attempts to discredit the rationality of the offending person, thus enabling the escapee to bow out – public image remaining intact. I encounter that not only with Richard, but in all walks of life, including Listening-l. I don’t mind it. I just acknowledge peoples’ right to end the discussion for whatever reason and at any instant they choose. It is simply what fear does when one feels trapped.

RICHARD: I see that you have analysed Richard and dismissed him for lacking your capacity to expose flaws in others ... so let us say, in order to bring to an end all this to-ing and fro-ing, that he is indeed a fool to try to match your skills with his meagre intellectual resources.

RESPONDENT: Why do YOU feel dismissed? As I said, it is all about maintaining the self-image of unprecedented ‘awakening’ as expounded through the faith-based doctrine of actualism. Of course then, any challenge to your actualism will be perceived as a challenge to YOU. Thanks for successfully demonstrating that point yet again.

RICHARD: I see that you are still preoccupied with analysing Richard ... and all the while your article of faith (‘reality can never be known’) still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory.

RESPONDENT: I thought there was no ‘Richard’ to analyse? Now I’m not sure, but there just might be some force hiding in your body that feels compelled to resist and contest all references to its existence and analysis. Are you going to tell me next, that all your posturing and self-defence is a demonstration of your ‘actual’ living of the ‘peace on earth’ that your actualistic faith continually propagates? I have a right to be tawdry, as I am an ordinary human being – one of the 6 or 7 billion. What’s your excuse?

RICHARD: I see that you are still focussed on examining Richard – yet all the while your article of faith (‘reality can never be known’) still sits there just waiting to be examined – and your acknowledgement of being ‘an ordinary human being’ only makes it all the more obvious that it be an article of faith and not a living experiential truth.

*

RICHARD: Your article of faith – ‘reality can never be known’ – still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory, despite your adroit dismissal of the messenger.

RESPONDENT: Let’s turn it around slightly. For sure, what is not of thought can never be known by thought or by the body that produces it, despite the nervous twitchings and denials of ‘the messenger’, whose identity hinges on his hope that the contrary is the case.

RICHARD: I see that you are still fixated on turning things around so as to expose the flaws in others ... yet all the while restating your article of faith (‘reality can never be known’) in slightly different words as if it were the universal fact (‘for sure’) you take it to be. Your ‘for sure’ also just sits there ... propping up your unexamined non-material truth.

RESPONDENT: You couldn’t possibly have any flaws, for you are the embodiment of truth, at least in your own mind. Yet, I wonder: Would truth care a damn what was ‘turned around’ about itself? And would it be obsessed with replying to every ‘tawdry’ statement made about it? I trust then, that AS ‘actuality’, you will ‘actually’ perceive these words and BE the un-attachment that you presently imagine, and that the obsession to perpetually self-defend will subsequently fall away, like so many warts on Big Bertha’s butt.

RICHARD: I see that you are still obsessed with fixing-up Richard rather than examining the ‘for sure’ that is propping up your unexamined truth – ‘reality can never be known’ – which still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory.

RESPONDENT: ... I would like to remember you a few facts: No. 40 exposed (...) Richard’s fallacies, etc., giving [him] an opportunity for facing reality. You can review all those posts in the archive, I am not inventing it.

RICHARD: My attention has been drawn to your statement which portrays the exposure of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ as being part of ‘a few facts’. However, I have been unable to locate anything relating to this description ‘in the archive’ ... let alone any exposure of same. As you affirm that you are ‘not inventing it’ I would appreciate your detailing of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see.

RESPONDENT: Have you been unable to locate anything relating to it?

RICHARD: Indeed I have not ... which is why I asked if you would detail ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see.

RESPONDENT: I see, it is expectable Richard, your typical behaviour of hypocrite sod. Let me help you, perhaps you have not the following definitions in your Oxford Dictionary: Fallacy is to avoid other’s questions and to flee like a fearful rabbit when someone is trying to understand you. Fallacy is to manipulate your past conversations in this list, copying and pasting in your web page what is convenient for you and skipping what is not. Fallacy is to select bit extracts from K’s quotes so that they can sound as you need. Fallacy is to come back with this shit of post for defending yourself of previous No. 40’s informations and comment when it is of public domain.

RICHARD: I appreciate that you have explained what the word ‘fallacies’ means to you. Even so, I have been unable to locate anything relating to these descriptions of yours ‘in the archive’ or ‘of the public domain’ ... let alone any exposure of same. As you affirm that you are ‘not inventing it’ I would appreciate your detailing of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see.

RESPONDENT: Fallacy are you man. Go to fuck with a duck and don’t bother me, idiot. My feelings are not extinct, as yours, and listening you is bringing to my ego a strong sense of repugnance. Is it clear, big sod?

RICHARD: It is this simple: if you had not posted your unsubstantiated critique in the first place you would not now be feeling bothered by these words. Howsoever, you will need to document your ‘few facts’ if you do not wish to be hoist by your own petard. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘Fallacy is to avoid other’s questions and to flee like a fearful rabbit when someone is trying to understand you’.

RESPONDENT: Look Richard, it seems you are not only idiot but deaf, I have been quite clear when saying that I didn’t want to give you a bit more of my time because you are a malicious being, a pure fallacy.

RICHARD: Yet it was you who chose to post an unsubstantiated critique, on a Mailing List specifically set-up for discussion, and not me.

RESPONDENT: I said you the following in the previous post: 1. You fled like a fearful rabbit the last time you have been here, you fled without saying a word when your hollow arguments were in danger because of peaceful questions. Is this your genuine concerned about Peace-on-earth and expounding Actual Freedom? Fallacy you are having this behaviour so often.

RICHARD: If I did, in fact, ‘flee like a fearful rabbit’ the last time I wrote to this Mailing List you might have a case ... but as I did not (and neither have you demonstrated that I did) then there is no substance to what you propose here.

(No. 1 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated).

RESPONDENT: 2. And you come back now with this shit of post asking about No. 40’s informations and comments on your fallacies when it is of public domain, when every fair member of listening-l knows it. How can you be so cynic man? It’s amazing!!

RICHARD: I have left the sequence at the top of this post ... if you care to look you will see that I specifically asked one thing and one thing only (three times):

• [Richard]: ‘I would appreciate your detailing of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see.

I was very clear and explicit because it is what you see that I am endeavouring to comprehend ... and not another’s pseudo-venting.

(No. 2 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated).

RESPONDENT: 3. You manipulate your conversations in this list, cutting them for your convenience and pasting it so in your web page.

RICHARD: I post a duplicate copy of all my correspondence, in toto, on my web page so as to save hunting through thousands of posts on various public mailing lists on the internet each time again and I never ‘cut them for my convenience’ (whatever that means) before I do so. Other than formatting and/or editing for anonymity, consistency, typo’s, spelling errors and so on, then what you see here is what appears there.

You will need to demonstrate the validity of what you say if I am to comprehend just what it is that you see.

(No. 3 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated).

RESPONDENT: 4. You manipulate K’s quotes selecting bit extracts for your convenience.

RICHARD: I provide annotated quotes from various validated sources (including quotes attributed to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti) so as to substantiate what I am saying and to demonstrate the point I am making. Furthermore, as it is a common practice on this Mailing List to provide quotes I rather fail to see why you are singling me out for special attention.

Again: you will need to demonstrate the validity of what you say (whatever it is that you are saying) if I am to comprehend just what it is that you see.

(No. 4 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated).

RESPONDENT: 5. You are a malicious sod, a repulsive cyber guru that gets me nausea because my feelings are not extinct and listening your shit is too much for my ego. Was not clear that you are a pure fallacy, was not clear my meaning?

RICHARD: Am I to take it that, because you feel nausea (and, previously, repugnance) when reading my words, these feelings then prove that I am ‘a pure fallacy’? In other words, your feelings are to be taken as being the arbiter of what I am? Are you really telling me that I am to be guided by your feelings?

I did not spend eleven years, delving deep into the depths of ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche) exposing, and thus eliminating through the exposure, anything whatsoever that was insalubrious ... only to be run by your feelings when I came onto the internet to share my discoveries with my fellow human being.

Look, it is this simple: for as long as you continue to be as you currently are then I am sure you will find, as a consequence, that other people’s responses will have the self-induced effect on you of you feeling nausea, repugnance or whatever other feeling that you may thus activate in that entire repertoire of feelings you nurse to your bosom.

(No. 5 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated).

RESPONDENT: It was [clear], but your tantrum is so big when listening the magic phrase ‘Richard’s fallacies’ that you are replying me with a game of words, suggesting that if I don’t give you the localization of No. 40’s comments about your fallacies I would be fleeing from you. Amazing!

RICHARD: Not so ... this is what I asked (three times):

• [Richard]: ‘I would appreciate your detailing of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see.

RESPONDENT: All right fake :), it doesn’t matter if you are a mental hateful ill or just a malicious being because it is the same in the deeper. You ask me for the comments about your fallacies from just one person but I will be generous giving you the comments from many persons.

RICHARD: Once again you seem to be under the misapprehension that I am wanting you to repeat another’s pseudo-venting. I do not. It is what you see that I am endeavouring to comprehend.

RESPONDENT: Furthermore, I am pondering on making a domain as [name deleted] has did, just for holding these ‘letters to Richard’, so that anyone at any moment will can review who are you, by themselves. Too many have used their precious time showing your fallacies and it must not be lost, it must be easily available in the net. I am pondering the name ‘actualfreedom.richardfake.com’ or similar, it seems adequate. In 2 weeks or lesser I will be with you, pristine fake, bringing a short thread with posts and comments from different persons on your pristine fallacies. Like a heavy beast you produce much noise, so that I will take what is more at hand avoiding to loose my time too much, it would be enough for remembering anew who are you. At the end, we can hold it in the new domain of the net so that you never will need to ask for details about your own fallacies. What about the name of the thread? ‘Shovelling the dirt’ seems adequate.

RICHARD: You can, of course, write whatsoever you may wish ... but I can assure you in advance that, as it is what you see which I am endeavouring to comprehend, I will not respond to any proxy paragraphs.

RESPONDENT: Impeccable Highness aka Richard, let me give you an introduction to the future thread on your fallacies. I, in my ego state, assume that all the below is correct, but I will understand you will disagree.

RICHARD: If you can substantiate and demonstrate that what you state is correct then I will be listening with both ears.

RESPONDENT: Anyway, perhaps it can help you to understand how others see you. I will use their words: First, <snip six paragraphs written by another person or persons>

RICHARD: As you said that this (what I have snipped) is not what you see but ‘how others see’ I have no regard whatsoever for it ... let alone being induced into responding to some far-fetched proxy exercise. If you have something to say for yourself then why not get on with the business of saying it?

Conversely, if you have nothing to say for yourself then why not acknowledge it and be done with all this?

RESPONDENT: See you in a couple of weeks, cyber clown.

RICHARD: Hmm ... if you do it may be worth your while to bear in mind that this is what I asked ... and am still asking:

• [Richard]: ‘I would appreciate your detailing of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see.

But that is entirely up to you, of course.

RESPONDENT: Here is an excellent example of the meaning of words getting lost in the superficial similarity of words.

To No 23: He [Richard] writes from outside of the human condition because he is free of it whereas I cannot 100% rely on the accuracy of my understanding because I am not yet totally free of it.*

No 62: Bullshit! You can’t be free of it, because you ARE it!**

In the nine months or so that you have been subscribed to this mailing list it has apparently passed you by that what we are talking about here is an alternative to the ‘You Are It’*** freedom peddled by spiritualists. Before you make more statements like the above you might want to inform yourself more about the topic under discussion here, namely a freedom from malice and sorrow via ‘self-immolation, which is the ending of both ego and soul. In other words, you can become free from the ‘you ARE it’ belief – a belief, which demonstrably does nothing at all to bring an end to human malice of sorrow. Vineeto, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No 62, 1.2.2004

*‘It’ being the ‘human condition.’

VINEETO: Yes.

RESPONDENT: ** In this context, ‘it’ is the ‘human condition.’

VINEETO: No 62 not only believes that one cannot become free from the human condition but, as her website explains, she claims that she is ‘Self Realized’, as in ‘I was love, I was enlightenment, I was freedom, I was understanding, the very ‘thing’ itself. I was ‘IT’

Her teaching is summarized in ‘there is only Consciousness, you do not really even exist. Never did! and she entertains a mailing list entitled ‘TheEndOfTheRopeRanch – Realization of Transcendent Understanding, Nonduality, Enlightenment’. (How I Became Self Realized – http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/judi-2.htm#theend)

This is the reason why I said ‘here is an alternative to the ‘You Are It’ freedom peddled by spiritualists’ because this is the spiritual freedom she is advertising whenever she writes on this mailing list.

RESPONDENT: *** Spiritualist belief such as ‘Atman = Brahman’ eg – tat tvam asi – You ARE IT.

I don’t know whether Vineeto’s loss of No 62’s meaning of ‘you ARE it!’ was intentional, or just an oversight. No 62 is obviously referring to ‘you are the human condition!’ [which is why she says ‘you can’t be free of it’] and Vineeto equated that statement with the spiritualist belief of ‘I am THAT’ or ‘You Are It.’ Two completely different meanings. It hardly looks like an oversight – if so it’s quite a blunder. I do have to wonder whether Vineeto is intentionally creating a straw man by twisting another’s words – as I have noticed on occasion in dialogue with me, the only other alternative I can see is that Vineeto has given up thinking for herself.

VINEETO: I fail to see how you have come to your either/or assessment (either I am being deliberately deceptive or I am haplessly thoughtless). I am curious as to how you came to your assessment? Is your assessment based on the manner in which I chose to respond to the jibe, the style of my reply or the content of my reply?

*

VINEETO: Her teaching is summarized in ‘there is only Consciousness, you do not really even exist. Never did! and she entertains a mailing list entitled ‘TheEndOfTheRopeRanch – Realization of Transcendent Understanding, Nonduality, Enlightenment’.

RESPONDENT: I have no disagreement with this – this is all correct.

*

VINEETO: This is the reason why I said ‘here is an alternative to the ‘You Are It’ freedom peddled by spiritualists’ because this is the spiritual freedom she is advertising whenever she writes on this mailing list.

RESPONDENT: Except for the fact that when she typed the words ‘you ARE it’ she meant ‘you are the human condition.’

VINEETO: No 62 used the word ‘it’ in ‘you ARE it!’ in a different meaning to me saying ‘I am not yet totally free of it’? No 62 has since mailed a post to the list in which she explained her meaning of ‘it’ –

No 62 – ‘You are it’ can be explained using the analogy of the air in a balloon. When you pop a balloon, the air is equalized with all of space. Voila! We ARE it! Re: You Are It, 4.2.2004, 11.42AM AEST

I had assumed in my first response to her – which was confirmed by her explanation above – that she didn’t use ‘it’ as meaning the human condition but as meaning ‘I was enlightenment, I was freedom, I was understanding, the very ‘thing’ itself. I was ‘IT!’ and this is how I responded.

RESPONDENT: When you typed or copied the words ‘you ARE it’ – you were talking about the spiritual belief ‘Atman = Brahman’ or your soul=God. Two completely different things.

VINEETO: But before we get bogged down in arguing about what No 62 really meant, why don’t you ask her for clarification?

RESPONDENT: It would have been a good idea to indicate what you meant when you used the words, ‘you are it’ – as ‘it’ already had the meaning of the ‘human condition’ in your exchange with No 62.

VINEETO: Would it not be more appropriate to say this to No 62? After all, it was she who changed the meaning of the word ‘it’ when she proclaimed ‘Bullshit! You can’t be free of it, because you ARE it!’

VINEETO: Additionally, a fact remains a fact whoever speaks it and common sense is equally universal for those able to recognize and apply it.

RESPONDENT: Yes. Unfortunately, postmodernism has warped some people’s mind into thinking that objective facts are questionable at best or even impossible.

VINEETO: I don’t know much about postmodernism except that it is mainly used to describe a particular style of art and architecture and a fashion of deconstructing literature. However, I know the phenomenon you are pointing to very well because it is the basic tenet of Eastern Mysticism and the most important prerequisite and main ingredient for the delusion of spiritual Enlightenment.

I am reminded of a conversation I had a couple of weeks ago with someone who is currently practicing and teaching dissociation. After a preliminary chit-chat about the weather and mutual acquaintances we came to his favourite topic – the concept that all that exists is only a product of one’s mind, that nothing exists in actuality. I warned him that the conversation would prove to be futile as he and I live in completely different, incompatible worlds but he insisted on continuing our conversation.

I pointed out that he was sitting in a material chair, that exists as an object independent from his thoughts, beliefs and feelings, that his feet firmly were placed on the timber decking that existed well before he entered the veranda, that I was here before he came and supposedly created me with his thoughts, beliefs and feelings, that the cup of coffee I made for him has the flavour it has because the coffee beans have been roasted and infused with hot water and not because he is ‘creating’ the flavour, and so on.

Undeterred he changed tack by saying that after he left, our conversation will be but a memory whereupon I responded that he is shifting the topic because what we are talking about is what he is experiencing right here, right now. Whatever I said that the physical world surrounding us was actual, he kept insisting that he and I were creating what we saw with our thoughts and that if it was not for our thoughts, we would not be here nor would there be the house in which we were sitting nor a the garden outside. However, when he recognized that he couldn’t convince me to see the world his way, he abruptly left without as much as a good bye.

The strange thing was that I was left feeling that someone had just tried to seriously mess with my mind, and it felt like an almost physical twist of my brain. I then remembered that I had had a similar feeling when I first came across actualism, although then it was me trying to twist my brain in order to understand what Richard was saying. At that time I had myself passionately believed many weird concepts, spiritual and philosophical, including the belief that ‘I’ create at least some of the physical world ‘I’ live in but actualism made eminent sense to me and this sense gradually turned my upside-down mind the right way up.

It’s not for nothing that one ultimately needs to experience the actual world in a PCE in order to fully comprehend the diametrical difference between spiritual/philosophical beliefs and actuality and to be able to withstand the manipulations of those trying to pull one back into the fold.

RESPONDENT: The emotion I had most difficulty with was guilt. Guilt at ‘leaving’ my wife behind, guilt at being happy and guilt for making her unhappy. All of these boiled down to an examination of me being ‘responsible’ for others (which is, of course, nonsense) and underlying that, the fear of being on my own and of being different. As Richard has often said, it takes nerves of steel to break free from the safety of the herd and I was often accused of being obsessed, having a ‘one track mind’ and ‘twisting her words’. Another favourite was being ‘clever-clever’. As more emotional ties were severed and these taunts began to more and more miss their mark, so their frequency diminished – with nothing to hook into, there is little point in ‘casting’, as mentioned above.

VINEETO: Yes, the other ‘bummer’ for me was moving away from the herd, being on my own, moving away from the group of Sannyasin I knew and the women’s circle. It is another instinct, and it was accompanied with lots of fear – hence the nerves of steel.

The longer I am writing on the sannyas list, the more I understand the meaning of ‘twist’. I am looking at the world in a different way than they are (180 degrees, in fact) and they see it as me twisting reality, while I know that the Human Condition is twisting everyone’s perception. I have ‘untwisted’ myself.

‘Clever-clever’ is one of the typical male-female issues, I know it well from my past relationships. And women are often right in their accusation, when men go off into their cerebral world of logic and theoretical conclusions. But then, when the ‘hooks don’t catch’, you know that you experience the world neither cerebrally (more male territory) nor emotionally (more female territory), but sensually. And that’s where the male-female battle ends. Utterly fascinating!

RESPONDENT: Vineeto, I’ve been thinking. I recognise that the vehemence of my responses to your postings (and Peter’s in the past) is often quite out of proportion to the issues being discussed. I am not sure why, to be honest. Neither your explanations nor mine sound quite convincing to me at present.

VINEETO: I wonder if you don’t already have a glimpse of what is the reason for your ‘vehemence’ as you described well a similar kind of reaction to No 74 the other day –

It is amazing how many people have described their dialogue with Richard in this way. Myself included. The interesting thing is, when Richard is in discussion with other people I’m usually able to look at the exchanges and think: hey, hang on a minute, that’s not what Richard said ... or ... no, no, you’ve taken that the wrong way, he meant [this or that] ... or no don’t get angry at this point, just think about this some more ... etc, etc, etc. But when it’s me involved, no way. Richard is simply nuts, he can’t understand what I’m saying to him, he’s twisting my words, trying to score points off me, trying to humiliate me. How could an ‘actually free’ person behave in such a petty, spiteful, egotistical manner, etc, etc, etc. Re: Einstein & NASA versus ‘Richard’, 23.10.2004

VINEETO: What clinched it for me was an honest and relentless observing and quizzing, questioning and exploring of my behaviour, my thoughts and specifically my feelings, peeling away layer upon layer of my precious identity. It was only by focusing my awareness totally on myself and my emotional reactions that finally made me capable to fully understand and thus undercut my automatic instinctual urges to defend my ‘self’, ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ viewpoint, ‘my’ values, ‘my’ opinions and so on.

Actual Freedom Homepage