|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 58
PETER: Hi, RESPONDENT to Richard: Do you consider yourself to be pro-peace whilst you attempt to kill people with your words? That is a strange kind of harmlessness you espouse and demonstrate. But perhaps that is what makes you happy. To each his or her own. One other thing Monsieur Richard ... in one of my first mails to you, I mistakenly referred to actual freedom as a state and you let it be know in no uncertain terms that it was not a ‘state’. Earlier today I was going through your 2nd in commands (peter) personal story and he had this to say: And I quote ...
I think my case that you are a nitpicker to the nth degree is now closed. The word ‘state’ was irrelevant to that discussion and you made it a distraction. PETER: So, if I understand you right, you are taking something I wrote about my first impressions upon meeting Richard and picking up on the fact that I, exactly as you have said you had done, ‘mistakenly referred to actual freedom as a state’ and are using this as an example to prove your case that Richard is a nitpicker to the nth. degree. Using my words to find fault in Richard’s posts is a furphy because my journal was written as a first-hand account of someone in the process of becoming virtually free of the human condition and as such is a warts-and-all down-to-earth subjective account. As such, I was upfront in stating that I at first regarded Richard as yet another spiritual Guru – and why not, there was no alternative to spirituality before Richard’s discovery. The other point that is worth making is that when I wrote my journal I assumed that anyone reading would be either interested in what was being said … or not. I never intended that it should, nor indeed envisaged that it would need to, stand up to the type of sophistic scrutiny and hair-splitting quibbling that the objectionists are wont to indulge in. Needless to say, I now know a good deal more about the perversity of the human condition since writing my journal. You also said to Richard that ‘the word ‘state’ was irrelevant to that discussion and you made it a distraction’ which was not the case because the reason that Richard says that an actual freedom is not a state is to make clear that an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the psychological and/or psychic states that human beings within the human condition may, or may not, think or feel themselves to be in. Whilst this distinction is not clear to you it is patently clear to me, which is why pointing out this distinction is not only relevant to any discussion about actual freedom but is in fact an essential distinction to grasp if one aspires to understand the difference between the spiritual narcissistic feeling-of-freedom and an actual freedom from the human condition – which is no doubt why you missed its relevance. RESPONDENT to Richard: You have once again demonstrated your ability to avoid the subject at hand and make a distractive issue out of nothing. PETER: Far from making a ‘distractive issue out of nothing’, Richard hit the nail on the head. What he was doing was pointing out, yet again, that you are busy blustering about tilting at windmills of your own imagination – an actual freedom from the human condition, whilst being vastly superior to any of the spiritual altered state of consciousness, has nought to with any of the spiritual or mystical or religious traditions whatsoever. RESPONDENT to Richard: The point this particular mail was to compliment you on your work with the part of the intro that I read and ask why not have it as part of standard education. PETER: And just to take the wind out of the sails of yet another of your imaginary windmills, it is relevant to point out that I wrote the Introduction to Actual Freedom, and not Richard. I deliberately wrote it in as simply a manner as I could, in as clear a format as I could, complete with pictures and diagrams, rather as one would find in a school textbook. I presumed that such a presentation would be a useful aid to understanding actualism. However, the subject matter of this simplified presentation obviously passed you by because whilst you think the Introduction may be of use to others – ‘common food for the masses’, as you disparagingly put it – you yourself continue to show not the faintest interest in actualism itself. This clearly indicates that you have completely missed the most fundamental point made in the Introduction – that actualism is a do-it-yourself business, and not an ‘if-only-everybody-else-did-it’ philosophy. RESPONDENT to Richard: You took the opportunity to knock me down a peg or 2 in your special happy and harmless way. PETER: If you had cared to read through the archives of this mailing list you would have found that the only people Richard has had occasion to ‘knock down a peg or 2’, to use your words, are those who persist in confronting him to the point of obstinate belligerence. Besides, he didn’t need to knock you down a peg or two; you have managed to do that all by yourself by your own words. RESPONDENT to Richard: I guess I must separate the teaching from the teacher just like your oft criticized punching bag, Jiddu Krishnamurti, said to his followers after screwing his best friends wife. PETER: I see that you have introduced that hoary old adage of separating the teaching from the
teacher. After 17 years of hands-on behind-the-stage-curtain experience on the spiritual path I came to see that this dimwitticism As a consequence of these seeds of doubt, when I came across Richard I spent a good deal of time looking for any inconsistencies between what he was saying about actual freedom and how he lived his daily life. I was vitally interested in how he was with people as-they-are, i.e. how an affective-free consideration for others worked in practice as well as how he experienced the world as-it-is, i.e. how a belief-free sensibility worked in practice. The fact that I could find no discrepancy between what he said and how he lived his daily life turned out to be one of the major indicators that actualism had nothing whatsoever to do with spiritualism – in other words I came to understand, and then to experience, that the down-to-earth sincerity and practicality inherent in actualism and the vacuous duplicity of spiritualism are diametric opposites. RESPONDENT to Richard: And thus does all the games and gamesmanship of the supposedly Enlightened or those in a ‘state vastly superior to Enlightenment’ amongst us mere mortals, continue unabated. PETER: It’s fascinating to observe that many objectors to becoming happy and harmless ostensibly demand of Richard that he literally lay down quietly whilst they tear strips off him … and then proceed to get mightily haughty when he refuses to do so.
PETER: Using my words to find fault in Richard’s posts is a furphy because my journal was written as a first-hand account of someone in the process of becoming virtually free of the human condition and as such is a warts-and-all down-to-earth subjective account. As such, I was upfront in stating that I at first regarded Richard as yet another spiritual Guru – and why not, there was no alternative to spirituality before Richard’s discovery. RESPONDENT: Richard made that clear in a response to me. PETER: And not just in a response to you, but also in detailed responses to several correspondents who all asked similar questions. It might be of use at this point to post the remainder of what I wrote about my first meeting with Richard –
As you can see I never had a great deal of trouble with Richard’s claim that he had discovered something new, mainly because I knew that the meaning of life was not to be found in the pursuit of materialism and I had serious doubts about spiritualism as well. Rather than summarily dismiss Richard’s account of his discovery of an actual freedom from the human condition, I decided to check out whether what he was saying firstly made sense and secondly, whether it worked in practice. * PETER: You also said to Richard that ‘the word ‘state’ was irrelevant to that discussion and you made it a distraction’ which was not the case because the reason that Richard says that an actual freedom is not a state is to make clear that an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the psychological and/or psychic states that human beings within the human condition may, or may not, think or feel themselves to be in. Whilst this distinction is not clear to you it is patently clear to me, which is why pointing out this distinction is not only relevant to any discussion about actual freedom but is in fact an essential distinction to grasp if one aspires to understand the difference between the spiritual narcissistic feeling-of-freedom and an actual freedom from the human condition – which is no doubt why you missed its relevance. RESPONDENT: This is now clear however from my vantage point at the time, he seemed to focus on my use of that word and not the gist of the question. I may be wrong and I won’t go back in the archives to check. It is not important either way at this point. PETER: Given your recent change in attitude, taking the time to re-read the posts in the archives might allow you to review what was said with clearer eyes, rather than hang on to your assumption. Rather than it being unimportant, you might find it a very useful thing to find out the difference at this point. It’s only a suggestion though. * RESPONDENT to Richard: You have once again demonstrated your ability to avoid the subject at hand and make a distractive issue out of nothing. PETER: Far from making a ‘distractive issue out of nothing’, Richard hit the nail on the head. What he was doing was pointing out, yet again, that you are busy blustering about tilting at windmills of your own imagination – an actual freedom from the human condition, whilst being vastly superior to any of the spiritual altered state of consciousness, has nought to with any of the spiritual or mystical or religious traditions whatsoever. RESPONDENT: I am not interested in ASC’s or spiritual, mystical or religious traditions. Never have been. PETER: It will be interesting to see whether this lack of interest impedes your exploration of actualism. I say this because thus far it seems that those who are interested in actualism have also been those with a previous interest in spiritualism – in other words they have been interested in finding answers to what is sometimes termed the human dilemma. * RESPONDENT to Richard: The point this particular mail was to compliment you on your work with the part of the intro that I read and ask why not have it as part of standard education. PETER: And just to take the wind out of the sails of yet another of your imaginary windmills, it is relevant to point out that I wrote the Introduction to Actual Freedom, and not Richard. I deliberately wrote it in as simply a manner as I could, in as clear a format as I could, complete with pictures and diagrams, rather as one would find in a school textbook. I presumed that such a presentation would be a useful aid to understanding actualism. RESPONDENT: Then you did a good job and not Richard. PETER: It was good fun doing it. I originally did it as a PowerPoint slideshow but bandwidth restrictions put paid to that idea. My next project is a video of some sort, again as an attempt to say the same thing in a different way and in a different format. * PETER: However, the subject matter of this simplified presentation obviously passed you by because whilst you think the Introduction may be of use to others – ‘common food for the masses’, as you disparagingly put it – you yourself continue to show not the faintest interest in actualism itself. This clearly indicates that you have completely missed the most fundamental point made in the Introduction – that actualism is a do-it-yourself business, and not an ‘if-only-everybody-else-did-it’ philosophy. RESPONDENT: If I ‘continue to show not the faintest interest in actualism itself’, then I wouldn’t have read it in the first place. PETER: Which begs the question as to what motive and what attitude you had whilst reading it – to sincerely want to find out or to nit-pickingly find fault. There’s a world of difference between these ways of reading, as you may well discover if you read what is on offer on the Actual Freedom Trust website with less cynical eyes. RESPONDENT: Obviously, I am exploring, albeit with perhaps, too healthy a dose of cynicism. PETER: I noticed Richard made a comment about cynicism in his post so I won’t labour the point, other than to say that I never found anything healthy about cynicism. From what I remember, it’s not only a lead weight on one’s shoulders, it’s like walking around immersed in a grey fog of one’s own making. Here is an exchange that you might find pertinent –
* RESPONDENT to Richard: You took the opportunity to knock me down a peg or 2 in your special happy and harmless way. PETER: If you had cared to read through the archives of this mailing list you would have found that the only people Richard has had occasion to ‘knock down a peg or 2’, to use your words, are those who persist in confronting him to the point of obstinate belligerence. Besides, he didn’t need to knock you down a peg or two; you have managed to do that all by yourself by your own words. RESPONDENT: I don’t wish to get into a pissing match with you St. Peter. (that will be my sole derogatory comment in this mail) my apologies, old habits die hard. PETER: If you had deleted the first sentence after you wrote it you would have saved yourself the need to feign an apology. If you sincerely want to break old habits then you need to do so, and doing so means doing so now. * RESPONDENT to Richard: I guess I must separate the teaching from the teacher just like your oft criticized punching bag, Jiddu Krishnamurti, said to his followers after screwing his best friends wife. PETER: I see that you have introduced that hoary old adage of separating the teaching from the
teacher. After 17 years of hands-on behind-the-stage-curtain experience on the spiritual path I came to see that this dimwitticism RESPONDENT: You call it a ‘hoary old adage’ and then go on to say that you used it yourself. It doesn’t seem so ‘hoary’ to me … PETER: No. If you read what I said again you will find that whilst I was told to separate the teacher and the teachings on the spiritual path I found I could not do so – I eventually came to see the spiritual teachers as hypocritical because none of them lived the teachings. And as a consequence when I came across Richard – remembering that I first saw him as a Guru and not as a fellow human being – I was most careful to observe whether he ‘walked the talk’ unlike all the other Gurus I had met. And the more I understood his talk and observed his walk the more the whole mantle of Guru that I had imposed on him evaporated. RESPONDENT: … and I don’t even know what that word means. PETER: Hoary means ancient, old and trite as in ‘hoary jokes – old, antiquated, ancient, antique, old as the hills, hackneyed, trite.’ Oxford Dictionary * RESPONDENT to Richard: And thus does all the games and gamesmanship of the supposedly Enlightened or those in a ‘state vastly superior to Enlightenment’ amongst us mere mortals, continue unabated. PETER: It’s fascinating to observe that many objectors to becoming happy and harmless ostensibly demand of Richard that he literally lay down quietly whilst they tear strips off him … and then proceed to get mightily haughty when he refuses to do so. RESPONDENT: I was just throwing his own common phrases, debating and rebuttal techniques back at him. He does the same. Perhaps it is just a case of great musicians having their stock riffs and phrases. PETER: Or the sound of one mocking bird mocking? RESPONDENT: Anyways Peter ... see my prior message. Thanks for taking the time to write. PETER: I noticed you have had a change of heart and the reason I wrote to you was because in your post to Richard you had referred to some things that I had written. If after your explorations of the website you have any questions about putting actualism in practice I would be happy to answer them – it’s my area of expertise.
RESPONDENT: I am not interested in ASC’s or spiritual, mystical or religious traditions. Never have been. PETER: It will be interesting to see whether this lack of interest impedes your exploration of actualism. I say this because thus far it seems that those who are interested in actualism have also been those with a previous interest in spiritualism – in other words they have been interested in finding answers to what is sometimes termed the human dilemma. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that those from the non-spiritual realm, or with material interests, are not interested in finding answers to the human dilemma? PETER: No. What I said was ‘thus far it seems that those who are interested in actualism have also been those with a previous interest in spiritualism’ and your comment below –
seems to bear this out. RESPONDENT: Different approaches to the same problem perhaps? PETER: As a generalization, for what it is worth, I see materialists as being mainly interested in finding political/ social/ economic solutions to the human dilemma whereas spiritualists by and large despair that any of these solutions will ever bring peace on earth and as a consequence they actively practice dissociation from being here on earth. This distinction is a black and white one, whereas most people I have come across play it safe by having a leg in both worlds. RESPONDENT: When I was young, I felt life had no meaning and so I went on my own search for it. I had numerous friends pulling me this way and that to check out their latest findings. I would go and see what’s going on and found them lacking and superficial and once or twice I would lose a friend when I ended up walking out of some lecture or dissertation. Perhaps not unlike my initial assessment of AF. But also my initial assessment of AF was coloured by never having found anything really useful in my previous searches and so I was left to my own devices, trials, errors and so on like many before me. I read some JK many years ago, but that goes nowhere other than to break down the structure of thought. PETER: Yep. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings have left a good many followers, mostly men, incapable of thinking for themselves. RESPONDENT: A nice analysis is all. I read some Gurdjieff, but that was an endless infinite loop going nowhere. Some Castaneda.... that was too occult and mystical for me to apply. Some UGK, I liked him but there is nothing one can do with that. That’s a dead end. PETER: I remember reading U.G. Krishnamurti once and it left me feeling gloomy for a day or two. I finally shook it off when I realized he was a nihilist with nothing to offer to anyone. RESPONDENT: Are you saying I may have a better chance of digging deeper into actualism if I had spent, perhaps wasted 17 years at the feet of Osho, who is none too enamoured around here? Or if I had spent the last 25 years at the feet of a whole host of teachers, mystics and the like? PETER: No. Nowhere did I say this and never have I said that I wasted 17 years by treading the spiritual path either. The point I have always made about my time spent on the spiritual path was that it was an invaluable experience because I came to discover first-hand not only how, but why, the revered spiritual teachings do not work in practice. RESPONDENT: It remains to be seen how far I will go with actualism and I am happy to contribute as a statistic in any studies you do on people and their application of actualism. PETER: When I said ‘It will be interesting to see whether this lack of interest impedes your exploration of actualism’, I meant that I will be interested. I see no reason at all why someone who has not trod the spiritual path should not be interested in becoming an actualist. If actualism had been discovered when I became a spiritualist, then I would have had the opportunity of choosing between one alternative or the other – being a practical person I would have chosen actualism rather than spiritualism. One of the reasons I wrote the Introduction to Actual Freedom was to attempt to give an overarching explanation of actualism – one that would make sense to those who, unlike me, had not trod the spiritual path for years. The other point is that I don’t gather statistics about those who are interested in actualism – I have an interest in what my fellow human beings make of it because they are fellow human beings and I wish them the best. RESPONDENT: One thing is for certain... there is no turning back for me, there is no going backwards. Insanity would await me there. I know nowhere to go. While I have gotten ‘somewhere’ on my own, ghosts from long long ago, still haunt me. Stones I haven’t been able to get rid of are still there. The initial questions I had as a young boy have gone unanswered. Sorrow still haunts me. Meaning comes and goes. That’s why I was poking my head around your site. PETER: Given that spiritualism has never interested you, it is serendipitous that you have come across a web-site offering a non-spiritual and down-to-earth alternative. * PETER: I never found anything healthy about cynicism. From what I remember, it’s not only a lead weight on one’s shoulders, it’s like walking around immersed in a grey fog of one’s own making. <snip>
RESPONDENT: I have no disagreements on this issue of cynicism as a dead end or the pits and in addition, self destructive. None. PETER: That’s good to hear as cynicism is a debilitating feeling that afflicts so many people. * PETER: I noticed you have had a change of heart and the reason I wrote to you was because in your post to Richard you had referred to some things that I had written. If after your explorations of the website you have any questions about putting actualism in practice I would be happy to answer them – it’s my area of expertise. RESPONDENT: That’s very gracious of you and it will be much appreciated. PETER: Whilst actualism is a do-it-yourself business, the prime reason for this mailing list is to allow actualists to share their experiences about the business of becoming happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: I do have one question as to how to get started. I have been poking around the web site in a fairly haphazard way. Is there a recommended sequence? PETER: Not really. All that needs to be said is said on the front page of Richard’s part of the site and any areas of specific interest you may have are catalogued by topic in the library with related correspondence from both sections of the web-site. From my experience, poking around is a good way to determine if what is being said is of interest to you. This can be seen as the stage of establishing a prima facie case as to the credibility of what is offered such that you can decide, one way or the other, whether you want to take it on in practice. If you do decide to set your sights on becoming happy and harmless, then your use of the web-site may then become less haphazard as you can hone in on the particular idiosyncratic issues that are impeding your own happiness or sparking off your own aggravation in your daily life. RESPONDENT: Also, a few nights ago after I got off work at 4pm; I may have experienced what is termed a PCE around here. [A term btw, that I had never heard of before coming here, the same for ASC and many others] ... anyways ... just to borrow a few words from this site that seemed to fit the description of that experience were pure, purity, direct, in the sense that a film or veneer had been removed from the world. Its like before there was always a thin film and now it was gone. I was helping my father fix a household appliance in the evening and there was an intimacy with him never before experienced. There was a minimum of the internal dialogue that generally goes on and on. This lasted the whole afternoon and evening, till bed and I woke up like that but then it was finished. That was something different than I had ever felt before. PETER: I would take it from your description that the experience was something that you would like to have more of. As you read more on the website I can recommend stopping every now and again and deliberately making the effort to recall that experience. By remembering the flavour of that experience you will be more able to access the naiveté necessary to understand what is on offer on the site and you will thus be more able to read what is on offer with the clear eyes that I assume you had during that experience. When I recalled my first PCE, it became clear to me that the way to get from ‘A’ – being normal – to ‘B’ – having an ongoing direct experience of actuality 24/7 – was that ‘I’ had to devote my life to becoming happy and harmless … and that this commitment had to be so total as to be an all-consuming obsession. I don’t want to gallop ahead too much, but the reason I mention this is to point to the essential link between becoming happy and harmless and becoming free of the human condition – they are one and the same path.
PETER: As a generalization, for what it is worth, I see materialists as being mainly interested in finding political/ social/ economic solutions to the human dilemma whereas spiritualists by and large despair that any of these solutions will ever bring peace on earth and as a consequence they actively practice dissociation from being here on earth. This distinction is a black and white one, whereas most people I have come across play it safe by having a leg in both worlds. RESPONDENT: I think I was neither here nor there and that created difficulties for me. Lately more materialist, in the sense that I am trying to make a living and secure some financial security and freedom. Is that at odds with actualism? PETER: Not at all. There is a popular myth that spiritualist do not have to make a living – that somehow ‘Existence’ provides for and looks after the Chosen Ones. If one looks at the facts of the matter, Mohan Rajneesh made a far better living by teaching Eastern Religion to Westerners than he did by teaching Eastern philosophy to Indians. Likewise Jiddu Krishnamurti made a very good living out of his Guru business. He was well supported by his followers – it was they who paid for his food, lodgings, clothes and travel. The thousands upon thousands of Buddhist monks in Asia make their living by being monks and their food, lodging, clothes and travel are paid for by others. As an actualist the business of making a living – selling my time to others in return for tokens to purchase food and clothes and to rent shelter – became progressively easier and more stress free the more I have become happy about being wherever I happen to be doing whatever it is that I am doing … or not doing. * RESPONDENT: A nice analysis is all. I read some Gurdjieff, but that was an endless infinite loop going nowhere. Some Castaneda.... that was too occult and mystical for me to apply. Some UGK, I liked him but there is nothing one can do with that. That’s a dead end. PETER: I remember reading U.G. Krishnamurti once and it left me feeling gloomy for a day or two. I finally shook it off when I realized he was a nihilist with nothing to offer to anyone. RESPONDENT: I don’t find UG gloomy at all. He is a bit nihilistic perhaps, but at the end of the day, UG seems to say to forget all this freedom, enlightenment, guru & philosophical talk, and go live a happy life and enjoy it. Even if he claims no happiness for himself or rather says ‘I don’t know what happiness is’. PETER: Perhaps the difference in our assessment of U.G. Krishnamurti was due to the fact that I was actively searching for happiness and for a way to live harmoniously with my fellow human beings and U.G. made it plain that not only did he have no solutions, but also that he himself was neither happy nor harmless.
* RESPONDENT: It remains to be seen how far I will go with actualism and I am happy to contribute as a statistic in any studies you do on people and their application of actualism. PETER: When I said ‘it will be interesting to see whether this lack of interest impedes your exploration of actualism’, I meant that I will be interested. I see no reason at all why someone who has not trod the spiritual path should not be interested in becoming an actualist. If actualism had been discovered when I became a spiritualist, then I would have had the opportunity of choosing between one alternative or the other – being a practical person I would have chosen actualism rather than spiritualism. One of the reasons I wrote the Introduction to Actual Freedom was to attempt to give an overarching explanation of actualism – one that would make sense to those who, unlike me, had not trod the spiritual path for years. The other point is that I don’t gather statistics about those who are interested in actualism – I have an interest in what my fellow human beings make of it because they are fellow human beings and I wish them the best. RESPONDENT: That’s the impression I get here. If it wasn’t, I would have been long gone. PETER: When I first came across Richard he was living an anonymous life in a small rented house in a small country town. He had had a few people who were interested in what he was saying in his Enlightened years but since he became actually free no-one was at all interested in what he was saying. When I met him he was in the midst of finishing his journal because he said he wanted his words to be available in the world. I suggested that a good way of doing this was to have a web-site because then his Journal would be available world wide to anyone who spoke English and had access to a computer. Since then I have written my journal, Richard joined a Jiddu Krishnamurti mailing list, Vineeto set up a website which was later amalgamated with Richard’s and we now have a very active on-line discussion forum. So Richard’s initial aim of making his words available to others has taken on a life of its own. And yet despite this, Richard still leads an anonymous and autonomous life, as do Vineeto and I. No glamour, glory nor glitz to be found hereabouts. And as Richard said recently, should the fickle spotlight of fame ever look like shining this way Richard will be out of here in a flash … as will Vineeto and I. For what it is worth, I don’t see this happening because the business of becoming happy and harmless has thus far not proved to be a popular enterprise. * RESPONDENT: I have no disagreements on this issue of cynicism as a dead end or the pits and in addition, self destructive. None. PETER: That’s good to hear as cynicism is a debilitating feeling that afflicts so many people. RESPONDENT: I already have my interactions with AF to thank for curing me of sarcasm and cynicism. Maybe I was ready to lose it but you all exposed it enough for me to see its deleterious effects and enable me to remove it. And for that, I thank you. PETER: It’s essential to have a good clear-eyed look at how feelings spoil not only your own happiness but also to be attentive as to how your feelings impact on others. Cynicism tends to be an inner affliction spoiling one’s happiness whereas sarcasm is an outward expression – something that one inflicts on another person, something that impacts on their happiness.
As an actualist, I always put the aim to be harmless towards my fellow human beings first and my aim for happiness second, because it is impossible for me be happy unless I am harmless. For anyone who is sincere about peace on earth it is essential to put becoming harmless first … and then increased happiness invariably follows. In the case in point, if one stops being sarcastic, as in expressing bitter or wounding remarks to others, then one has more chance of being happy … which in turn means that one has less reason to feel cynical …which in turn means one is less prone to be sarcastic and so on … until both cynicism and sarcasm eventually disappear as if by magic. It’s a fascinating business to see, and experientially understand, how feelings are interlinked, how they produce an endless cycle of ups and downs, how there is a continuous tendency to wound and then feel wounded, how there is a seesaw sequence of excitement and boredom … and so on. * RESPONDENT: … a few nights ago after I got off work at 4pm; I may have experienced what is termed a PCE around here. [A term btw, that I had never heard of before coming here, the same for ASC and many others] ... anyways ... just to borrow a few words from this site that seemed to fit the description of that experience were pure, purity, direct, in the sense that a film or veneer had been removed from the world. Its like before there was always a thin film and now it was gone. I was helping my father fix a household appliance in the evening and there was an intimacy with him never before experienced. There was a minimum of the internal dialogue that generally goes on and on. This lasted the whole afternoon and evening, till bed and I woke up like that but then it was finished. That was something different than I had ever felt before. PETER: I would take it from your description that the experience was something that you would like to have more of. RESPONDENT: It’s not so much that I want more of that type of experience, as much as I don’t want the pain, sorrow, depression. It’s more important for me to get rid of the negative than to seek the positive. Eliminating the negative is positive enough for me. PETER: I can see why you have been attracted to U.G. Krishnamurti. He eliminated what he saw as the negative aspects of spiritualism and ended up in some type of permanent nihilistic state. Aiming to get rid of the negative was never enough for me because I had a positive aim – to find the meaning of life. Having said that I know of several people who have been interested in actualism and took on board that spiritualism is a fraudulent, self-indulgent business. By doing so they stopped practicing dissociation and became more interested in being here. They were more easy with the business of making a living, were more happy being on their own, were less cynical about life, were more easy with other people and so on. Even a little bit of the common sense of actualism is beneficial. * PETER: As you read more on the website I can recommend stopping every now and again and deliberately making the effort to recall that experience. By remembering the flavour of that experience you will be more able to access the naiveté necessary to understand what is on offer on the site and you will thus be more able to read what is on offer with the clear eyes that I assume you had during that experience. RESPONDENT: I do see the necessity for the naiveté that is mentioned here. PETER: Naiveté is something that you have to actively rekindle. Given that you have said – ‘it’s more important for me to get rid of the negative than to seek the positive’ – you may well find it a little difficult to re-discover your naiveté. If your sole aim is ‘to get rid of the negative’, as in stopping being cynical, the tendency is then to not replace it with anything – to not feel anything – to become an emotional emasculate if you like. Contrary to what some people think, actualism is not about not feeling. The actualism method is about minimizing the debilitating effects of the ‘bad’ emotions (malice, anxiety, resentment, sorrow, etc.) as well as minimizing the debilitating effects of the antidotal ‘good’ emotions (love, bliss, compassion, etc.) and actively promoting the felicitous emotions – the feelings that are associated with naiveté – a childlike curiosity, a fascination with being here, bonhomie, friendliness, amiability, cordiality, delight, wonder, amazement and so on. Such a radical change does require the intent to do so, and does require a good deal of effort to do so, as felicitous feelings do not come naturally to world-wary instinctually-impassioned adults. * PETER: When I recalled my first PCE, it became clear to me that the way to get from ‘A’ – being normal – to ‘B’ – having an ongoing direct experience of actuality 24/7 – was that ‘I’ had to devote my life to becoming happy and harmless … and that this commitment had to be so total as to be an all-consuming obsession. I don’t want to gallop ahead too much, but the reason I mention this is to point to the essential link between becoming happy and harmless and becoming free of the human condition – they are one and the same path. RESPONDENT: Are you suggesting that if I was really serious, I would have to leave my job to pursue this 24/7? PETER: Not at all. Actualism is about becoming happy and harmless in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are and the way to do this is to practice bringing one’s attention to being happy and harmless right here in this very place in physical space and right now in this, the only moment that you can ever experience being alive. What you happen to be doing at this moment and where you are at this moment is besides the point – if you are sitting at a desk working, or laying on the couch watching TV, the question is still the same – ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ … or to put it another way ‘am I being harmless and am I feeling happy right now and if not, why not?’
RESPONDENT: I don’t find U.G. gloomy at all. He is a bit nihilistic perhaps, but at the end of the day, U.G. seems to say to forget all this freedom, enlightenment, guru & philosophical talk, and go live a happy life and enjoy it. Even if he claims no happiness for himself or rather says ‘I don’t know what happiness is’. PETER: Perhaps the difference in our assessment of U.G. Krishnamurti was due to the fact that I was actively searching for happiness and for a way to live harmoniously with my fellow human beings and U.G. Krishnamurti made it plain that not only did he have no solutions, but also that he himself was neither happy nor harmless. RESPONDENT: How is U.G. not harmless? How is he harmful? PETER: I’ll repost a U.G. Krishnamurti quote that Richard recently posted to you as you might have missed its significance first time around –
I have also watched several videotapes of U.G. Krishnamurti with gatherings of his followers and I particularly remember him being scornful and dismissive of an elderly gentleman who had made the effort to travel a good distance simply to ask him a question. I found his action to be offensive – far from harmless. RESPONDENT: And Richard has said he has no psyche or I as ego, so does that mean he has ‘me as soul’ with the instinctual passions? U.G. has said ‘There is no self, there is no I, there is no spirit, there is no soul, and there is no mind’. Is he missing something that renders him ‘harmful’ or is he simply fooling himself? PETER: I am left wondering whether you have read I won’t repost it here but it does make very plain why U.G. Krishnamurti is a dead-ender as far as eliminating the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire are concerned. * PETER: When I first came across Richard he was living an anonymous life in a small rented house in a small country town. He had had a few people who were interested in what he was saying in his Enlightened years but since he became actually free no-one was at all interested in what he was saying. RESPONDENT: Why was no one interested? PETER: I don’t know whether it has yet occurred to you but the proposition of becoming happy and harmless in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are is not a very appealing one to most people. As to why, it appears that people are reasonably content with being occasionally happy and that they have no compunction at all in blaming others for the antagonism that plagues humanity. * PETER: When I met him he was in the midst of finishing his journal because he said he wanted his words to be available in the world. I suggested that a good way of doing this was to have a web-site because then his Journal would be available world wide to anyone who spoke English and had access to a computer. Since then I have written my journal, Richard joined a Jiddu Krishnamurti mailing list, Vineeto set up a website which was later amalgamated with Richard’s and we now have a very active on-line discussion forum. So Richard ‘s initial aim of making his words available to others has taken on a life of its own. And yet despite this, Richard still leads an anonymous and autonomous life, as do Vineeto and I. No glamour, glory nor glitz to be found hereabouts. RESPONDENT: Is not the glamour, glory and glitz to be found quietly in the day-to-day ordinary life? PETER: No, glamour, glory and glitz are only to be found by strutting the stages of public life – something all spiritual teachers aspire to do. The more fame one has, the more power one has over others, and the lust for power over others is the drive that underpins the competitive materialist world, exactly as it does in the spiritual world. * PETER: And as Richard said recently, should the fickle spotlight of fame ever look like shining this way Richard will be out of here in a flash … as will Vineeto and I. For what it is worth, I don’t see this happening because the business of becoming happy and harmless has thus far not proved to be a popular enterprise. RESPONDENT: What would qualify as the ‘fickle spotlight of fame’? PETER: Anything that interferes with the enjoyment that is always to be found in ‘the day-to-day ordinary life’. The Internet is a marvellous way of being able to talk to one’s fellow human beings, particularly those who are belligerent in their objections, whilst still being able to enjoy the mundane pleasures of the domestic activities of an anonymous suburban lifestyle. As I said – no glamour, glory nor glitz to be found hereabouts. * PETER: As an actualist, I always put the aim to be harmless towards my fellow human beings first and my aim for happiness second, because it is impossible for me be happy unless I am harmless. For anyone who is sincere about peace on earth it is essential to put becoming harmless first … and then increased happiness invariably follows. In the case in point, if one stops being sarcastic, as in expressing bitter or wounding remarks to others, then one has more chance of being happy … which in turn means that one has less reason to feel cynical …which in turn means one is less prone to be sarcastic and so on … until both cynicism and sarcasm eventually disappear as if by magic. It’s a fascinating business to see, and experientially understand, how feelings are interlinked, how they produce an endless cycle of ups and downs, how there is a continuous tendency to wound and then feel wounded, how there is a seesaw sequence of excitement and boredom … and so on. RESPONDENT: It’s not so much that I want more of that type of experience, as much as I don’t want the pain, sorrow, depression. It’s more important for me to get rid of the negative than to seek the positive. Eliminating the negative is positive enough for me. PETER: I can see why you have been attracted to U.G. Krishnamurti. He eliminated what he saw as the negative aspects of spiritualism and ended up in some type of permanent nihilistic state. Aiming to get rid of the negative was never enough for me because I had a positive aim – to find the meaning of life. RESPONDENT: What meaning could be found? PETER: Aren’t you looking for the meaning of life or are you content with your life as-it-is? I remember when I left home and school, I was bewildered by what could be termed the mainstream of life. I remember wondering to myself – is having a wife, two kids and two cars the meaning of life? The same thing happened when I left the materialistic world and threw myself into the spiritual world. I remember wondering to myself – is becoming an Enlightened Guru and having my ‘money for nothing and my chicks for free’ the meaning of life? Neither meaning stacked up as far as I was concerned. RESPONDENT: If there is any must it not be found in the moment to moment living? If not there, then where? PETER: The phrase moment to moment living implies ‘me’ having a ‘life’ that starts at birth and continues as an unchanging feeling-fed continuity until death. If ‘I’ seek meaning for ‘my’ life then narcissism can be the only result – and the long history of the famed spiritual search attests to this fact. If ‘I’ simply reject the traditional meanings of life then meaninglessness aka nihilism can be the only result and this seems to be where U.G. Krishnamurti has ended up. The meaning to life is not to be found in the feeling-fed continuity ‘I’ call ‘my life’, for a PCE confirms that the meaning of life is to be found only when ‘I’ exit the stage as it were. * PETER: As you read more on the website I can recommend stopping every now and again and deliberately making the effort to recall that experience. By remembering the flavour of that experience you will be more able to access the naiveté necessary to understand what is on offer on the site and you will thus be more able to read what is on offer with the clear eyes that I assume you had during that experience. RESPONDENT: I do see the necessity for the naiveté that is mentioned here. PETER: Naiveté is something that you have to actively rekindle. Given that you have said – ‘it’s more important for me to get rid of the negative than to seek the positive’ – you may well find it a little difficult to re-discover your naiveté. RESPONDENT: So then give me a tip to rediscover naiveté if you would? PETER: Obviously I can only talk about the things that tweaked my own naiveté – some things may strike a common cord whilst others may be idiosyncratic. My memory of my early stages of actualism is a bit fuzzy nowadays but contemplating on Richard’s writings was an absolutely vital aspect for me. I went looking for this passage as it is one that still sticks in my mind –
There is a lot in Richard’s writings that evokes naiveté, yet reading it is one thing but taking the time, and making the effort, to contemplate on what one reads is quite another. This is the work that is up to ‘you’ to do. I had Richard’s journal by my bedside and would read a few paragraphs and then lay back and think about it a while or I would take myself off for a walk in a favourite place and just sit down and gaze at the world with soft eyes thinking about what I had read, what I had done with my life, what I was doing with my life and what I wanted to do with my life. I also found it essential to stop beating myself up and start liking myself, to start to enjoy my own company which in turn led me to start being interested in being here, which in turn led to a naïve curiosity about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. I don’t know if that is of use to you but the first is obvious – read – and the second is equally important – contemplate – and the second will be best done at a time when you feel most relaxed and at ease. * PETER: If your sole aim is ‘to get rid of the negative’, as in stopping being cynical, the tendency is then to not replace it with anything – to not feel anything – to become an emotional emasculate if you like. Contrary to what some people think, actualism is not about not feeling. The actualism method is about minimizing the debilitating effects of the ‘bad’ emotions (malice, anxiety, resentment, sorrow, etc.) as well as minimizing the debilitating effects of the antidotal ‘good’ emotions (love, bliss, compassion, etc.) and actively promoting the felicitous/ innocuous emotions – the feelings that are associated with naiveté – a childlike curiosity, a fascination with being here, bonhomie, friendliness, amiability, cordiality, delight, wonder, amazement and so on. Such a radical change does require the intent to do so, and does require a good deal of effort to do so, as felicitous feelings do not come naturally to world-wary instinctually-impassioned adults. RESPONDENT: World wary or world weary? PETER: Both. The constant need to be world-wary inevitably makes for world-weariness. Fear is the strongest of the instinctual passions and its effects are utterly wearying. * PETER: When I recalled my first PCE, it became clear to me that the way to get from ‘A’ – being normal – to ‘B’ – having an ongoing direct experience of actuality 24/7 – was that ‘I’ had to devote my life to becoming happy and harmless … and that this commitment had to be so total as to be an all-consuming obsession. I don’t want to gallop ahead too much, but the reason I mention this is to point to the essential link between becoming happy and harmless and becoming free of the human condition – they are one and the same path. RESPONDENT: On another note and a popular topic of discussion on this list: while I have brought this up in the past regarding Richard’s 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 No 59 and the ‘defenders of the faith’ (my term – no offence intended referring to Richard, Peter, Vineeto, No 23, et al) that I can clearly see No 59’s points. PETER: I don’t find that particularly surprising given that you both apparently think highly of
U.G. Krishnamurti. If you believe the words of someone who says that it is impossible to become free of malice and sorrow as is evidenced in his
quotes RESPONDENT: 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? PETER: In your attempts to disprove Richard’s claim you have yet to provide any evidence that anyone else has become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow … let alone evidence of anyone who has said, or is saying, that it is possible for anyone to become free of the instinctual passions that are the root cause of human malice and sorrow. In the light of this failure you are reduced to clutching-at-straws propositions, which do nothing but highlight the lack of facts that support your case. RESPONDENT: 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. PETER: Speaking of straw-clutching, Carlos Castaneda’s writings have long been exposed as being fiction masquerading as fact. All one needs to do is type ‘Carlos Castaneda’ into a good search engine and one can readily see that his fictional stories have nothing to do with actualism and everything to do with shamanism, spiritualism … and pop-psychology. If I can just return to the topic of naiveté and the question you asked earlier –
At some seminal point in my early days of being interested in actualism I came to realize that the only way I could rekindle my naiveté was for me to be prepared to question all of what I had taken on board to be right, good and true. Eventually I came to see that this meant abandoning all of my previous conceptions about the nature of what it is to be free that I had imbibed from others. No doubt, whatever it is that is standing in the way of you rekindling your naiveté will gradually becoming equally clear to you.
PETER: I’ll repost a U.G. Krishnamurti quote that Richard recently posted to you as you might have missed its significance first time around –
I have also watched several videotapes of U.G. Krishnamurti with gatherings of his followers and I particularly remember him being scornful and dismissive of an elderly gentleman who had made the effort to travel a good distance simply to ask him a question. I found his action to be offensive – far from harmless. RESPONDENT: I don’t think UG has any doctrine that says he should act in a certain way, whether that is harmless or free from anger. PETER: That’s precisely my point, and the reason I said U.G. Krishnamurti was a dead-ender. He makes no claim to be either happy or harmless, nor is he happy and harmless, so I saw no point at all in following him or trying to emulate him because I have always been interested in the possibility of living with my fellow human beings in peace and harmony. RESPONDENT: You certainly don’t have to condone his behaviour. PETER: I neither condone nor condemn his behaviour – despite his reports of what he thinks and feels, he is simply a fellow human being who has landed in some sort of weird psychological state. And nor do I condone nor condemn those who follow him – it is but a testimony to the desperate lengths that many people go to in their search for the meaning of life. I know this well, because I have literally sat at the feet of a few shamans and snake-oil sellers before I became an actualist. RESPONDENT: Harmlessness; what is the actualist definition of harmlessness? PETER: How about – ‘Effortlessly living with one’s fellow human beings in utter peace and harmony’. That’s the challenge I set myself and I started with proving that it was possible to do this with one person and then I worked on the other issues that prevented me from living in utter peace and harmony with all of my fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Do you eat meat and therefore kill life to sustain your own? Do you unsuspectingly step on insects or do you unintentionally hurt someone? PETER: I was a vegetarian in my spiritual years – it was the ‘done thing’ to do – but when I stopped believing in spiritualism I stopped believing in vegetarianism. It then became obvious to me that the most conspicuous carnage that has occurred and is still occurring on this planet is the carnage that is wrought by human beings on other human beings as well as that which human beings inflict upon themselves. I then set my sights higher than conforming to righteous dietary ethics and focussed my attention on the more pertinent issue – stopping being antagonistic towards my fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Will you kill or injure to defend your life and or property? PETER: Life, yes, property no – I have insurance that covers what few goods I have. RESPONDENT: Do you live under the law that protects you at the point of a gun? PETER: If you mean: are the police in this town armed – yes, they are. Such is the human condition that without them this ‘peaceful’ part of the planet would rapidly devolve into barbarianism and anarchy. RESPONDENT: What is the actualist definition of harmlessness? PETER: There is no ‘actualist definition’ of harmlessness other than what the word means.
You will notice in the definition I gave you above, I simply re-adjusted the dictionary definition of harmlessness to mean ‘living with one’s fellow human beings in utter peace and harmony’ so as to give it a more down-to-earth meaning and to make it more specifically relevant to what I can practically do to bring an end to human malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: Is this possible? PETER: Yes – despite the overwhelming conviction that peace on earth between human beings is but an impossible dream, being harmless and living in peace with one’s fellow human being can be an actuality. RESPONDENT: Where do you draw the line? PETER: The expression ‘the buck stops here’ comes to mind. Or ‘somebody has to be the second and the third and so on’. Or ‘why not me?’ As you can see, I didn’t draw a line, I just moved the pointer to me. RESPONDENT: Presently one may not be displaying anger or harmfulness but what happens tomorrow one can never know unless one lives in a bubble. PETER: While not yet actually free of the human condition, I am virtually – as in almost completely – free of malice and sorrow. As such, I don’t wonder what will happen tomorrow for the simple reason that I cannot remember the last time I felt angry, felt resentful, felt aggrieved, felt annoyed etc. Why should tomorrow be any different? I am not hiding from the world, I don’t live in a bubble, I am not self-deluded – I am a down-to-earther, living in the world-as-it-is, with people as-they-are RESPONDENT: Richard, in all his self-aggrandizing glory, states that today was a perfect day and tomorrow will be as well. As to why one would make such a statement, I wouldn’t know unless one were trying to sell something, actualism and his method, in order to perhaps give his best shot at his stated altruistic goal of world peace, through his method. PETER: There is another explanation of course and I don’t know whether it has occurred to you. He could simply be stating a fact. * RESPONDENT: And Richard has said he has no psyche or I as ego, so does that mean he has ‘me as soul’ with the instinctual passions? UG has said ‘There is no self, there is no I, there is no spirit, there is no soul, and there is no mind’. Is he missing something that renders him ‘harmful’ or is he simply fooling himself? PETER: I am left wondering whether you have read I won’t repost it here but it does make very plain why U.G. Krishnamurti is a dead-ender as far as eliminating the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire are concerned. RESPONDENT: These instinctual passions sound fairly similar to other theories I have read about conditioning being transmitted though the genes or DNA. On this list, No 59 has pointed out several instances where this is the case, none to your satisfaction but close enough for me. PETER: Yep, it is clear that you both are intent on fudging the differences between actualism and spiritualism – ‘close enough is good enough’. RESPONDENT: UG says the body experiences fear for its own protection. When you are looking over the edge of a cliff, some people may walk to the edge and look over fearlessly and others will keep a ‘safe’ distance. Does that mean you or Richard will walk right up to the edge on a windy or windless day? What will you do? What keeps you from the very edge? Fear? Intelligence? Self preservation? How are you splitting up these three and dividing them? PETER: No. Such matters are matters of common sense. Nowadays I am always careful to avoid situations in which I can be either injured or killed, which was not necessarily the case in the years when I was occasionally stirred to do dangerous things in order to break the monotony I used to experience in doing the mundane activities of everyday life. RESPONDENT: How will you behave when you come across a dangerous snake on a walk in the wilderness? Will you instinctually jump back? Is that fear? PETER: I haven’t had occasion to come across a dangerous snake in the last few years but I have noticed a few occasions when I have had a reaction to an unexpected noise or an unexpected movement close by. What I noticed was that an instantaneous preparedness to act, or even an instantaneous evasive action, had kicked in before I had a chance to make a reasoned assessment of the situation, but I also noticed that there was no increase in heart rate and no tensing of the muscles as I used to experience when in the past the feeling of fear accompanied the instantaneous thoughtless response to danger. I liked the fact that the feeling of fear did not occur for it was a matter-of-fact confirmation that I was indeed becoming actually free of the instinctual feeling of fear. RESPONDENT: Is that the body’s fear that UG is talking about? PETER: No. In the practical example I gave above, it was clear to me that the body itself does not feel fear – ‘I’ feel fear. This does not mean that this body is reckless and fearless when ‘I’ no longer rule the roost – it means that common sense is then free to operate, unimpeded by the brutish and debilitating instinctual passions. I did have a snake-related incident that is worthwhile recounting because it is also an experiential confirmation that not only do ‘I’ feel fear but also ‘I’ can cause the bodily symptoms that we associate with the feeling of fear even when the body itself is in no danger at all As I was asleep one night I had a dream in which ‘I’ was bitten on the thumb by a very poisonous snake. Immediately there was excruciating pain and the thumb started to discolour and the skin was withering and dying before ‘my’ eyes. I then woke up out of the dream and I could still feel the pain in my finger and I still felt in shock despite the fact that I could see my finger was okay and that I had no bodily signs normally associated with fear. In other words, I experienced psychosomatic symptoms of fear bought on solely by ‘my’ dream. RESPONDENT: Maybe he calls it fear and you call it intelligence. A difference in semantics but no difference in actuality, in the movement of the body away from danger. PETER: No. Fear and intelligence are not the same thing at all. Fear is an instinctual passion, whereas intelligence is a function of the human brain. I don’t know whether you have noticed it but instinctual passions inhibit the free operation of intelligence. * PETER: No glamour, glory nor glitz to be found hereabouts. RESPONDENT: Why can’t you enjoy the ‘fickle spotlight of fame’? As long as you don’t get addicted to it, what difference does it make? What kind of freedom is it if a little media spotlight can ruin it? It is mentioned here about being altruistic – what kind of altruism is it when one won’t give up their foxhole to further their stated goals of peace on earth? Why not go out and promote actualism on the Oprah Show like Deepak Chopra? Why not go mainstream? PETER: Well for a start, it was only a few hundred years ago that human beings burnt other human beings at the stake for being heretics and actualism is heretical. The fanaticism of the self-righteous is not something to be taken lightly. Galileo was forced to recant his discovery that confirmed that the Bible was wrong and the earth rotated around the sun. Charles Darwin agonized for decades before going public with his discovery that God didn’t create all the creatures on earth and then he made sure he avoided the spotlight of fame thereafter. And there are many people who are more than willing to kill others in order to defend their beliefs if they feel them to be threatened. Need I go on? RESPONDENT: Richard stated in a recent post that in a few years he will go off to a secluded retreat to enjoy the rest of his life in ‘paradisaical obscurity’: I am not saying anything against doing that but if one really believed that their method could bring peace on earth, why not go on a promotional tour? Maybe you all should get off your backsides and start competing with the tried and tired and failed methods and religions around the globe instead of remaining anonymous and in your comfort zones hidden from the glamour, glory & the glitz as you say? PETER: It obviously hasn’t yet occurred to you yet as to why actualism is not popular – actualism it is not popular because it is non-spiritual and spirituality in some form or another is de-rigueur within the human condition. As such, actualism will only appeal to those who are disenchanted with spiritualism and want to become free of the human condition in toto. * PETER: I can see why you have been attracted to U.G. Krishnamurti. He eliminated what he saw as the negative aspects of spiritualism and ended up in some type of permanent nihilistic state. Aiming to get rid of the negative was never enough for me because I had a positive aim – to find the meaning of life. RESPONDENT: What meaning could be found? PETER: Aren’t you looking for the meaning of life or are you content with your life as-it-is? I remember when I left home and school, I was bewildered by what could be termed the mainstream of life. I remember wondering to myself – is having a wife, two kids and two cars the meaning of life? The same thing happened when I left the materialistic world and threw myself into the spiritual world. I remember wondering to myself – is becoming an Enlightened Guru and having my ‘money for nothing and my chicks for free’ the meaning of life? Neither meaning stacked up as far as I was concerned. RESPONDENT: If there is any must it not be found in the moment to moment living? If not there, then where? PETER: The phrase moment to moment living implies ‘me’ having a ‘life’ that starts at birth and continues as an unchanging feeling-fed continuity until death. RESPONDENT: Yeah sure it’s ‘me’ or ‘you’ having a life until death. What else could possibly be having the life? You will probably say it’s the flesh and blood body ... fine ... that is me or you , no? PETER: I wasn’t making an intellectual comment, I was making a pragmatic comment as to ‘who’ people think and feel they are. Normal experience has it that ‘I’ am an entity who looks out through the eyes of ‘my’ body in order to see whatever is happening outside, who listens to sounds through the ears of ‘my’ body in order to hear what is happening outside and so on. Everybody has a feeling of being an alien entity isolated from or cut of from the outside world – this is the primal feelings of loneliness and alienation that everybody feels and vainly attempts to assuage. This is the basis of spiritual belief – the belief that ‘who’ I really am is a spirit-ual being, i.e. a non-corporeal spirit, temporarily residing in a mortal flesh and blood body and thus capable of living on after the death of the mortal flesh and blood body. * RESPONDENT: Actualists use the word ‘universe’ and spiritualists use the word ‘god’. PETER: When actualists use the word universe they are referring to the physical universe – as in
whereas when spiritualists use the word God they are referring to a mythological non-physical Being or Life-force or Creative-Energy that supposedly has created, or is in charge of, or is running, or is permeating, the physical universe. They are not the same thing – one is an actuality, the other is a fantasy. RESPONDENT: Your word is more impersonal, more benign. You can’t say this is my universe and your universe like the wars over my god and yours. PETER: Not one would assume that it is hard to argue or fight over a fact but human beings are prone to argue and fight over the silliest of things. I know I was before I stated to become attentive to my feelings. RESPONDENT: Universe is a scientific term, god a religious, spiritual term. PETER: Yes but not only are they different terms, they are different words that refer to different things – one being a fact, the other being a fantasy. Words do have meanings – the word tree refers to something that is different to what the word sky means, exactly as the word universe means something different than the word God means – at least it did before the latter-day spiritualists collared the term universe and stuck a capital ‘U’ on it, thereby unilaterally anointing all matter with Divine status. RESPONDENT: Your universe is benevolent and their god is benevolent. PETER: I don’t know which God you are referring to but even as a kid I couldn’t understand that if there was a God, why he didn’t get off his throne come down and sorts things out and put a stop to all the misery and mayhem that human beings inflict on each other and themselves? I figured even then that if there was a God … then he was a very sick God indeed. RESPONDENT: You say how could anyone believe that we are here to be miserable. So do they. PETER: Au contraire. I often hear it said that ‘suffering is good for you’, ‘that you learn from suffering’, ‘that one grows stronger by suffering’ and so on. Even Buddhism, the flavour-of-the-decade Clayton’s religion – the religion that people take up when they don’t like religion – makes it clear that we are here to suffer, that life is fundamentally disappointment and suffering
RESPONDENT: You imply a purpose to life, so do they. You may have more in common with them than not. PETER: Nah, not a skerrick. I gave up spiritualism when I realized that the Good is but the flip-side of Evil and that both concepts are nothing but human feeling-fed fantasies. * RESPONDENT: 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? PETER: In your attempts to disprove Richard’s claim you have yet to provide any evidence that anyone else has become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow … let alone provide any evidence of anyone who has said, or is saying, that it is possible for anyone to become free of the instinctual passions that are the root cause of human malice and sorrow. In the light of this failure you are reduced to clutching-at-straws propositions, which do nothing but highlight the lack of facts that support your case. RESPONDENT: The onus is not on me to disprove Richard’s claim. How could I or he prove this? It boggles the mind to think that one could possibly know. Really, it doesn’t matter to me whether he is the first or not or what condition he is or isn’t in. I am happy for him and you and all the others you all have helped. PETER: What a load of codswallop. You came to this mailing list pre-primed to disprove Richard’s claim and now you are wimping out because you have been unable to come up with any evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Of course you will dismiss this because you have already made it clear that you are not at all interested in whether Richard actually has discovered a way to become free of malice and sorrow –
This makes it clear that the only motive you have for writing on this list is to be adversarial. And not only that, your claim that you ‘are happy for him and all the others he has helped’ stands contrary to what you have written on this mailing list to other list-members –
These are not the words of someone who is ‘happy for him and you and all the others you all have helped’ but rather the words of someone who is scornful of, rather than happy for ... RESPONDENT: How is anyone to know what has happened to every single human that has ever walked the face of this verdant and azure planet? PETER: But you do claim to know and you have made it plain that you do know –
As you have made the definitive claim, ‘he is certainly not the first’, then it is certainly up to you to provide the evidence to back your claim. The other relevant point is that you remain fixated on the discoverer and have made it clear that you have zilch interest in what it is that he has discovered, which makes your contributions to the focus of this mailing list an irrelevancy.
Just to remind you, here are a few examples of your contributions on the subject of bringing about an end to malice and sorrow –
RESPONDENT: In a few years, Richard may disappear to finish his days in obscurity. I don’t see why others who were in the same condition before him, didn’t do the same. Hence, no trace. PETER: The prime reason The Actual Freedom Trust was established was to ensure that Richard’s writings and the writings of other actualists would be available for others to peruse. A Trust is a handy legal entity to do this because its existence is not dependant on any one single person and when one person dies the other Trust members can continue to support the Trust or other members can be enjoined to continue the work of the Trust. Who knows how long this will last but I shall certainly be supporting the Trust and its aims as long as I am alive, and there may well then be others who would be interested in taking my place so as to maintain the website. * RESPONDENT: Clearly the writings of Carlos Castaneda 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. PETER: Speaking of straw-clutching, Carlos Castaneda’s writings have long been exposed as being fiction masquerading as fact. All one needs to do is type ‘Carlos Castaneda’ into a good search engine and one can readily see that his fictional stories have nothing to do with actualism and everything to do with shamanism, spiritualism … and pop-psychology. RESPONDENT: I didn’t know his writings had been ‘exposed as being fiction masquerading as fact’. There seems to be too many nuggets of truth in his tales for it to be completely fictional. PETER: Yep. People do find it hard to completely dismiss fictions such as these. The fact that the hoaxers who perpetrated the first crop circles owned up did nothing to daunt the true believers let alone discourage the copycats who keep the hoax running. I noticed that the hoaxer who perpetrated the Bigfoot hoax in the U.S. was recently revealed but this did little if anything to dint the hopes of those who are still ‘searching for Bigfoot’. RESPONDENT: I never said he had anything to do with your actualism. PETER: So I’m now to take it that when you said –
you weren’t referring to the goals of actualism? This does make the conversation somewhat surreal. RESPONDENT: There is obviously shamanism, spiritualism and other isms intertwined in his tales. PETER: As I understand it, shamanism and spiritualism are not just intertwined in his tales, they are the very substance of his tales and hence the very appeal of his writings – the belief that they contain nuggets of truth. RESPONDENT: All I meant was that if there is any truth at all to his writings, [which I think there is] then this points to some subculture of peoples devoting their lives to uncovering the meaning of life, not unlike the goal of actualism. PETER: Shaman, sages, gurus, spiritualists and the like all believe that the meaning of life for a feeling being (a spirit being) is to be found in the spiritual world (the world of spirits) – where else? Whereas an actualist devotes his or her life to eliminating his or her feeling being, along with ‘his’ or ‘her’ associated malice and sorrow, in order that the already existing meaning of life that is the actual world can become apparent 24/7. No similarity at all – different people, different worlds, different intent … and different results.
Peter’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
