|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 12
RESPONDENT: I have been having trouble understanding what you and the others who communicate with you, mean by PCE. Now I begin to understand, when you say that in the PCE emotions/passions play no part whatsoever. There is nothing blocking direct experiencing of this moment. I cannot directly perceive what these words mean to you as you write them but I can ‘go ‘Aha!’ This PCE is known to me. Yes, when there is no emotionality present, and I am paying attention to this moment, there is such a quiet joy, a deep sense of peace, a fascination with what is here. There is enough. More than enough. RICHARD: Yet there is more ... much, much more. I get to comprehend what you mean by ‘actual reality’ each time you write ... it is a good description and I may borrow it, if I may, when writing to others about settling for second-best. RESPONDENT: My initial impression of this list was: here were a group of (happy, harmless) people willing to explore beyond the appearances we put up to impress ourselves and each other, all the way into our inner realities. I assumed that this group of people would be interested to examine their own feelings. And that seems to be the case. Now I see that these very (happy, harmless) people are willing to move even further. Their intent (or actuality) is the complete annihilation of the constructed self that many of us are busy examining. But it took awhile for me to understand that. I cannot pretend that my Self is gone. But at least I can understand that ‘actual reality’ is a very confusing term – or perhaps even a misnomer – on the path to Actual Freedom. I now see that the words actual and real are used in two different senses on this list. Real has an affective component, whereas Actual does not. I begin to like that distinction. And I can understand that you imagined that I was referring to something transcendent when I popped up on the list talking about ‘actual reality’. I was not talking about something transcendent. I was talking about the ‘reality’ of the inner life of feelings, justifications, fears, and hidings. [Editorial note: there can be no such thing as ‘actual reality’ in the actual world]. RICHARD: My previous companion of eleven years was a sannyasin of the Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain ilk when we first met. As she rapidly became an ex-sannyasin I learnt a lot about that spiritual milieu known as ‘The Sannyas-World’ ... and what you describe is known in the jargon as ‘being authentic’ (‘authentic’ as in ‘the author of’ and not as in ‘genuine’, ‘bona fide’, ‘actual’). Generally it means that one can act like an utter ‘asshole’ (an endearing and popular word spoken so often and lovingly by many on the sannyas-list) and get away with it by pleading ‘authenticity’ . Peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found, needless to say ... but apparently that is not the intention anyway. RESPONDENT: I now understand more fully that it is our own self-constructed ‘reality’ (facts filtered through thoughts and feelings) that needs to be examined relentlessly in order for the actual world to be perceived directly. I have a much deeper understanding of what all this means to me, since I joined this list. It means to me that I continue examining all the thoughts and feelings that define ‘me’ moment by moment. In that way I move beyond the world of appearances (characterised by unexamined habitual ways of relating) into my own inner world. That inner world appears very real for a time. This is the state I called actual reality. Indeed it is second best to remain there. But first one has to move beyond socially sanctioned appearance into it. Isn’t that so? Or can one move directly from the world of appearances into Actual Freedom bypassing the stage of self-examination? RICHARD: There is a rapid (and sudden) way to actual freedom and a gradual (then sudden) way ... and the rapid (and sudden) way does by-pass self-examination. There are certain dangers inherent:
The rapid (and sudden) way is certainly possible – given sufficient pure intent – yet even so there needs to be a tidying-up of social mores and habitual patterns ‘after the event’ anyway ... an actual freedom does not miraculously remove every little detail. It does make the fine-tuning a breeze, though. RESPONDENT: And, Richard, is the meaning I give to the term ‘actual reality’ the same meaning you would give it when ‘writing to others about settling for second-best’? RICHARD: By and large – via my personal observation – Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s sannyasins have indeed settled for second-best ... if that.
RESPONDENT: Richard, as usual I am reading a lot more than I am writing. I love it when a new Actual Freedom posting appears in my in-box. I am curious to hear more from you about three things that have arisen recently. First thing: in your article ‘Attentiveness and sensuousness and apperceptiveness’ I first came across the term ‘Virtual Freedom’. Virtual Freedom seems a strange term for you to use given that you stress actuality. ‘Virtual’ refers to things that are not actually such. So you are now talking about a freedom that is not actual? RICHARD: Aye ... the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom is a win/win situation. Just like the
spiritual path there is a glittering prize at the end ... yet here the similarity ends. With actualism one gains measurably along
the way ... if actual freedom remains ever-elusive one winds up way ahead of normal human expectations. RESPONDENT: From my reading of you, it is a stage on the way to Actual Freedom. Is that so? RICHARD: It is well-nigh essential. As I wrote in my very last post to you: [Richard]: ‘After living in the condition of virtual freedom for sufficient time to absorb all the ramifications of a blithesome life, it is highly likely that the ultimate condition can happen. ‘I’ do not make it happen, because ‘I’ cannot make it happen. What is more ... ‘I’ am not required to make it happen. An actual freedom happens of itself only when one is fully ready, and not before. One has to become acclimatised to benignity, benevolence and blitheness, because the purity of the actual is so powerful that it would ‘blow the fuses’ if one was to venture into this territory ill-prepared. To precipitously apprehend the vast stillness of infinitude would be too much, too fast, too soon ... one could go mad with the super-abundance of pleasure that pours forth’. (‘Richard’s Journal’ © 1997 The Actual Freedom Trust. Page: 150). RESPONDENT: Can you explain more about this? RICHARD: I could indeed ... but may I suggest typing <virtual> into the ‘search’ or ‘find’ function of your computer and check out the more than half-a-million words on the three linked actual freedom pages? Here is what I found taking only three minutes:
RESPONDENT: Second thing: following on from your discussions about feelings, and in particular your recent post in response to No. 04 you wrote: [Richard]: Often people who read about actual freedom gain the impression that I am asking people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire affective faculty is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the psyche itself is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings. It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. [endquote]. I still hear you saying ‘stop feeling’ RICHARD: May I suggest? Read with both eyes open. RESPONDENT: You say ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. RICHARD: Yes. The quote you reproduced (above) does say that. RESPONDENT: So by getting rid of feelings I get rid of ‘me’. RICHARD: No. The quote you reproduced (above) does not say that. RESPONDENT: In order to ‘cease being’, feelings have to cease. RICHARD: No. The quote you reproduced (above) does not say that. RESPONDENT: You say to cease being means that the ‘affective faculty is extirpated’. RICHARD: Yes. The quote you reproduced (above) does say that. RESPONDENT: On the one hand you claim that you are not asking people to stop feeling and on the other you are claiming that to be free ‘I’ have to be annihilated, and ‘I’ am equivalent to ‘my’ feelings. RICHARD: Aye ... the elimination of ‘me’ in ‘my’ totality is the ending of all feelings – emotions and passions and calenture – but the elimination of all feelings is impossible whilst there is an ‘I’ or ‘me’ extant. Therefore, how can ‘I’ coopt the feelings into aiding and assisting ‘me’ in ‘my’ self-immolation? How can ‘I’ gain ‘my’ willing participation in ‘my’ extirpation? I suggest most clearly that one examines every feeling each moment again (‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?) so as to ascertain how ‘I’ tick. I simply make it a lot easier for you in that I have already done this examination starting eighteen years ago – therefore this is practical not theoretical – and I can recommend that one minimises the effect that both the ‘bad’ and the ‘good’ feelings have on you (the enhancement of the ‘good’ feelings has been tried and tried again and again and has failed and failed again and again). The affective energy previously channelled into the vain attempt to combat the ‘bad’ with the ‘good’ is now released to expand the felicitous/ innocuous feelings which, along with sensuousness (another no-no in spirituality) and naiveté‚ will result in a wide-eyed wonder which may very well eventuate in apperceptiveness ... given sufficient pure intent to bring about peace-on-earth by allowing the already always existing perfection to become apparent. Voila! One has a PCE ... which is where the identity is in abeyance. Then one has the direct experience of experiencing life sans feelings ... and rapture, bliss, ecstasy, euphoria, love, compassion, expansive oneness and so on (the glorified and sanctified ‘good’ feelings) are nowhere to be found. Here lies the purity of the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe ... this is peace-on-earth in this life-time as this body. RESPONDENT: Third thing: later in your post to No. 04 you seem to divide feelings into three categories : [Richard]: ‘If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (as explained above) and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings – happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on – in conjunction with sensuousness, then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness’. [endquote]. There are ‘good’ feelings, ‘bad’ feelings’ and ‘felicitous’ feelings? I am confused about this categorisation. How do you define which feelings are appropriate and which are good or bad? RICHARD: I have no intention of providing either a limited or an exhaustive list ... there are literally hundreds of feeling-words listed in the dictionary. For example, last year someone asked, on another list, what ‘malice’ was ... and I spent five minutes in the Oxford’s thesaurus and provided what they could have produced themselves if they had any nous:
It is so much fun finding out for oneself ... is it not? Also, I am somewhat surprised that this is all new to you ... may I draw your attention to an exchange you and I had three or four posts ago? Viz.:
Methinks you will find that I have been very clear and up-front all along.
RESPONDENT: Richard, for some reason I have been thinking of you lately. RICHARD: Good to hear from you again ... how are your journalistic enterprises going? As I recall you were toying with writing an article tentatively entitled ‘Living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are’ (or something similar)? RESPONDENT: I think it is because Life is so Grand and to a large extent that is because I went into an encounter with my own death. RICHARD: Ahh ... this ‘Life is so Grand because ...’ sentence stands out: the experiential comprehension of death’s necessity is the essential prerequisite for the actual understanding of life. Mostly people do not appreciate how fundamental death is to life (‘life’s a bitch with death at the end’) and either uneasily avoid the subject or agnostically say that it cannot be known until one physically dies. Those that are not desperately believing the ancient scriptures, that is. RESPONDENT: And out of that I am not believing or hoping or groping for Eternality anymore. RICHARD: Excellent ... the fact of death means that, in an ultimate sense, nothing really matters: hence playfulness. Also, the universe, being infinite and eternal, means that eternity is already always here ... now. RESPONDENT: But rather I can allow the knowledge that I Will Die, to free me each and every day; as I more and more delight in what there is to work and play with until I am no more and the universe goes on without me. RICHARD: Yes, I oft-times say that if it were not for death I could not be happy ... let alone harmless. I could not be solemn if my life depended upon it. Sincere ... yes; serious ... no way. RESPONDENT: Actually; you are right; it is possible to free oneself from the human condition. RICHARD: Oh, good ... perhaps you may be inclined to expand upon this? I always value feedback.
RESPONDENT: I had been considering unsubscribing from the list again; as I find the constant belliteration on the part of the priesthood a bit difficult to interact with; but I have been remaining for the joy of reading No. 10’s Extremely Patient and Forthright and Perceptive Challenging of the Coagulating Cultic Communications. Please continue No. 10. You are being read, enjoyed, appreciated and acknowledged!! RICHARD: As you included the correspondence addressed to me (along with your term ‘the priesthood’ ) in this post of yours you are obviously deliberately including me in your previous attempts to deprecate peace-on-earth, in this life-time as this flesh and blood body, by categorising actualism as a ‘religion’ and a ‘cult’ ... and now ‘cultic communications’ . Viz.:
As I am on record as saying – over and again – that I lived the religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical and/or metaphysical ‘Tried and True’ solution to all the ills of humankind night and day for eleven years – and found it wanting by virtue of it being a massive megalomaniacal delusion – I fail to see what point it is you consider you are making. I am also on record as saying:
Your response (at the top of the page) is all the more curious bearing in mind that you posted a circular a little while ago promoting a spiritually-based workshop inspired by the teachings of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain (a self acknowledged never-born never-died enlightened being) who carefully and publicly set-up what he called his religion a few years before he ‘quit the body’ (as is evidenced in books published under his name such as ‘The Rajneesh Bible’ and so on) replete with an inner circle ‘priesthood’ of 21 acknowledged disciples. Viz.:
You are obviously more than just superficially involved in this organisation as you were able to offer a discount ... and a visit to the ‘Humaniversity’ Web Site elicits this information:
I see the words <spiritual>, <enlightened>, <mystic>, <osho>, <sannyasins>, <disciples>, <spirit> and <self-realisation> in this introductory paragraph on the ‘Humaniversity’ Web Site. Do you not see that you are but belittling yourself in your futile attempts to belittle an actual freedom from the human condition? Also, if you consider those series of responses, in the correspondence addressed to me which you included in your post, as being ‘Extremely Perceptive and Challenging’ then obviously you too cannot see the difference, between a channelled theosophy that glorifies the self by promoting it as being a bodiless spirit which is an aspect of a god named ‘All That Is’ – to the detriment of the body – and an actual freedom from the human condition which values salubrious physical existence and peace-on-earth in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body. Because, in case you missed it, the central thesis of the wisdom of the spirit known a ‘Seth’, in the paragraph that initiated this thread, was a wisdom that promotes a ‘blessed natural aggressiveness’, by equating what a cat does with a mouse as being ‘playfully killing’ and thus ‘that innocent sense of integrity’ and ‘sense of justice’ wherein there is a ‘biological compassion’ because (and this is the central argument) the ‘consciousness of the mouse’ (and a ‘terrified mouse’ at that) ‘leaves its body’ via an ‘innate knowledge of impending pain’, as being a ‘‘new’ consciousness’ by virtue of the ‘emerging triumph’ known as ‘free will’ whereupon all these instinctual impulses are somehow ‘superseded’ by an ‘emotional reality’ induced by ‘the birth of guilt’ wherein committing all the aforementioned mayhem and misery is now felt as being a ‘suggestion’ to live by rather than a ‘rule’ ... and gratuitously called ‘freedom’. This inhumane ‘suggestion’ and gruesome ‘‘new’ consciousness’ (condoning and/or advocating homicide as it is the body and not the consciousness which is killed) is identical to that divine wisdom found in the Bhagavad-Gita where Mr. Krishna (‘God’ by whatever name) assures Mr. Arjuna that it is quite okay to kill his relatives in war because he would not be killing the person anyway but only the body. That is what a ‘religion’, a ‘cult’, a ‘priesthood’ and ‘cultic communications’ really look like ... seeking to save one’s spurious ‘immortal soul’ at the cost of peace-on-earth. Which is why all the religious wars have raged across the centuries ... not to forget all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like that have been perpetuated forever and a day via the ‘trickle-on’ effect of the morality and ethicality derived from their unliveable ‘Teachings’ (which ‘Teachings’ are based upon their belief that they are ‘not the body’). Doctrines like pacifism, acceptance, being non-judgemental and living in unconditional love, for example. Perhaps you might like to reconsider the position you may have inadvertently taken?
RICHARD: Perhaps you might like to reconsider the position you may have inadvertently taken? RESPONDENT: The position I take has not changed an iota. I take the position that your disciples are more interested in being right than being free; and that the cult they are subsequently developing is as irrelevant to Actual Freedom as any other religious doctrine. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... but perhaps upon sober reflection you might like to reconsider this ‘your disciples’ are the ‘inner priesthood’ of an ‘actualism cult’ which ‘inner divinity’ propagate ‘cultic communications’ as does ‘any other religious doctrine’ position which you may have inadvertently rigidly stuck to, eh? Because nowhere in all the latest responses of yours have you even come close to addressing the key point of this thread: ‘The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit’. Just as the previous respondent passed-up three opportunities to focus upon the one and only point I am making, so too have you chosen to discuss all manner of things rather than attend to this ‘Ancient Wisdom’. And, of course, you may respond to this E-Mail in any way you see fit – or not answer at all – but the one thing, and one thing only that this thread is about, is the central reason as to why there is no peace on earth after 3,000 to 5,000 years of enlightened wisdom. To wit: The ‘Ancient Wisdom’ licence says: it is okay to kill the body as you are not killing the person.
RICHARD: Perhaps you might like to reconsider the position you may have inadvertently taken? RESPONDENT: The position I take has not changed an iota. I take the position that your disciples are more interested in being right than being free; and that the cult they are subsequently developing is as irrelevant to Actual Freedom as any other religious doctrine. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... but perhaps upon sober reflection you might like to reconsider this ‘your disciples’ are the ‘inner priesthood’ of an ‘actualism cult’ which ‘inner divinity’ propagate ‘cultic communications’ as does ‘any other religious doctrine’ position which you may have inadvertently rigidly stuck to, eh? Because nowhere in all the latest responses of yours have you even come close to addressing the key point of this thread: ‘The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit’. Just as the previous respondent passed-up three opportunities to focus upon the one and only point I am making, so too have you chosen to discuss all manner of things rather than attend to this ‘Ancient Wisdom’. RESPONDENT: There is another point; after you have finished with that one. To wit: the reason there is no Actual Peace on this Actual Mailing list is: The ‘Actualist Wisdom’ license says: It is okay to belittle the correspondent as you are not belittling an Actualist. RICHARD: It is nothing so trivial as merely ‘belittling’ the ‘I’ and/or the ‘me’ and/or the ‘person’ and/or the ‘personality’ and/or the ‘ego’ and/or the ‘self’ and/or the ‘soul’ and/or the ‘atman’ and/or the ‘being’ and/or the ‘Being’ and/or the ‘Self’ and/or the ‘God’ and/or the ‘Goddess’ and/or the ‘Truth’ and/or ‘That’ (the identity by whatever name) as I am laying culpability for all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like directly at the feet of that ‘being’ ... that psychological and/or psychic entity who has taken up parasitical existence in an otherwise innocent flesh and blood body. I am way, way past ‘belittling’ – this is not kindergarten – this is the Actual Freedom Mailing List. * RICHARD: And, of course, you may respond to this E-Mail in any way you see fit – or not answer at all – but the one thing, and one thing only that this thread is about, is the central reason as to why there is no peace on earth after 3,000 to 5,000 years of enlightened wisdom. To wit: The ‘Ancient Wisdom’ licence says: it is okay to kill the body as you are not killing the person. RESPONDENT: I agree with you. And that is stupid; ridiculous; and inappropriate. Not only that it sucks. Not only that it is at the root of war and sorrow ... RICHARD: Then why do you feel ‘belittled’? RESPONDENT: ... and disidentification. RICHARD: May I ask? Instead of ‘self’-immolating, psychologically and psychically, have ‘you’ un-identified as being ‘me’ as soul who survives physical death ... and re-identified as being the flesh and blood body? If so, then this could very well be why ‘you’ feel ‘belittled’.
RICHARD: Nowhere in all the latest responses of yours have you even come close to addressing the key point of this thread: ‘The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit’. Just as the previous respondent passed-up three opportunities to focus upon the one and only point I am making, so too have you chosen to discuss all manner of things rather than attend to this ‘Ancient Wisdom’. RESPONDENT: There is another point; after you have finished with that one. To wit: the reason there is no Actual Peace on this Actual Mailing list is: The ‘Actualist Wisdom’ license says: It is okay to belittle the correspondent as you are not belittling an Actualist. RICHARD: It is nothing so trivial as merely ‘belittling’ the ‘I’ and/or the ‘me’ and/or the ‘person’ and/or the ‘personality’ and/or the ‘ego’ and/or the ‘self’ and/or the ‘soul’ and/or the ‘atman’ and/or the ‘being’ and/or the ‘Being’ and/or the ‘Self’ and/or the ‘God’ and/or the ‘Goddess’ and/or the ‘Truth’ and/or ‘That’ (the identity by whatever name) as I am laying culpability for all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like directly at the feet of that ‘being’ ... that psychological and/or psychic entity who has taken up parasitical existence in an otherwise innocent flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Belittling is not trivial. RICHARD: Belittling is but petty schoolyard tactics ... whereas putting one’s finger on the root cause of all the misery and anguish is way, way past such childish ploys. RESPONDENT: It is one of the causes of war and rape and murder. RICHARD: It is one of the many, many triggers – as is taunting and other schoolyard tactics – and not ‘one of the causes’ . The causes of war go far, far deeper ... deep into one’s core of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: It is part of the Ancient License. RICHARD: Not necessarily – the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ licence says it is okay to kill the body as you are not killing the person – and the ‘Enlightened Beings’ may or may not belittle depending upon their temperament. RESPONDENT: Can you not convince your selfless self to stop it! Can you not examine why you keep on doing it?? Hmm?? RICHARD: If I may point out? Apart from there being no such thing as a ‘selfless self’ this is what is called a ‘straw-man argument’ (wherein you invent something I am not doing then criticise your own invention as if you are commenting on what I am actually doing). * RICHARD: I am way, way past ‘belittling’ – this is not kindergarten – this is the Actual Freedom Mailing List. RESPONDENT: Hmm ... interesting. HEY! Richard!! I like you! I like your Actual Freedom Mailing List!! Now are you able to say No. 12 I like you? Hmm?? Or are you too busy making a point. RICHARD: I like everybody irregardless of what mischief they get up to ... and I do not stop liking them when I am making a point. RESPONDENT: Are you able to say – hey No. 12! You been on this planet as long as me! Hey! Let’s compare notes. Really! You got value from Humaniversity! RICHARD: Nope ... I would never say that as the ‘Humaniversity’ is spiritually-based ‘Tried and True’ teachings and workshops. RESPONDENT: AND you also have problems with their approach?? Really ... how can that be, how can both be true? RICHARD: Nope ... I would never say that as they cannot both be true. RESPONDENT: You’ve got a friend who is a therapist WOW! Hey really! You know there is no spiritual world AND you recommend that some people who are stuck and bored do some Tantra. RICHARD: Hmm ... I will have to check with Vineeto, of course, but I would be most surprised if she were to say that she was indeed ‘stuck and bored’ . RESPONDENT: Hey I don’t understand that approach ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... I like my fellow human being and I would never advise attending spiritually-based ‘Tried and True’ teachings and workshops. RESPONDENT: ... but hey I met you and I like you so tell me how that can be .... I want to understand ... RICHARD: I already understand ... I lived enlightenment night and day for eleven years, thus I have intimate knowledge of its seductive ways. RESPONDENT: ... because I am a limited human just like you ... RICHARD: Except that I am not a ‘limited human just like you’. RESPONDENT: ... and one day I will be gone ... so let’s enjoy each other while we are here! RICHARD: But I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate your being here already ... I always have done and always will do. RESPONDENT: And hey, No. 12 do you mind if we put some of your writing on our website? RICHARD: I simply keep a copy of my correspondence on the Web Site for ease and convenience ... to save clicking through tens of thousands of E-Mails in various public mailing list archives throughout the world. The only difference is that I make the respondent anonymous a matter of courtesy. If I may suggest? If you do not want what you write to be in the public domain then do not write to mailing lists. RESPONDENT: Hmm? We’ll only do it if that is what you want ... because friendship is important on this planet! RICHARD: It has nothing to do with friendship as I like people anyway. RESPONDENT: And No. 12! Wow! You are intelligent and persistent. I appreciate that. RICHARD: Every body is intelligent ... it is just that human intelligence is crippled by the survival instincts. RESPONDENT: The point does not seem so important now. RICHARD: The point is important irregardless of what the other does or does not do or does or does not say for there is no compromise possible here in this actual world ... nothing ‘dirty’ can get in. RESPONDENT: I’d like you to be my friend. Because you know ... I got tired of all the rape and murder and war and opposition on this planet RICHARD: As I like everybody anyway I never have to sell out for the sake of a friendship. Besides, I never need the other to fulfil me ... or whatever it is that makes people bargain and compromise for the sake of such a fickle thing as a relationship. I like being here ... I am totally fulfilled and utterly satisfied each moment again. RESPONDENT: ... and I think people who think like you and me could be friends ... how about it?? Wanna come and have a coffee with me?? Relating is so simple. As simple as freedom actually. RICHARD: There is more to an actual freedom from the human condition than merely thinking alike ... one gets off one’s backside and actually does something. * RICHARD: And, of course, you may respond to this E-Mail in any way you see fit – or not answer at all – but the one thing, and one thing only that this thread is about, is the central reason as to why there is no peace on earth after 3,000 to 5,000 years of enlightened wisdom. To wit: The ‘Ancient Wisdom’ licence says: it is okay to kill the body as you are not killing the person. RESPONDENT: I agree with you. And that is stupid; ridiculous; and inappropriate. Not only that it sucks. Not only that it is at the root of war and sorrow ... RICHARD: Then why do you feel ‘belittled’? RESPONDENT: ... and disidentification. RICHARD: May I ask? Instead of ‘self’-immolating, psychologically and psychically, have ‘you’ un-identified as being ‘me’ as soul who survives physical death ... and re-identified as being the flesh and blood body? If so, then this could very well be why ‘you’ feel ‘belittled’. RESPONDENT: Richard, when you turn my point around from: let’s discuss the belittling that is happening amongst you and your adherents to: No. 12 why do you feel belittled, that is a perfect example of belittlement on your part. RICHARD: It is nothing so trivial as merely ‘belittling’ the identity (by whatever name) as I am laying culpability for all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like directly at the feet of that ‘being’ ... that psychological and/or psychic entity who has taken up parasitical existence in an otherwise innocent flesh and blood body. In case it is still not clear: I am not ‘belittling’ you ... I am doing far more than that. RESPONDENT: Why are you bringing feelings into this? RICHARD: Because it would appear that instead of ‘self’-immolating psychologically and psychically ‘you’ may very well have un-identified as being ‘me’ as soul who survives physical death ... and re-identified as being the flesh and blood body. It is the reference to ‘disidentification’ that prompts me to suggest this. RESPONDENT: I am saying you have a tendency to want to be right. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘want to be right’ ... because when it comes to the matter of being free from the human condition – the total extinction of the animal self and all its affective feelings – I am always right already as I speak from experience. RESPONDENT: And to achieve that you read meanings into people’s communication that suits your purpose. RICHARD: Okay then ... have all the affective feelings disappeared, in toto and never to return, in the flesh and blood body known as No. 12? RESPONDENT: And that is the underlying dynamic of Actualism that you have passed onto the ‘inner circle’ as I call it facetiously. Period. Examine it. Or don’t. RICHARD: I do not need to ‘examine it’ ... I already know that I relentlessly put my finger on the root cause of all the mayhem and misery. That is why The Actual Freedom Trust exists; that is why the Actual Freedom Web Page exists; that is why the Actual Freedom Mailing List exists ... and that is why I am writing. If all you feel is that my words are ‘belittling’ ... then you ain’t seen half of it yet! RESPONDENT: Richard, this is kindergarten stuff ... pass the blame to the self. RICHARD: Okay ... let us do it your way, then: where do you lay the blame for all the animosity and anguish that exemplifies the human condition? RESPONDENT: Tell everyone you don’t have one. RICHARD: I already am ... have you not noticed? RESPONDENT: Tell them what they believe and know. RICHARD: I always advise against believing (and trusting and hoping and having faith and so on). RESPONDENT: Tell them you are special. RICHARD: I already do ... have you not noticed? RESPONDENT: Because you are free. Yeah sure baby. RICHARD: I rather fail to see the point you are making.
CORRESPONDENT No 12 (Part Four) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
