With Correspondent No. 17
And so the silliness plays itself out until the player acknowledges their own amenability.
Because it is possible to be free of the instinctual passions which cripple intelligence.
May I ask? Did you read all what I wrote in this thread before sending this E-Mail?
This is all par for the course as long as there are people who will not listen with both ears.
Being actually free from the human condition means that I am under no obligation whatsoever to become some
sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein I cannot live a normal lifestyle ... and this is what some peoples will
not listen to. I fully enjoy my current lifestyle, as it is, totally, completely, utterly. I fully enjoy my own company; I fully
enjoy the company of a choice companion; I fully enjoy the company of select associates; I fully enjoy all current associations
... my social calendar is thus fully booked out by simply living. To be fully able to freely live a normal lifestyle in a seaside
village is why I set out to become free of the human condition all those years ago. And this is what an actual freedom from the
human condition is ... it is right here in the market place.
The way to freely live a normal life is now available for all 6.0 billion people.
No. 20: Hello readers. I am new at this list.
RICHARD: Welcome the Actual Freedom Mailing List ... I am always pleased when someone finds their way
here as it shows that the internet is living up to its reputation of a truly global reach.
No. 20: I was few days ago to find actualfreedom.com.au site and got very
much interested into learn what Richard and others apparently are experimenting, something beyond enlightenment, as they word it.
RICHARD: I am pleased to see that you comprehend this salient point very early in the piece ... it
saves a lot of explaining.
No. 20: Well, I don’t know if I am understanding it ... this is why I need
to ask some questions (which I do). Intellectually, yes: I think I am grasping some of what you affirm. I’ll explore these
concepts a bit more, if you don’t mind, through question and answer. You are being very kind to answer me; much thanks.
RICHARD: However it is, that you comprehend an actual freedom being beyond enlightenment, is already a
big plus ... there are more than a few people who prefer to see no distinction.
No. 20: Richard, although I can easily understand what you mean by giving up
the Self (God, or Universal Presence, no matter the name) ...
RICHARD: If I may interject in order to clarify? I did not ‘give up the Self (God, or Universal
Presence, no matter the name)’ at all: when the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ‘self’-immolated
‘the Self (God, or Universal Presence, no matter the name)’ vanished without a trace. Ergo: ‘the Self (God, or
Universal Presence, no matter the name)’ was identity writ large (‘self’-‘Self’ aggrandisement).
No. 20: Here you are none else but re-wording ‘Atman is Brahman’; i.e.
the self that believed being this or that is nothing else but the (only) Self.
RICHARD: First, I have never, ever come across any writings that refer to ‘Atman’ and ‘Brahman’
vanishing without a trace ... and you yourself say (three paragraphs below) that ‘the jnanis would say; when the Self
self-immolates as an ego-identified identity, then Self remains as it is’, anyway. Second, I see that I specifically wrote
both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (and not just ‘ego-identified identity’). Third, I would draw your attention
to the following sentence of mine (just above your response) which ends thus:
• [Richard]: ‘... there are more than a few people who prefer to see no distinction.
No. 20: What I say is that when you affirm (that you) have given up both self
and Self, then there wouldn’t be any consciousness left or remaining – [to my understanding].
RICHARD: Such is the stranglehold that identity has on the flesh and blood body that it equates ‘consciousness’
with ‘self’ and/or ‘Self’ so totally that it cannot countenance another person being devoid of identity in
toto (and the phrase ‘given up’ is your phrase and not mine).
No. 20: But then, I would question even that erasure, for even pralaya falls
within the Self (or absolute consciousness).
RICHARD: Yet all of the various ‘pralaya’ (and all the ‘manvantaras’ as well) likewise
vanish without a trace when ‘the Self’ vanishes without a trace (as specified further above) upon ‘self’-immolation
of identity in toto.
No. 20: However what you say above, jnanis would say: when the Self
self-immolates as an ego-identified self, then Self remains as it is (without that superimposed ego-identification; which is the
essence of avidya, by the way).
RICHARD: And therein lies the rub (‘then Self remains as it is’): when someone notorious
(in the West) proposed that ‘God is dead’ various peoples substituted the term ‘Self’ (or ‘Truth’ or ‘Ground
Of Being’ and so on) and carried on just as before ... only now with a second layer of deceit.
Further to the point ... I see that ‘Goddess’ is making a rather determined come-back.
No. 20: My guess is that you have not given up self, much less Self (what is
simply impossible, I’d say).
RICHARD: As a suggestion only: instead of making a ‘guess’ (and persisting with this ‘given
up’ business) it could very well be that your conviction that it ‘is simply impossible’ is why you cannot read
what I write with both eyes open.
No. 20: When you experienced your ‘enlightened’ period of eleven years,
probably that was an ASC within your self, in terms of a spiritual apperception.
RICHARD: Yet as spiritual enlightenment is an altered state of consciousness (ASC) anyway ... none of
this you say is news to me.
No. 20: Now, since the start of this ‘actual freedom’ period, you are
probably experiencing another ASC, in terms of spiritual denial and sensorial enjoyment.
RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition is not an ASC there is no need for a ‘spiritual
denial’ ... the spirit is dead.
No. 20: I don’t see enlightenment anywhere, whether then or now.
RICHARD: If I may point out? You do seem to be rather incapable of seeing anything in what I write.
Maybe an extract from your resumé on your Web Page will throw some light on the reason why:
• [No. 20]: ‘... I am here to contribute to the descent on Earth of the Feminine Energy (the
compassionate and transformative dispensation of the Goddess).
No. 20: Moreover, your state of consciousness called ‘actual freedom’ is
altered since it had a beginning, like your ‘enlightened’ former consciousness had one (and then finished).
RICHARD: Not so ... it has been here, now, all along (it simply became apparent in 1992).
No. 20: The fact that others can follow you becoming experienced actualists,
doesn’t change my point.
RICHARD: I begin to see that nothing I write is likely to change your point (despite your avowal of
being ‘very much interested to learn ...’).
No. 20: This would only mean your success propagating that new ASC.
RICHARD: As I am not propagating a ‘new ASC’ this is a non-sequitur.
*
No. 20: ... I still don’t see how when there’s no ‘me’ plus no Self,
how you can think of yourself as Richard, like you do. How a [flesh and blood] body by itself has sense of entity?
RICHARD: As there is no ‘sense of entity’ extant I am unable answer your query.
No. 20: This is not what it seems (that there is no ‘sense of entity extant’).
RICHARD: No matter what it ‘seems’ to you there remains no ‘sense of entity’
whatsoever.
No. 20: What it seems is that you are Richard, and one that writes, reads and
replies actively, by the way.
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body known as Richard is what is reading, writing and replying.
*
No. 20: How can [it] think?
RICHARD: This flesh and blood brain thinks of its own accord ... it is what the human brain is very
good at doing (especially where there is no entity in there trying to run the show).
No. 20: Your idea is very good for a science fiction movie (Blade Runner –
II, for example). Excuse me, I don’t find substance to that statement.
RICHARD: That is, of course, what you ‘find’ to be so ... I am simply reporting my
experience to my fellow human beings. What they do with my report is entirely up to them, of course.
No. 20: The materialist view that conceives thought as a brain by-product
doesn’t terminate with the notion of a self.
RICHARD: Indeed not ... yet as I am an actualist and not a ‘materialist’ this is a
pointless comment.
No. 20: So, you can think of yourself as purely carnal, but this doesn’t
show that you do not experience yourself!
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is quite capable of experiencing itself without the aid of some
petty ego or pathetic soul ... such identity-less awareness I call apperceptive awareness (awareness sans identity).
*
No. 20: Is not this phenomena of a consciousness arising from a ‘body’
and remaining localized there, pointing to some kind of ‘me’ – or ‘I’ – again?
RICHARD: Not an apperceptive consciousness ... no.
No. 20: This is not what you use to say: [Richard]: ‘This infinite, eternal
and perpetual universe is doing all the arranging: I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being; as such
this universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude’. [endquote].
RICHARD: As I have already pointed out (much further below) I use the first person pronoun and the
name Richard to refer to this flesh and blood body. I could have as easily written it thus:
• This flesh and blood body is the universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being; as such
this universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
No. 20: See: you say ‘I am this universe’ and you also say ‘as an
apperceptive human being’.
RICHARD: I do not say ‘I am this universe’ at all. I say ‘I am this universe experiencing
itself as an apperceptive human being’ (there is no aggrandising necessary in an actual freedom).
No. 20: I think you like to play with words very much; now is yes, then is
no.
RICHARD: Yet if you even casually look through these exchanges you will easily see that it is you who
are playing with my words.
No. 20: You have shown clearly the concept of your identity from your
actualist ideology/ASC of it.
RICHARD: I have done nothing of the sort ... you keep on insisting that there be an identity despite
me repeatedly saying ‘flesh and blood body (only)’. Viz.:
• [Richard]: ‘I am meaning ‘what’ ... what I am is this flesh and blood body only.
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body is what is ‘male, 54 and separated, etc.’.
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body [‘says that’].
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body remains.
• [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘who’ extant to say anything ... this is this flesh and blood body speaking.
• [Richard]: ‘A flesh and blood body cannot be described as ‘an identity anyway’ ...’.
• [Richard]: ‘Not so ... I have just defined this flesh and blood body.
• [Richard]: ‘I use the first person pronoun and the name Richard to refer to this flesh and blood body.
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body is what is experiencing total sensitivity.
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood brain thinks of its own accord ... it is what the human brain is very good at doing
(especially where there is no entity in there trying to run the show).
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body known as Richard is what is reading, writing and replying.
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body is quite capable of experiencing itself without the aid of some petty ego or pathetic
soul.
• [Richard]: ‘Where has it ever been denied that this flesh and blood body is ‘aware and conscious’?
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body is most certainly not dead.
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body is not ‘identified’ with anything.
• [Richard]: ‘It is this flesh and blood body which is alive and writing to you.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet this flesh and blood body is neither an ‘idea’ or a ‘theory’.
• [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘identification’ going on when I say that what I am is this flesh and blood body.
*
No. 20: In other words, to me, what makes sense as ‘beyond enlightenment’,
or beyond Self, is a complete void of consciousness ...
RICHARD: Whereas it makes no sense to me whatsoever – no consciousness means no awareness – as a
person in a coma or anaesthetised, being examples of someone ‘completely void of consciousness’ could not write e-mails
to you.
No. 20: Exactly. The fact that you are writing me proves that you are aware
and conscious.
RICHARD: Where has it ever been denied that this flesh and blood body is ‘aware and conscious’?
No. 20: Proves that you are not dead, hence ‘you’ are not dead (=erased,
terminated).
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is most certainly not dead ... the remainder of your sentence is
your interpolation.
No. 20: Let’s not speak of people in a coma or anaesthetised.
RICHARD: Why not? I have been both anaesthetised (age 20) and in a coma (age 34) and can speak as I
may of it despite your summary dismissal.
No. 20: No generalization can be made about them (as lacking of any kind
(state) of consciousness, much less of lacking of fundamental consciousness [i.e. of self]).
RICHARD: As I can be quite specific there is no need to make a ‘generalisation’ about them.
Again I might ask what has become of your avowal of being ‘very much interested to learn ...’?
*
RICHARD: Just the same as a person in Samadhi or Dhyana or any other cataleptic trance state cannot do
so [write e-mails] either.
No. 20: It depends.
RICHARD: It does not ... a person in the supreme spiritual cataleptic trance state (by whatever name)
is both totally oblivious to the sensory world and completely lacking all motor capacity.
No. 20: The point of view of the observer is not the total thing.
RICHARD: It is for them ... they are oblivious to everything.
No. 20: The entire universe is happening through a jnani (whether s/he
appears in sahaya samadhi or in nirvikalpa samadhi).
RICHARD: Aye ... as in ‘I am That’ or ‘That Thou Art’ or ‘I am everything; everything is Me’
and so on.
*
No. 20: ... but then, would be that ‘beyond’ at all? A localized
perception implies a centre of some kind, to my modest understanding.
RICHARD: There is no need to be coy, surely? A person who is a Yoga, Dharma and Reiki Master; who is a
Transpersonal Therapist; whose psycho-type is very much like No. 9 ennegram; whose Chinese sign is Wild Boar; whose life-engine is
Love, Union and Harmony; who is a contemporary woman of the Third Millennia; who is here to contribute to the descent on Earth of
the Feminine Energy (the compassionate and transformative dispensation of the Goddess); who is the founder of Arya-Tara and Karuna
Centres; who is a Practitioner in Evolutionary Traditions and Human Potential methods; who is following the MahaYana of Kuan-Yin;
who is leading seminars on Meditation, Holistic Healing and Personal Growth (since 1982); who is a Spiritual and Vibrational
Therapist; who is a Transpersonal Educator; who has (for one decade) been sharing resources for personal growth through seminars
and workshops; whose soul is beyond any category; who has spontaneously channelled spiritual knowledge since childhood; who
participated for six and a half years in the most extraordinary community experience (the ‘Rainbow Path’, a New Age pioneer
community in Spain); who applied to their body and mind countless human potential catalysers (such as Primal, Gestalt, Rebirthing,
Group Dynamics, Psychodrama, Sexual Exploring, Zen Sesshins, Sufi Ceremonies, Vipassana Meditation, Karma-Bhakti-Kundalini Yogas,
Shaman Watching, Lucid Dreaming/Nidra, Psychotravel and Regression, Hypnosis and Subconscious Programming); who led seminars on
Catharsis ‘Marathon’ and ‘Vichara’ Meditation; who deepened themself into Vajrayana Buddhism (since 1990); who practiced
and was co-responsible for the establishment of the first Nyingma-pa centre in Spain; who is both as a woman and a soul-worker (an
emanation of the compassionate heart of Kuan Yin, the divine Mother of Mercy) can hardly be said to have only a ‘modest
understanding’, eh?
No. 20: You think so? – Is this a compliment? – then thank you. I do not
lend much importance to that data.
RICHARD: And yet is it displayed, by you, prominently on your web pages ... several times.
No. 20: Seems that you are a Dr. Watson for hobby :-) ... keep trying, see if
you find something really interesting.
RICHARD: There is nothing of interest to me whatsoever in eastern metaphysics (or western metaphysics
for that matter) as it is nothing but deceit from beginning to end.
*
RICHARD: Furthermore ... I was somewhat bemused by your use of the phrase ‘some’ in your
self-introduction (below) where you say ‘some background from eastern paths of realisation’?
No. 20: It is a very subjective thing the weight (importance) that one
attributes to any data/stuff.
RICHARD: And is downplaying your investment in spiritualism during a courteous introduction also a ‘very
subjective thing’ for you?
No. 20: You obviously are showing your subjective scale of values.
RICHARD: Not so ... I lay all my cards on the table up-front and out in the open for all to see so
that anyone who engages in conversation with me has all the relevant information available from the very beginning.
*
RICHARD: I am idly curious as to what an ‘extensive background ...’ would look like in print, you
see.
No. 20: Read the works of Ken Wilber, or Osho, for examples of extensive
background. By the way, they are not my favourite; contrary: pretty boring ones, to my taste.
RICHARD: You do seem to have missed the point of what I am saying ... either that or you are
deflecting the point.
*
No. 20: Although I guess self-introduction is not very much important within
this context (after all, who’s self?) it uses to mean a courtesy to say something when joining to a list, about oneself (again,
what ‘oneself’?). Okay. Woman. From Spain. 41. Single. Some ‘peak’ experiences along this life. Some background from
eastern paths of realization.
RICHARD: I am only too happy to reciprocate your self-introduction: Male. From Australia. 54.
Separated (twice married; once divorced). Many peak experiences twenty-odd years ago. No background of eastern paths of
realisation (then).
No. 20: Richard, when you say ‘I am only too happy ...’, who or what are
you meaning by ‘I’?
RICHARD: I am meaning ‘what’ ... what I am is this flesh and blood body only.
No. 20: Who is male, 54 and separated, etc?
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is what is ‘male, 54 and separated, etc.’.
No. 20: I would not ask if your teachings didn’t deal about no-me, no-self,
no-I.
RICHARD: Of course.
No. 20: Now I have some questions for the ones living beyond self and beyond
me and all that stuff.
RICHARD: Good ... I will keep my answers short so as to not pre-empt anyone else responding more
fully.
No. 20: I am very thankful. I think that answering in short is very good and
enough, when one can penetrate the essence of what’s being told.
RICHARD: Okay ... here is the short version of what I am on about to keep in mind for future
reference: [Richard]: Step out of the grim and glum ‘real world’ into this actual world of sensate delight and leave your ‘self’
behind in the ‘Land Of Lament’ where ‘you’ belong.
No. 20: Are you actualised free people able of siddhis?
RICHARD: No.
No. 20: Why not? Because siddhis do not exist?
RICHARD: Yes, I have no power or powers whatsoever ... there are no ‘siddhis’ outside of
the human psyche.
No. 20: No? Have you proven false all examples of siddhis shown by yogis
everywhere?
RICHARD: Yet what I said was that I am not ‘able of siddhis’ because yes, they ‘do not
exist’ in an actually free person (in that there are no ‘siddhis’ outside of the human psyche) and that I have no
power or powers whatsoever. Thus I am not out to prove them ‘false’ ... and neither am I going to prove that this
person’s ‘siddhis’ or that person’s ‘siddhis’ are any more or any less true than any other person’s
are. They are no more ‘false’ (or true) than, say, emotions or passions are either true or false. Needless is it to say
there are no emotions or passions here in this actual world either.
No. 20: [... there was no response ...].
*
No. 20: Are you affirming they just imagined those siddhis taking place? (but
never happened?).
RICHARD: This is what I am ‘affirming’ in the above paragraph: I have no power or powers
whatsoever ... there are no ‘siddhis’ outside of the human psyche (‘siddhis’ do not exist here in this
actual world).
No. 20: Okay. Given that ‘this actual world’ is not the world at large
but the world of your experience as an actualist, your answer only states that there’s no siddhis within your experience. Theme
closed.
RICHARD: Goodness me ... do you shut off so abruptly from all your co-respondents like this? Or is it
because for you (or for a ‘jnani’ at least) there is no ‘the world at large’ and that any further discussion
would show you to be defending the indefensible?
You indicate that my statement (‘siddhis’ do not exist here in this actual world) is invalid as it
speaks only of ‘the world of [my] experience’ and not ‘the world at large’ (the here and now physical world)
as if this were a meaningful rebuttal. Yet what is this ‘the world at large’ (the here and now physical world) for you
... or for the ‘jnani’? I will copy-paste your descriptions (from further below) up here for juxtaposition. Viz.:
• [No. 20]: ‘The entire universe is happening through a jnani ...’.
• [No. 20]: ‘That here and now of the physical world that you mention happens within consciousness, for the jnani ...’.
• [No. 20]: ‘... matter has never been (as other but consciousness), so, has never been at all’.
Thus your rebuttal (‘given that ‘this actual world’ is not the world at large but the world of your
experience as an actualist, your answer only states that there’s no siddhis within your experience’) could read any one of
any four ways. Viz.:
1. [No. 20]: ‘given that ‘this actual world’ is not the world at large [the world
happening through a jnani] but the world of your experience as an actualist, your answer only states that there’s no siddhis
within your experience’.
2. [No. 20]: ‘given that ‘this actual world’ is not the world at large [the world that happens in the
consciousness for a jnani] but the world of your experience as an actualist, your answer only states that there’s no siddhis
within your experience’.
3. [No. 20]: ‘given that ‘this actual world’ is not the world at large [the world that has never been as
other but consciousness] but the world of your experience as an actualist, your answer only states that there’s no siddhis
within your experience’.
4. [No. 20]: ‘given that ‘this actual world’ is not the world at large [the world that has never been at
all] but the world of your experience as an actualist, your answer only states that there’s no siddhis within your experience’.
Whereas I am clearly and unambiguously talking of this physical world, the world of this body and that body
and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the
sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum.
Theme open.
*
RICHARD: This actual world is ‘squeaky clean’, as it were, as nothing ‘dirty’ can get in.
No. 20: I don’t see what this has to do with the siddhis stuff.
RICHARD: All power is corrupt ... and corrupting.
*
No. 20: Or [are you actualised free people not able of siddhis] because you
did not develop them along your former state of (conventional) enlightenment?
RICHARD: I neither developed nor pursued them ... even though some came and went spontaneously.
No. 20: Please, could you bring some examples of siddhis that came and went
to/from your experience?
RICHARD: Sure ... telepathy, telemetry and psychometry are the ones that immediately spring to mind.
No. 20: Levitation and flying would have been much more fun.
RICHARD: Both of them also came and went spontaneously (briefly). ‘Tis a subjective (psychic) thing
as no one else with me at the time could ever see it physically happening ... I soon came to my senses and moved on.
No. 20: Its really a pity that now, without telepathy and the other powers,
you have to ask Google to investigate your list correspondents; it is very limited!
RICHARD: No, I simply typed www. in place of the @ in the e-mail address you subscribed with. Also,
when I do search the internet I use ‘Copernic Pro 2001’ and as it accesses over 80 search engines simultaneously it is not ‘very
limited’ at all ... plus it is far, far more accurate than telepathy.
Which inaccuracy you have very aptly just demonstrated (‘you have to ask Google to investigate ...’
).
*
No. 20: Do you dream?
RICHARD: As far as I can ascertain ... no.
No. 20: What ‘I’ says that?
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body.
No. 20: Second. When you say ‘as far as I can ascertain ...’, this means
that simply you have no memories of dreams when you wake up in the morning? If so, could happen that you have forgotten your
dreams but can’t be sure of not having them?
RICHARD: No ... I sleep like a log, as an old saying goes, unconscious, unaware and (probably)
dreamless. It would take an unusual noise (a window being broken) or an unusual smell (something burning) or an unusual sensation
(a creature crawling) to awaken me. Usually upon waking I find that I am lying in the identical position (flat on my back) that I
went to sleep in – complete with reading glasses perched on nose and book/magazine held in hands slumped to the belly –
indicating no movement at all. Sleep is total oblivion: if there be dreaming occurring during the three-four (or five hours) I
have no awareness of it whatsoever.
No. 20: Do you sleep?
RICHARD: Yes ... three-four hours at night (occasionally five).
No. 20: Do you experience three states of consciousness? Four? One only?
RICHARD: One.
No. 20: Please, I need a clarification here, since it is contradictory to my
sight. Either you experience just one state of consciousness, in which case there is no wakeful state versus dream state versus
pure-sleep state ... or you experience at least two (sleeping and being wakeful, night and day respectively). Note: my English
maybe contains mistakes, I hope you get the meaning anyway, only Spanish is my daily and motherly language.
RICHARD: You convey your meaning very well ... plus I am familiar with what you refer to: I am either
awake (conscious) or asleep (unconscious).
No. 20: Then, this is two states of consciousness. On and Off. Right?
RICHARD: No ... there is one consciousness only operating here (I cannot see how oblivion can in any
way, shape or manner be described as a second ‘consciousness’).
No. 20: Yes, one consciousness, but two states.
RICHARD: No, there is not ‘two states’ operating here. I have already explained (further
above) that I sleep like a log ... unconscious, unaware and (probably) dreamless.
No. 20: I asked states of consciousness, precisely (see above: Do you
experience three states of consciousness? Four? One only?).
RICHARD: That you did (even though it is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Web Site, that
spiritual enlightenment is an ASC and that actual freedom is not, you have been running this line that an actual freedom from the
human condition is an ASC right from the very beginning) and I kept my answer brief as I had said I would:
• [Richard]: ‘I will keep my answers short ...’.
• [No. 20]: ‘I am very thankful. I think that answering in short is very good and enough, when one can penetrate the essence
of what’s being told’.
Needless is it to say that one has to want to ‘penetrate the essence of what’s being told’
(rather than asking loaded questions)?
No. 20: Hence my wording: On (what you call awake, conscious), Off (what you
call asleep, unconscious).
RICHARD: I understood you the first time around ... yet being unconscious (un-conscious means
not-conscious) is simply an absence of being conscious. I will say it again: I am either awake (conscious and/or aware) or asleep
(unconscious and/or unaware).
No. 20: I did not mean oblivion as a second consciousness, but a second state
of consciousness (maybe you can not understand the difference?).
RICHARD: As I lived the enlightenment experience, night and day, for eleven years I am well aware of
the difference.
*
No. 20: You know that jnanis report one superstate only, remaining through
any of the three basic states of consciousness (awake, asleep, dreaming).
RICHARD: Yes, this ‘one superstate’ – the fourth state sometimes known as ‘Turiya’
– I know intimately as I lived that/was that, night and day, for eleven years ... plus I know the jargon gleaned from subsequent
discussions with others and extensive reading.
No. 20: Yes, turiya, that is called ‘the fourth’. If you experienced it
as a state (or something transitory), then that was not turiya.
RICHARD: It was indeed ‘Turiya’ and ‘Turiya’ is most certainly an altered state of
consciousness. That it was transitory (of eleven years duration), because of an intense desire to evince the already always
existing peace-on-earth, is what makes spiritualists say that I was not enlightened or that it ‘was not turiya’ or
whatever way they seek to dismiss my experience.
That my experience exposes ‘Turiya’ (enlightenment) for the sham that it is (it has never brought about
peace on earth and never will) is what you – and many others – find so difficult to comprehend.
No. 20: This is why sometimes jnanis refer to turiyatita (i.e. beyond
turiya), meaning that the consciousness as it is pierces all states whatsoever, either enlightenment or not enlightenment being
there.
RICHARD: Ahh ... beyond the beyond and then beyond that too (all that rarefied abstraction stuff), eh?
O what a tangled web they weave,
When first they practice to deceive.
*
No. 20: That superstate (or meta-state) is not a state (either basic or a
variation, either one usual or one altered), but consciousness aware of itself, purely.
RICHARD: Or, in other words, a consciousness wherein only ‘Self-With-No-Other’ exists (as in ‘Consciousness
Without An Object’).
No. 20: Actually.
RICHARD: No ... psychically.
No. 20: Such consciousness where any relative reality/formation is contained.
RICHARD: As in ‘I am the source of everything; everything is a reflection of Me’?
*
No. 20: They also call it ‘I’, ‘Self’ and all those other spiritual
names. To them, this is the substratum to all and any experience and it is always here and now.
RICHARD: Except that it is not ‘here and now’ in the physical world (neither here in space
nor now in time).
No. 20: Excuse me. That here and now of the physical world that you mention
happens within consciousness, for the jnani.
RICHARD: Exactly ... therefore it is indeed not ‘here and now’ in the physical world
(neither here in space nor now in time).
No. 20: Hence, this physical world that you mention is not at all the valid
paradigm – to them – from where to see what is what.
RICHARD: Indeed not ... ‘this physical world’ is so invalid for them that they call it ‘Maya’
(illusion). Hence their ‘here and now’ is not in the physical world (neither here in space nor now in time).
No. 20: Is not the movie that contains the director, but the other way round.
RICHARD: By ‘director’ you can only be meaning god or goddess? I am familiar with the maxim
‘the entire universe is contained within the Mind of God’.
No. 20: Then, this here and now that I mean is the spacelessness and
timelessness from where spacetime emerge as this moment.
RICHARD: As ‘spaceless’ (space-less) means no space and ‘timeless (time-less) means no time then
all you are doing here is proving my point that their ‘here and now’ is not in the physical world (neither here in
space nor now in time).
*
RICHARD: ... and it is not only the ‘substratum to all and any experience’ as it is the
substratum of all life, all nature, and all of the universe as well (as in ‘consciousness creates matter’ or ‘matter arises
in consciousness’).
No. 20: Yes. And even further ... not even the substratum, but its very own
stuff, where the snake was never a snake but was always a cord from the beginning (like Sankara said, if I recall well). Hence,
matter has never been (as other but consciousness), so, has never been at all.
RICHARD: Aye ... all matter is not real (for them): no time; no space; no form. Or, as I have already
written it (further below) ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’ for them ... to which you replied:
• [No. 20]: ‘Those are very cheap enlightenment, actually.
Are you saying (up here at least) that the enlightenment of the jnani (and you specifically name Mr. Shankara
as being one of them) is a ‘very cheap enlightenment’?
*
No. 20: Enlightenment consists in knowing that [the substratum], and
absorbing the mind into that, so the idea of not-enlightenment ceases to be held (avidya).
RICHARD: Whereas an actual freedom from the human condition consists of doing something substantive:
the extirpation of identity in toto.
No. 20: An identity that transcends the duality between subject and object
cannot be extirpated.
RICHARD: My experience demonstrates otherwise ... and this is what I am sharing with my fellow human
beings.
No. 20: The reasoning that where there is no subject as opposed to object
that cannot be called identity, nor self or Self (as advaitins use to call) has led to the concept of sunyata proposed by
buddhists; but this is anyway the same. Whatever the term – Self, consciousness, sunyata, buddha nature, supreme identity or
anatta – what is left can’t be extirpated.
RICHARD: My experience demonstrates otherwise ... what my fellow human beings do with this is entirely
their business, of course.
No. 20: Whatever you can extirpate is a concept of yourself.
RICHARD: Not so ... identity in toto is no more (as in no psyche, no affective faculty, no instinctual
passions whatsoever).
No. 20: As long as you still remain identified with something as yourself,
ego – that bounded identity that prevents conventional enlightenment – is still there.
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is not ‘identified’ with anything.
No. 20: No matter how much you extirpated.
RICHARD: I did not extirpate anything ... the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul)
inhabiting this body did all the immolating.
No. 20: I am this body is the first level of rough identification.
RICHARD: There is no ‘identification’ going on when I say that what I am is this flesh and
blood body ... let alone a ‘rough identification’.
*
No. 20: When the thought of me and world, phenomena, duality, is given up,
what remains is what was always here, now without confusion or distraction, self-resplendent: consciousness aware of itself.
RICHARD: Yet ‘self-resplendent’ is but a fancy way of saying ‘narcissistic
self-glorification’ (as in ‘I am That’ or ‘That Thou Art’).
No. 20: There where there is no second, no narcissism can take place.
RICHARD: As self-admiration needs no other just what is it about the word ‘narcissism’ that
you do not understand?
*
No. 20: This is not (as far as I understand) an ASC, but what remains as the
basis of any state of consciousness (or representation of experience, as a content of the consciousness). Instead, a quality of
consciousness that fluctuates, On and Off, is nothing else but an altered state of consciousness between two representations of
experience.
RICHARD: Yet such a simple substance (an object) as anaesthesia renders the supposedly
never-fluctuating and ever-on ‘Consciousness Without An Object’ unconscious in 5-6 seconds.
No. 20: Not at all for the jnani.
RICHARD: Only in your (borrowed) dreams and schemes .. as per your ‘Su cita Favorita’ in your
public profile. Viz.:
• [No. 20]: ‘You are an eternal dreamer dreaming non-eternal dreams. Your dreams take form as you assume
the feeling of their reality – (Neville)’.
*
RICHARD: ... and outbursts of anger and anguish (usually designated Divine Anger and Divine Sorrow by
both the ‘Consciousness-With-No-Other’ and his/her devotees) shows the ‘self-resplendent’ consciousness to be a
rather self-righteous and self-pitiful not-much-altered state of consciousness to those with the eyes to see.
No. 20: There’s many pseudo gurus, this is true.
RICHARD: As I was not referring to ‘pseudo gurus’ I have no idea what you are agreeing
with.
No. 20: But this has nothing to do with the true jnani.
RICHARD: It has everything to do with the ‘true jnani’ for that is whom I am referring too.
No. 20: If you are talking from your former experience of ‘enlightenment’,
then this talks of itself – That was nothing else but an ASC.
RICHARD: As all spiritual enlightenment is an ASC this is a non sequitur.
*
No. 20: Excuse me if I am wrong.
RICHARD: Sure ... an actual freedom from the human condition is new to human history.
No. 20: Let’s see what your experience of things brings to this world –
in terms of harmony, peace and so on.
RICHARD: As I have been living in perfect ‘harmony, peace and so on’ for many years now I
do not have to wait and see what it brings.
*
No. 20: How you Know (capital) you are not again into another suggestion game
(self hypnosis), a game of ‘imagining actual freedom’ and so?
RICHARD: The intimate knowing (no capital) of direct experiencing: this actual world is so perfect
that nothing ‘dirty’ can get in ... ‘tis fail-safe.
No. 20: Where is (in the world or anywhere) the dirty stuff that can not get
in?
RICHARD: In the human psyche ... there is no malice or sorrow here in this actual world.
No. 20: And: what is ‘in’, in of what?
RICHARD: For a person living in the ‘real world’ this actual world is as if it were another
dimension ... it is the identity that cannot ‘get in’. It is but a manner of speaking, of course, as no ‘getting in’ ever
occurs: when identity ceases to exist this actual world becomes apparent in all its pristine abundance. It was/is already always
just here right now irregardless.
No. 20: Sorry, my English doesn’t catch what is ‘‘tis fail-safe’.
Could you word it otherly?
RICHARD: It is safe from failure (as in it cannot fail) ... this actual world, being impeccable, needs
no protection.
No. 20: When identity ceases to exist what remains to gather any experience
of itself? Some ‘Richard’?
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body remains.
No. 20: This answers nothing.
RICHARD: It answers everything that you asked.
No. 20: Flesh and blood gathers nothing like a ‘Richard apperception’ by
itself.
RICHARD: It does not need to ‘gather’ anything as it already comes complete with/as
apperceptive awareness.
*
No. 20: Is not the Self that you gave up a form of self hypnosis?
RICHARD: Yes ... I am wont to call it a delusion, a massive hallucination (when I am being polite).
No. 20: You are stating that Ramana, Nisargadatta and Aurobindo have been
just deluded folks?
RICHARD: I can do much better than a short list such as you provide: the altered state of
consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment, by whatever name, is a delusional state, a massive hallucination.
No. 20: By the way, are you knowledgeable of Aurobindo’s realization beyond
conventional enlightenment?
RICHARD: There is nothing evident in the words ascribed to Mr. Aurobindo Ghose which indicate that his
ASC was anything other than the conventional enlightenment. Although he certainly spoke about bringing the ‘Divine’, the ‘Supramental’,
down to Earth so as to transform materiality there is no substance to his rhetoric. In other words, as you say (below),
enlightened people are indeed ‘just dreamers’.
No. 20: The ASC know as actualism, experienced when you are awake only, is
not your particular and private hallucination and meta-spiritual fantasy?
RICHARD: As there is no ‘ASC known as actualism’ I am unable answer your query.
No. 20: Actualism had a beginning within your consciousness, hence it is an
ASC.
RICHARD: As this consciousness had its beginning in 1947 it has been here throughout this life: I have
been here for 54 years ... it is just that there was this loud-mouth inhabiting this body such as I could not get a word in
edgeways (except in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) every now and again).
The identity that was eventually ‘got the message’ and altruistically ‘self’-immolated ... and I
became apparent.
No. 20: It also has an end each night when you are asleep.
RICHARD: Hmm ... still running this line, I see. Again: it is being conscious (conscious awareness)
that has an end each night.
No. 20: It will end for sure when your body will cease to breath.
RICHARD: Aye ... yet this physical world will keep on keeping on long after I am dead.
*
No. 20: Are not enlightened people just dreamers ...
RICHARD: Yes.
No. 20: ... (of a different flavour)?
RICHARD: No.
No. 20: Who says that?
RICHARD: There is no ‘who’ extant to say anything ... this is this flesh and blood body
speaking.
No. 20: Then, this is an identity, anyway.
RICHARD: A flesh and blood body cannot be described as ‘an identity anyway’ in the same way
that this computer monitor cannot be described as being ‘an identity anyway’.
No. 20: You and the computer differ in your sense of apperception.
RICHARD: First, the point is that this flesh and blood body and this computer monitor do not differ
inasmuch as neither can be described as ‘an identity anyway’.
Second, that there is apperception happening for/as this flesh and blood body only drives the point home that
there is no identity (where there is an identity apperception is nowhere to be found).
No. 20: This is what implies an identity related to you.
RICHARD: It only ‘implies an identity’ to you (there are people in the world other than
yourself to whom it does not).
*
No. 20: What’s the matter how we call it?
RICHARD: Hmm ... how about for clarity in communication just for starters (so as peoples will not be
able to get away with preferring to see no distinction between actualism and spiritualism)?
No. 20: I opened this dialogue just to explore where actualism differs from
conventional enlightenment, aside of the mere statement that it is beyond enlightenment.
RICHARD: As there is upward of 3.4 million words on The Actual Freedom Web Site explaining ‘the
mere statement’ in the minutest detail your words are hollow, insincere and dismissive in advance.
No. 20: I wanted to explore your experience through this dialogue.
RICHARD: Instead of reading what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Web Site, you mean?
No. 20: What I am finding out (of you) is nothing but a spiritual experience
of paradoxical denial.
RICHARD: Or, more accurately, what you are finding out is what you want to find out ... which is why I
gave clear warning well in advance (at the beginning of this e-mail). Viz.:
• [No. 20]: ‘I was few days ago to find actualfreedom.com.au site and got very much interested into learn
what Richard and others apparently are experimenting, something beyond enlightenment, as they word it.
• [Richard]: ‘I am pleased to see that you comprehend this salient point very early in the piece ... it saves a lot of
explaining.
• [No. 20]: ‘Well, I don’t know if I am understanding it ... this is why I need to ask some questions (which I do).
Intellectually, yes: I think I am grasping some of what you affirm. I’ll explore these concepts a bit more, if you don’t mind,
through question and answer. You are being very kind to answer me; much thanks.
• [Richard]: ‘However it is, that you comprehend an actual freedom being beyond enlightenment, is already a big plus ... there
are more than a few people who prefer to see no distinction.
It would appear that you are one of those ‘more than a few people who prefer to see no distinction’, eh?
*
No. 20: Is your actual-freedom the Ultimate Reality ...
RICHARD: No ... it is the absolute actuality of time and space and form.
No. 20: Without a centre of consciousness and/or without a wholeness (and
centreless) of consciousness?
RICHARD: Exactly ... just as no centre means no boundary no part-consciousness means no
whole-consciousness (wholeness) ... there is no oneness with all (holistic consciousness, oceanic consciousness or whatever name)
operating here.
No. 20: If no-part no-whole, then is simply no. No consciousness at all.
RICHARD: You do seem to have missed the point: no whole-consciousness means no ‘Ultimate Reality’
(no God/Goddess) and not ‘no-consciousness at all’. It was the part-consciousness who created the whole-consciousness
in the first place by assuming it (the part-consciousness) was part of a greater whole (it took its own illusory existence to be
true enough to posit a greater whole it was part of). Or, as I am wont to say, a delusion born out of an illusion.
No. 20: If you had extirpated that part-consciousness, then consciousness
would remain as whole.
RICHARD: Not so ... consciousness remains as consciousness (the concept of a whole-consciousness can
only be conceived by a part-consciousness)
No. 20: If you could extirpate both, no one would be here writing me as
Richard.
RICHARD: When the part-consciousness ‘self’-immolates the whole-consciousness (wholeness) vanishes
without a trace. Ergo: whole-consciousness (wholeness) was part-consciousness writ large.
*
No. 20: [No consciousness at all]. Just off.
RICHARD: Yet this fantasy solution to all the ills of humankind that you propose is not what is
happening here (as is evidenced by this e-mail being written to you).
No. 20: I don’t propose such thing, I am only feed-backing your
propositions, reductio absurdum.
RICHARD: As they are not my ‘propositions’ but yours then my observation still stands as
being accurate.
No. 20: Yes, since you are alive and writing me, your Richard
consciousness/identity remains in full operation.
RICHARD: It is this flesh and blood body which is alive and writing to you.
*
No. 20: What is arranging a subjective unity around the atoms or particles
that compound what you call ‘my body’ or ‘Richard’? (and so and so ... until ‘my experience of actualism’).
RICHARD: This infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is doing all the arranging: I am this universe
experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being; as such this universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
No. 20: Then, you have just defined your identity, your entity: ‘I am this
universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being’.
RICHARD: Not so ... I have just defined this flesh and blood body.
No. 20: At all. Flesh and blood (body) has not apperception of itself, much
less as ‘this universe’.
RICHARD: It does indeed.
No. 20: You have only defined your idea of yourself, either as a result of
your persistent ASC or of a theory.
RICHARD: Yet this flesh and blood body is neither an ‘idea’ or a ‘theory’.
*
No. 20: Conventional enlightenment words.
RICHARD: I am yet to hear of ‘conventional enlightenment’ being described this way.
No. 20: Then this is your first time. I am very familiar with that
description, however.
RICHARD: Perhaps you could provide some accredited and annotated quotes?
*
RICHARD: ... usually it is some variation on the ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’ or the
‘I am the creator/sustainer of all that exists; all that exists is a reflection of Me’ themes.
No. 20: Those are very cheap enlightenment, actually.
RICHARD: All enlightenment is ‘very cheap’.
*
No. 20: As long as you say, write, or think ‘I’, you imply ‘I’, there’s
‘I’ still.
RICHARD: I use the first person pronoun and the name Richard to refer to this flesh and blood body. I
could have as easily written it thus: This flesh and blood body is the universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human
being; as such this universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
No. 20: You could use whatever words, still would be your idea of yourself.
RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you that it is your idea of me that you keep on referring to through
all these exchanges?
No. 20: You can not remain hidden – regardless the words, contrary: your
you is obvious.
RICHARD: Not to those who read what I say with both eyes open ... you are not the only person in the
world
*
No. 20: No actualism beyond ‘I’, me or Self.
RICHARD: May I ask? What did you mean by the phrase ‘interested to learn’ (at the top of
this post)? Viz.: [No. 20]: ‘I was few days ago to find actualfreedom.com.au site and got very much interested into learn what
Richard and others apparently are experimenting, something beyond enlightenment ...’.
No. 20: I meant exactly that. Interested into learn what was your experience
(as something beyond enlightenment). I am learning what is possible to learn from a written dialogue, and I am not convinced (as
of now) that you are experiencing what you describe as extirpation of me and of self.
RICHARD: And how much of The Actual Freedom Web Site have you accessed so as to flesh-out what these 4
e-mails convey?
No. 20: By now, I am neither convinced that you know what enlightenment
means.
RICHARD: Perhaps it is because I know it from the inside and not a romanticised version from another’s
words (either verbal-learning or book-learning)?
No. 20: Since it is not my intention to offend, I ask you pardon whatever the
case. If you are right, excuse me; if you are wrong, also excuse me and keep on with your philosophy, do not take me into account.
RICHARD: I can assure you that (a) it is not a ‘philosophy’ ... and (b) I do not need your
accreditation.
*
RICHARD: Also, what did you mean by the word ‘explore’ (near the top of this post)? Viz.:
[No. 20]: ‘I’ll explore these concepts a bit more, if you don’t mind, through question and answer’. Do they mean something
different, when translated into Spanish, than the keenness to investigate, look into, enquire into, consider, examine, research,
survey, scrutinise, study, review, take stock of; acquire a knowledge of, gain an understanding of, take in, absorb, assimilate,
pick up; discover, find out, detect, become aware of, gather, hear, be informed, have it brought to one’s attention, understand,
ascertain and discern type of meanings they have in English?
No. 20: Richard, all these synonymous are not necessary. Believe me, this is
my way of exploring through question and answer. I know no other.
RICHARD: May I suggest? Try reading what is on offer with both eyes open.
No. 20: And I thank you very much for your kind corresponding.
RICHARD: It would appear that your thanks are as sincere as your avowal of being ‘very much
interested into learn ...’.
*
No. 20: ... or the Ultimate State of Sensitive Life?
RICHARD: Not if ‘sensitive’ means the heart-felt sensitivity (being emotionally vulnerable
and so on), no ... but if being sensitive means the sensuous variety, then yes, an actual freedom from the human condition is
total sensitivity. Completely and utterly sensitive ... to the nth degree.
No. 20: Who or what is the subject of that experience of total sensitivity?
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is what is experiencing total sensitivity.
No. 20: Then, what determines the perimeter of that localized ‘total
sensitivity’?
RICHARD: The parameters of this flesh and blood body (plus any extension such as microscopes,
telescopes, telephones and so on).
No. 20: In any case, seems that that ‘total sensitivity’ of your
experience is located within time and space (otherwise, would include my body, for example).
RICHARD: Yes, it is the personalised experience ... there is only one person one can ever
fundamentally change.
No. 20: Exactly: ‘change’. No erase.
RICHARD: I am not only using the word ‘change’ in the dictionary meaning of the word but I
even stuck the word ‘fundamentally’ in front of it so as to (unsuccessfully) pre-empt replies such as this.
No. 20: I am sorry. I was answering what you did not write.
RICHARD: Huh?
No. 20: However this here my mistake, my above questions remain. You do not
appear as self-immolated.
RICHARD: That looks suspiciously like a statement, a conclusion (and not a question).
No. 20: You appear as a body-identified being, me or self, apperceptive of
himself as Richard, and enjoyer (when are not asleep) of a state of consciousness of sensory pleasure (isn’t?) called ‘actual
freedom’.
RICHARD: Despite the question mark I still see no question in what you write here.
No. 20: If you allow me an innocent joke, I’d call you ‘Richard, The
Thinking Body’, as the best way to portrait your idea of yourself.
RICHARD: You may joke all you like, of course ... but where is the question? Here is the sequence:
• [Richard]: ‘... an actual freedom from the human condition is total sensitivity. Completely and utterly
sensitive to the nth degree.
• [No. 20]: ‘Who or what is the subject of that experience of total sensitivity?
• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body is what is experiencing total sensitivity.
• [No. 20]: ‘Then, what determines the perimeter of that localized ‘total sensitivity’?
• [Richard]: ‘The parameters of this flesh and blood body (plus any extension such as microscopes, telescopes, telephones and
so on).
• [No. 20]: ‘In any case, seems that that ‘total sensitivity’ of your experience is located within time and space
(otherwise, would include my body, for example).
• [Richard]: ‘Yes, it is the personalised experience ...’.
• [No. 20]: [... you may insert your question here ...].
*
RICHARD: The dictionary meaning of the word ‘change’ means a mutation; an entirely different
condition or quality; a making or being distinctly different; the substitution of one thing or set of conditions for another
(etymologically the word ‘change’ comes from the Middle English (Anglo-Norman) word ‘chaunge’ and Old French word ‘changer’
meaning ‘as next’). Maybe you were thinking of the Celtic word ‘changeling’? It comes from the Latin word ‘cambire’
meaning ‘exchange’ which is derived from the Late Roman ‘cambiare’ meaning ‘barter’. Because it is the altered state
of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment where a normal identity (the small ‘s’ self) is exchanged and/or bartered or
otherwise surreptitiously and deviously altered into being an abnormal identity (the big ‘S’ Self). So surreptitiously and
deviously altered, in fact, that it then has the unmitigated gall to blandly propose that it is not an altered state of
consciousness at all ... a process of such breathtaking impudence that it is akin to biting the hand that feeds you.
No. 20: Not so ingenuous as to imagine that a state of consciousness named
actualism (for more madness attributed to a computer-like ‘n’ soul-denier brain apperceptive of itself – and aggrandized –
as this universe) is not an altered and alternative state of consciousness.
RICHARD: Yet it was you who aggrandised my sentence by leaving out the key-words. Viz.:
• [No. 20]: ‘See: you say ‘I am the universe’ and you also say as an ‘apperceptive human being’.
• [Richard]: ‘I do not say ‘I am this universe’ at all. I say ‘I am this universe experiencing itself as an
apperceptive human being’ (there is no aggrandising necessary in an actual freedom).
*
No. 20: Small me or big Self ... it is always the same.
RICHARD: Aye ... and yet all this while there is neither ‘small me’ (‘I’ as ego) or ‘big
Self’ (‘me’ as soul) outside of the human psyche.
No. 20: Sure. You are the prove.
RICHARD: As it only looks like you are agreeing I will pass on this one without further comment.
*
RICHARD: It is all so simple here in this actual world.
No. 20: Yes, and it is all invented already (before actualism even).
RICHARD: And as peace-on-earth is already here now, and as it has always been here now, it will always
be here now – I only happened to discover it – and it being so perfect I am sharing my discovery with my fellow human beings.
What they do with this sharing is, of course, entirely up to them
*
RICHARD: Incidentally, there is nothing other than time and space and form – timelessness and
spacelessness and formlessness exist only in the human psyche – inasmuch as all time is eternal (beginningless and endless); all
space is infinite (boundless and centreless); all form is perpetual (perennial and persistent).
No. 20: [... there was no response ...].
(More in archives)
*
Furthermore, you will have noticed that throughout the exchange (above) I discussed the workings of both
spiritual freedom and actual freedom. This is in accord with your intent (expressed elsewhere in another e-mail) to write ‘more
theoretical arguments’ to this Mailing List. Viz.:
I do look forward to your considered appraisal of all the issues discussed (above) that made you ‘feel
sorry for the ending of the dialogue with the last arguments given’ ... the baton is in your hands, now.
Just think: if the fence you are straddling were made of barbed wire ... what would the top strand be doing
right now?
