|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 25
RESPONDENT: Reactions of the actual universe :)) to the human condition (both real and spiritual) is something to be watched with great interest. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you put a smiley there as I have no notion as to what you are talking about ... this actual universe, not being sentient per se, does not react to anything. And, as the identity within is oblivious to all things actual, it cannot be watched anyway. RESPONDENT: Yet, it manifests through yourself, does it not? RICHARD: No ... what I am, as this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/ affections in toto), is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself *as* an apperceptive human being (and not *through* a human being). I have written about this as/through distinction before ... for example:
Hence my comment in the previous e-mail about the identity within being oblivious to all things actual ... there is no outer world in actuality. RESPONDENT: You react to the posts on this mailing list and you make no secret from the fact that your words come directly from your moment-to-moment experiencing of the actual universe? RICHARD: Oh, I see ... you were referring to my responses to what is written on this mailing list. Okay then ... but while on the subject: the direct experiencing of actuality, as this flesh and blood body only (sans ‘being’ itself), simply means there is no separation whatsoever – the very stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe – and if you were to reach forward and touch the glass, which is a few scant millimetres to the front of these words you are reading, then the very stuff of the universe, currently in a shape/form called finger-tip, is directly experiencing the very stuff of the universe, currently in the shape/form called glass. The universe is not just the outer reaches of what is called ‘deep space’ as it is as much the room you are sitting in reading these words as it is anything else ... the universe is not just nebulae and stars and so on, it is as much the flesh and blood body you actually are, sitting in the room reading these words, as it is the pixels currently forming these words. In short: there is nothing which is not this universe. RESPONDENT: I was commenting in regard to the assumption (for me) that everyone (6.000.000.000 people - Richard) experiences his own universe, that everyone represents a different and unique world, as unique as the identity within. RICHARD: Yes, whereas I was responding to you (seemingly) calling such a universe – an identity’s ‘own universe’ – the actual universe. Viz.:
An identity, being but an illusion, is of course forever locked-out of the actual world by its very nature ... it cannot see what the eyes are seeing. RESPONDENT: I haven’t met two similar persons or similar world-views as there are no two similar bodies. RICHARD: At root everyone is not all that dissimilar – virtually all sentient beings are identical at the core of their being – as one person’s sorrow, for instance, is not all that different to another’s ... and so on through virtually all the emotions/passions. It (the similarity of the affective feelings and thus the ‘being’ they automatically form themselves into) is what makes for empathy. RESPONDENT: And your universe is the actual universe except from the fact that it’s not yours: it exists on its own accord. RICHARD: Aye, this actual universe existed long before this flesh and blood body was born and will exist long after this flesh and blood body is dead ... only an identity can claim ownership of their own creation (the identity’s ‘own universe’ you referred to further above). RESPONDENT: This is what actually fascinates me. RICHARD: The identity, who used to inhabit this body all those years ago, was so fascinated by the wonder of it all ‘he’
voluntarily (willingly and cheerfully) pressed the button which would ensure ‘his’ demise so that this actual universe could become apparent
... and thus went blessedly * RESPONDENT: As for ‘the identity within is oblivious to all things actual, it cannot be watched anyway’ (it = the actual universe), then how can an identity be sensible to what you’re saying? Is it not the identity who writes on this mailing list? RICHARD: This is the way I usually put it:
RESPONDENT: The great number of objections to what you convey is understandable, as for an identity to agree to what you’re saying it would have to contradict its very nature: survival at all costs and if it would be an experiential agreeing, it will disappear. RICHARD: Ahh ... the word ‘altruism’, in the phrase ‘altruistic ‘self’-immolation’, refers to the more powerful survival instinct than the selfism survival instinct and is what ensures success (blind nature ensures that survival of the species takes precedence over survival of the individual by making the for-the-good-of-the-whole instinct the dominant survival instinct). Thus it could be said I am appealing to what is sometimes called one’s ‘better nature’. RESPONDENT: And how can anyone agree with you as there are so few PCE’s one experiences during life compared to the time spent busy being an identity? RICHARD: As a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is a direct experience of the pristine perfection of the peerless purity this actual world is then even a momentary experience (quality) will stand out amongst years of normal experiencing (quantity). RESPONDENT: It would be a very interesting report to read on this mailing list from someone who is experiencing a PCE while writing. Do you remember for such a thing to have happened in the past? RICHARD: No ... any such descriptions have been written after the event. RESPONDENT: Or do you have any links or descriptions of PCE’s that can be accessed off-site (as the actualist style of writing is quite -ism specific compared to umm … D. H. Lawrence for example). RICHARD: As the suffix ‘-ism’ (from the Latin/Greek ‘ismus’/‘isma’ meaning ‘of action’/‘something done’) simply forms a noun expressing the characteristics of a person or a thing it would be a contradiction, not only in terms but in action, if the actualist style of writing were not specific to actuality ... whereas a romanticist’s style of writing, for example, is specific to the characteristics of romanticism. RESPONDENT: For if it is such a global occurrence there would be many reports/descriptions of it, including on the internet. RICHARD: Most of the reports/ descriptions I have come across have either been interpreted according to the cultural norm after the event or have devolved into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) during the event when affective feelings enter into the experience ... for example:
The intense feeling of beauty, in such instances, is what reveals truth (or god/goddess): beauty is the affective substitute for the purity of the perfection of this actual world ... just as love is the affective surrogate for actual intimacy. Here is non-affective report/ description:
Incidentally, that (a 40-year-old memory of a then-remembered experience from 4 years of age) is a classic example of a quality experience standing out amongst a quantity of experience. RESPONDENT: Maybe this will trigger in my case some forgotten memories about forgotten PCE’s. RICHARD: Mostly PCE’s happen for no demonstrable reason at all – as in being a serendipitous event – and quite often occur in everyday surroundings doing everyday things ... I can recall being on a farmhouse verandah at age eight, looking into the glistening white of a full glass of milk in the early morning sunshine, when it happened for the entity within. Not being an affective experience they are not stored in the affective memory-banks (which is where the ASC is primarily located) and thus require a different type of recall to normal remembrance ... plus they are much more common in childhood and require further reach. * RESPONDENT: As for what impressed me about enlightenment is probably the very same thing that impressed you. The process of being catapulted in ‘That’ lasted 10 seconds, yet the Enlightened state lasted 3 hours so as to be no misunderstanding. In terms of experiences it was the most intense and wonderful experience of my life I remember til now. I’m not sure if That keeps me from remembering a PCE. RICHARD: It could be ... consciously recalling a PCE means the beginning of the end of ‘me’ (whereas consciously recalling an ASC reinforces and perpetuates ‘me’ immortally) and, as such, one has a vested interest in not being able to locate the memory. RESPONDENT: What still keeps me busy around here is that you say actual freedom is better then Enlightenment (a big wow! from my part) and realising with whom I’m dealing here; someone who has lived That for 11 years. RICHARD: Aye, it is no little thing that is taking place on this mailing list ... those who are discussing these matters have before them a vital opportunity to partake in the precipitation of humankind’s long-awaited emergence from animosity/amorosity and sorrow/succour into benevolence and benignity. RESPONDENT: It’s impossible for some folks on the list to imagine what this means and in my case with only this in mind I tend to be more appreciative to what you report. RICHARD: Yes, it means that the current ‘Savage Ages’ will eventually become a thing of the dreadful past ... so much so that they will pass into the waste-bin of history like the ‘Dark Ages’ have. RESPONDENT: I’ve said that it seems to me impossible to exit the Enlightened state on your own accord as that was All there was. Where to exit? RICHARD: There is no ‘exit’ – there is no way out – only when ‘All That Is’ (aka ‘The Absolute’ which is ‘Being’ itself) ceased to exist, via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto, did the actual become apparent. RESPONDENT: I was not referring to the help you received from your former partner or some other person but more to where you get the will from. RICHARD: Ahh ... pure intent, born out of the PCE, is what ensured success: I could not, would not, and did not, continue to live a lie. RESPONDENT: Just as a curiosity, in what specific way did she help you? RICHARD: Put briefly: a pact was formed, in the first hour of meeting on a sunny beach, that we would stay true to the peerless purity of the PCE so as to ensure that man and woman could live together in peace and harmony. RESPONDENT: And one more thing, if you were not to be enlightened prior to actual freedom, I would not be here and probably many others. RICHARD: Ah, yes ... I have written of this before:
Thus being a whistle-blower Accordingly, I then resurrected the four-hour PCE of mid-1980 and, on the very first day of 1981, irrevocably set foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition which fascinatingly opened up by taking such a step. * RICHARD: ... are there no hints about the properties of this universe also in those writings [the 4th way system]? RESPONDENT: Yes, there are but they are viewed and conveyed from an ‘objective’ point of view, (that is experienced through the Absolute eyes and translated in ordinary language, my opinion) although it is stated that they are scientific facts yet to be discovered. RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication: are you suggesting that these people experiencing the universe through ‘Absolute eyes’ have discerned the infinitude of this universe ... have discerned that it exists infinitely, eternally, and perpetually (which means it is not a creation)? RESPONDENT: Ouspensky wrote a book ‘In search of ...’ in which he stated that the age of the Universe is somewhere like 10^120 years (ha-ha, I don’t remember exactly, anyway it was an enormous number), I guess this definite number means that the Universe is not infinite. RICHARD: Okay ... that would explain why you initially said that you have not heard enlightened people saying a word about the infinitude of this universe. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I recently watched a documentary on TV about Hubble telescope and it was reported that the furthest images Hubble took were from a distance of 12 billion light years from Earth and these photos were of already fully formed galaxies. These images puzzled scientists as they expected very young star formations in that area. RICHARD: Yes, the increasing reach of modern astronomy is making the ‘Big Bang’ theory look even sillier than it
already did when it was first proposed, in 1927, by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre (at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a
Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma In astronomical terms the universe is immense beyond human (earthly) comparison: the better the telescope the larger the known universe is ... the Next Generation Space Telescope (expected to be launched in 2009 when the Hubble Space Telescope ends its useful life) will collect light in the infrared band rather than the optical band and which may, by pushing the present boundaries past the range of current human visibility, drive the final nail into the coffin of that biblically-motivated ex-nihilo/ad-nihil (creation/destruction) science-fiction fantasy known as the ‘Big Bang’/‘Big Crunch’ theory which passes for wisdom in the vaulted halls of academia. RESPONDENT: The human mind cannot accept infinity as a fact I guess. RICHARD: Oh, this human mind could, back at age eight or nine when I was first made aware of the infinity of space by my then father, one night whilst gazing at the stars: I could not grasp the concept but could comprehend the existence of infinity when he gave me his version of the Ancient Greek ‘throwing a spear into what’ question regarding the supposed boundary to space (he asked me what lay at the end of the universe – a brick wall/wire fence/whatever – and if one leans on the brick wall and looks over what would one be looking at or into). The actual knowing of this infinity (as opposed to intellectually knowing) lodged itself there and then in me as a demand to be met one day ... along with actually knowing the eternity of time and the perpetuity of matter (mass/energy) which I collectively refer to with the word ‘infinitude’ from the Oxford Dictionary ‘infinite extent, amount, duration, etc.; a boundless expanse; an unlimited time’ meaning. RESPONDENT: And if it were to accept it as a fact, what would that imply for a human being? RICHARD: Well, for this human being it implied that the timeless and spaceless and formless infinitude, which was subjectively experienced night and day for eleven years, was a delusory infinitude ... an affective/psychic hallucination. RESPONDENT: Would it make any difference? RICHARD: It made a difference for this human being – it being one of the numerous things which went towards enabling an actual freedom from the human condition – and thus, by extension, any other human being desirous of the same. The history of science shows that fact always wins out over fantasy ... eventually.
RESPONDENT: Richard, there are some questions I would like to ask you. Are there other ways for conveying a description of an actual freedom from the Human Condition apart from words? Let’s say in an artistic manner, like paintings, sculpture, film, dance or whatever. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: You say that Ugliness as well as Beauty disappeared out of your life. But if you were to travel to India and live for a few days on a ‘suburban’ huts-made street in Bombay, would that not be an ugly experience for your senses? RICHARD: As both ugliness and beautifulness are affective experiences, and not sensate experiences, it is not possible for sense organs to experience anything as being either ugly or beautiful. * RESPONDENT: In what way differs the ‘living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are’ from the spiritual notion of acceptance? RICHARD: Here is an example of what the word ‘acceptance’ can mean:
As spirituality is all about not living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, but living in a spiritual dimension (a non-material world) as a spirit being (a bodiless presence), so as to perpetuate the existence of identity forever and a day, spiritual acceptance of physicality can hardly be called a favourable reception, an approval, an assent, with consenting mind, of material existence but rather a tolerance, an allowance, a permittance ... or even, in some situations at least, a resignation. RESPONDENT: Did you ever laugh when enlightened (I remember being unable to)? RICHARD: Yes. * RESPONDENT: And about being the first to make it to an actual freedom (a permanent PCE), is your confidence generated by the being or psychic foot-prints of those who went before you, which gradually became more and more scarce as you moved further away from the Unknown into the Unknowable? RICHARD: Yes ... although I already understood at the start of my journey (from the four-hour PCE which precipitated it all) that such a condition was entirely new to human experience it was proof-positive that the understanding was correct. And some others that have had PCE’s also report the same understanding. RESPONDENT: I remember in the terrifying state prior to enlightenment being influenced by many various ‘artists’, by their works and ‘spirits’, including Van Gogh’s ‘Sun Flower’, Turner’s paintings of Light, ‘La Gioconda’ (especially her smile) by Leonardo da Vinci, Lao Tse, Pink Floyd’s music & lyrics, etc. After That I myself became involved in some artistic expressions. Is Art mainly an expression of the refined affective faculty combined/or not with the other faculties? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: Do you still paint? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Or is it the books and the magazines you read and the video-tapes you saw and other non-esoteric artefacts you came across that convinced you that you are the first to live an actual freedom? RICHARD: No ... I only ever point to the dearth of information, about an actual freedom from the human condition, in the written and spoken word so as to prompt deeper self-enquiry than the norm (and thus have my fellow human beings ascertain for themselves experientially that it is so). RESPONDENT: For if it is the case, it might be useful to know that Australia was first discovered by the Chinese 350 years before Mr. Cook arrived. RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: there is some evidence that Mr. James Cook had a copy of a secret map made by Portuguese explorers, who preceded him by a number of years, but could not publish their discoveries because of a prior agreement with Spain that that part of the globe be considered Spanish territory. * RESPONDENT: How can one say that a certain wished-for lifestyle (things to do and places to be) is part of somebody’s unique characteristics or bodily wants and not an identity imagined paradise? e.g. somebody likes and is attracted to the misty, cold and snowy Scotland Highlands yet he lives near the tropics or vice-versa. RICHARD: As the entire globe is an actual paradise it is simply a matter of feasibility (availability of water, food, and shelter), ease of lifestyle (access to various creature comforts) and preference (the aesthetic appeal of particular scenic attributes for example) as to which part of paradise one lives in ... speaking personally it is a matter of sensibility to live in a warmer clime, rather than a colder one, and a matter of utility to live in the particular country of which I not only speak the language fluently but am very familiar with the legal laws and social protocols its citizens conduct and comport themselves by. RESPONDENT: Where is the boundary between instinctive drives and bodily needs and desires? RICHARD: The bodily needs – there are no bodily desires – can be summarised as follows:
Virtually anything else deemed a need is an instinctive drive (an urge, an impulse, a compulsion) and being affective anything instinctual can be readily distinguished by its emotional/ passional nature ... desire, for instance. RESPONDENT: Is the example above the outcome of one’s instinctive urge to desire or should it be considered a ‘sensible’ bodily desire? RICHARD: A general rule of thumb is: if it is a preference it is a self-less inclination; if it is an urge it is a self-centred desire. * RESPONDENT: What do you think of the so-called Black Holes hanging around in the Universe? RICHARD: I do not think of them – except in a discussion about such things – just as I do not think of unicorns. RESPONDENT: What is the most refined form of matter, is it light, intergalactic ‘void’ or is it something else? RICHARD: Such a question has no application in actuality – terms like ‘refined’ and ‘gross’ are spiritual terms, in discussions about the fundamental nature of everything, and say more about the elitist character of spirituality than anything else – as matter can be either mass or energy without any gain or loss of quality both phases of matter are equally elementary. RESPONDENT: Does anti-matter exist as an actuality? RICHARD: No ... it is a theoretical construct. * RESPONDENT: Sorry for the loose style of this email, I’m now in the process of sharpening my writing skills (I only wrote a few letters my entire life). RICHARD: The number of letters I have ever written would probably be less than the number of years I have been on this planet ... interacting on the internet has honed my writings skills considerably. RESPONDENT: P.S. This new millennium could be a non-spiritual one. RICHARD: Given the self-glorification that spirituality indulges in (New-Age self-gratification has done wonders for the cause of full self-enquiry) it is only a matter of time before the already emerging post-spiritual epoch gains a wider embrace. Once the cat is out of the bag
RESPONDENT: You say that Ugliness as well as Beauty disappeared out of your life. But if you were to travel to India and live for a few days on a ‘suburban’ huts-made street in Bombay, would that not be an ugly experience for your senses? RICHARD: As both ugliness and beautifulness are affective experiences, and not sensate experiences, it is not possible for sense organs to experience anything as being either ugly or beautiful. RESPONDENT: Ugliness was not the best chosen word for what I intended to convey. These sense organs can experience something as being ‘hideous’ or is it only a memory from your past travels to India and not an actuality? RICHARD: You are presumably referring to this:
It would have been better to have written it as ‘it was hideous’ as that is more how it was experienced at the time ... perhaps it would be more helpful to say it is grotesque (as in its ‘ludicrous from incongruity; fantastically absurd, bizarre’ meaning). RESPONDENT: For as far as I can ascertain there are pleasant and unpleasant sensations for one’s body (as in a bad smell, chill, very loud sounds, air & water pollution, filthy environment). RICHARD: There is physical pleasure and pain (bodily pain is essential else one could be sitting on a hot-plate, for example, and not know that one’s bum was on fire until one saw the smoke rising) ... it is the affective pleasure and pain which has no existence here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: How would you experience now the lifestyle of India? RICHARD: The lifestyle of the Indian culture is more or less the same as the lifestyle of any culture ... only, perhaps, more obviously weird. RESPONDENT: Okay, it’s not ugly or beautiful, but then how is it in actuality? RICHARD: As you initially asked about the sensate experience of a ‘huts-made street in Bombay’ then essentially every thing on the Indian subcontinent is pristine – pure and perfect – as it is anywhere. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I’ve never been to India and I don’t intend to but I’ve heard reports from those who went ... and they were shocked by the appalling poverty, misery, pollution and hardships endured by the majority of people there. And these reports came from people who are citizens of a ‘second world’ or developing country and are used to much lower standards of living compared to the West. RICHARD: Obviously I cannot speak for everyone – and ‘poverty, misery, pollution and hardships’ are not peculiar to India – yet I would not be going too far out on a limb to hazard a guess that at least some of the shock of the Indian culture reported by many peoples visiting there lies in the propaganda about it being a great spiritual culture ... for it is indeed shocking to view first-hand the results of what they claim are ‘tens of thousands of years’ of devotional spiritual living. * RESPONDENT: There are both pleasant and unpleasant qualities for the senses which arise out of the properties of some-thing, some person or some event. Actualism is about being as happy & harmless as one can be, enjoying one’s life here on Earth as much as it is possible, appraising these actual qualities, dismissing the fictional or ‘self’ generated ones and making sensible choices in regard to these qualities. One’s life here consists of meetings with people, partaking in the available pleasures offered by one’s environment and participating in various activities and events. But what if one’s environment is as polluted, as filthy, as ‘hideous’ as one can imagine? Should one get used to it and ‘make the best of a bad situation’ or just leave? RICHARD: The following may be of assistance:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: I ask this as the central point of spirituality is ‘acceptance’ and separation. To be more precise, acceptance in the sense of dissociation: whatever happens ‘I’ cannot be affected by and if I am affected then it is not the real ‘me’ who suffers/enjoys. So, whatever happens with the world around doesn’t matter to ‘me’, it cannot have a real impact, ‘I’ can only ‘at best’ use it as a ‘shock’ for my spiritual development but I’m not interested in improving or developing my earthly life ... and on the other hand I must not try to change the circumstances as they are given to ‘me’ by God. No wonder these are unliveable teachings. What I want to point out is that actualism is not ‘practice-able’ for a vast majority of people, especially in third world countries, where even the basic body requirements are not met. And even if these requirements are met, the lifestyle of that particular place makes it almost impossible for someone to actually start and do something about their condition. RICHARD: Hmm ... actualism is ‘practice-able’ by anyone, anywhere, anytime, no matter the situation and circumstances (as expressed in the ‘living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are’ phrase you quoted in your previous e-mail). * RESPONDENT: How can one say that a certain wished-for lifestyle (things to do and places to be) is part of somebody’s unique characteristics or bodily wants and not an identity imagined paradise? e.g. somebody likes and is attracted to the misty, cold and snowy Scotland Highlands yet he lives near the tropics or vice-versa. RICHARD: As the entire globe is an actual paradise it is simply a matter of feasibility (availability of water, food, and shelter), ease of lifestyle (access to various creature comforts) and preference (the aesthetic appeal of particular scenic attributes for example) as to which part of paradise one lives in ... speaking personally it is a matter of sensibility to live in a warmer clime, rather than a colder one, and a matter of utility to live in the particular country of which I not only speak the language fluently but am very familiar with the legal laws and social protocols its citizens conduct and comport themselves by. RESPONDENT: ‘Preference (the aesthetic appeal of particular scenic attributes for example)’ – is this akin to enjoying more the sight of a palm tree compared to a pine or that of a mountain compared to a sea-view or the life in a city to that in a village? What’s the difference between ‘aesthetic appeal’ and beauty? Are there any preferences and bodily senses likes/dislikes that are common to all people and some that are character specific? The website is pleasurable to the eye, all these images of boats, stars, flowers, this is much better than just a black-and-white presentation. Is the website a good example of ‘aesthetic appeal’? RICHARD: I have written on these matters before ... I would suggest accessing this URL: As the exchange extends through three e-mails it is too much to re-post here. * RESPONDENT: What do you think of the so-called Black Holes hanging around in the Universe? RICHARD: I do not think of them – except in a discussion about such things – just as I do not think of unicorns. RESPONDENT: Ha-ha ... am I to understand from your analogy that these black holes have no existence? RICHARD: The Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say:
RESPONDENT: I ask you this as one of the Next Generation Space Telescope objectives would be to take a better look at these black holes and if they are able to see them now, I guess that they exist. RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest:
RESPONDENT: Actualism states that physical matter in the form of mass and energy is all there is and as these unicorns eat a lot of it, I wondered where all that matter goes and what a black hole consists of, if not matter? RICHARD: According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the centre of a black hole consists of a point of zero volume and infinite density called the singularity (which is ‘a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole’ according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) the details of the structure of which are calculated from Mr. Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Let’s hope that matter doesn’t just disappear in the unicorn’s stomach. I’ve also heard that they like actualists baked in fine Swiss chocolate. ‘Tis only a rumour, mind you. RICHARD: Ha ... you had better watch out, spreading rumours like that, for it may very well become a factoid
RESPONDENT: So ... here it is the AF site & mailing list, an opportunity. Who can make a satisfactory use of this opportunity? RICHARD: Anybody who is vitally interested in finding out about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. RESPONDENT: Only those who can remember a PCE? RICHARD: No ... I often put it that there is sufficient information on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima facie case worthy of further investigation ... and not capricious dismissal. Furthermore I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation \ in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path. I also make it clear that what I write is (mostly) expressive prose – it is not a thesis – as I am conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself. My writing is not intended to stand literary scrutiny for scholarly style and grammatical form and so on – the academics would have a field-day with it – for it is an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into this magical wonder-land that this verdant and azure planet is. Then actuality speaks for itself. RESPONDENT: I cannot recall a PCE in the sense that I cannot look into the past and say with absolute certainty ‘that was a PCE’ using actualist description as a standard. On the other hand, I can remember an ASC and I can definitely say ‘that was an out-of-the-ordinary consciousness experience’ and it was an ASC by actualist standards. Where are the PCE’s stored? RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to this:
And this:
It would appear that your (affective) memory of the ASC is blocking access to (cognitive) memory of a PCE ... experience with
other people over the years has shown that ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – has, more often than not,
both a vested interest in remembering an ASC and in being amnestic about a PCE. * RESPONDENT: In my case and other participants on the mailing list it’s not easy to remember one. RICHARD: This could very well be because if ‘I’ were to actively remember a PCE it could be the beginning of the end of ‘me’. RESPONDENT: I ask this as I don’t want to fool myself practicing a method without knowing where it leads. I guess it leads to a PCE, but what’s that? RICHARD: Presumably you are speaking of experientially knowing where it leads ... intellectually knowing cannot provide the fatal attraction, so to speak, which experiential knowledge provides and which is essential for success. I am, of course, referring to pure intent. RESPONDENT: As a consequence of all this, I set my aim to be happy & harmless and not to live in a PCE (I don’t know how it’s like). RICHARD: A very sensible approach indeed ... being sorrowful and malicious (and thus antidotally loving and compassionate) is not at all conducive to a PCE occurring. RESPONDENT: What’s on offer here, is both valuable and sensible in my view and it reflects, explains my personal experiences and observations in a very satisfactory and comprehensive way. But these words (aka thoughts) are derived from PCE’s. They can provide guidance, direction and assistance in the DIY process of dismantling the identity and help one assess which are the facts and which are the beliefs. But they cannot induce/produce a PCE ... RICHARD: If I may interject? More than a few persons have had a PCE occur whilst listening to me/reading my words ... which is why I explained (further above) that my expressive writing is an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into this magical wonder-land that this verdant and azure planet is. ‘Tis the ‘all of their being’ which is the key. RESPONDENT: ... as this experience escapes any reference frame of thought, it’s pure consciousness as experienced by an individual. RICHARD: Hmm ... are you so sure that it does indeed escape ‘any’ reference frame of thought? RESPONDENT: The results derived by practicing this method is that I’m cleaner day-by-day, but a ‘pure’ individual does not necessarily mean pure consciousness, eh? RICHARD: There is no such thing as a pure identity (if that is what you mean). RESPONDENT: I fully engaged myself on the spiritual path as a consequence of an ASC. Is it vital to remember/live a PCE in order to successfully practice actualism? RICHARD: Eventually ... yes; in the interim ... I would say not (going by another’s report).
RESPONDENT: So ... here it is the AF site & mailing list, an opportunity. Who can make a satisfactory use of this opportunity? RICHARD: Anybody who is vitally interested in finding out about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. RESPONDENT: What do you mean by ‘world’, the world of people interactions – ‘society’ or something else? RICHARD: The 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. Even if every human being was happy and harmless there would still be cyclones and earthquakes and tidal waves and fires and crocodiles and sharks and mosquitoes and so forth. Life is an adventure, after all. * RICHARD: It would appear that your (affective) memory of the ASC is blocking access to (cognitive) memory of a PCE ... experience with other people over the years has shown that ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – has, more often than not, both a vested interest in remembering an ASC and in being amnestic about a PCE. RESPONDENT: I understand that it is a cognitive memory, but what type of memory is that? RICHARD: A non-affective memory ... a memory sans feeling-tones. RESPONDENT: What other memories are stored there? RICHARD: The following may throw some light on the subject:
And:
RESPONDENT: I can only relate ‘cognitive’ with the ability to know something, does a PCE allows you a different type of knowledge? RICHARD: No (unless untainted knowledge can be classified as a different type of knowledge). RESPONDENT: And there is the memory of the ASC, of course ... how could it not be?.... but I cannot detect emotionality when remembering it and it cannot be represented anyhow. Could you represent in your mind a PCE when living an ASC? RICHARD: Not ‘represent’ ... it can be intellectually remembered (indeed such a memory of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) is what helped me escape from a lifetime of being stuck in the permanent altered state of consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment). * RESPONDENT: In my case and other participants on the mailing list it’s not easy to remember one. RICHARD: This could very well be because if ‘I’ were to actively remember a PCE it could be the beginning of the end of ‘me’. RESPONDENT: Hmm ... the end of ‘me’? RICHARD: Yep ... everything one instinctively knows oneself to be – what one deeply feels and thus intuitively thinks oneself to be – can and will vanish in an instant ... never to ‘be’ again. Never, ever. RESPONDENT: I have always thought that this universe is infinite (even as a child when watching TV documentaries) simply because all the other explanations seemed so silly. And I spoke to other non-scientific & non-spiritual people and surprisingly they also said that they believe it to be infinite. But when asked to explain why they think so, they couldn’t say it. I wrote this as you explained that it’s the connection between this infinity and myself that eliminates ‘me’ and delivers the goods. That this connection is an active force (‘pure intent’). I sense this is the missing link ... to live each moment fully realizing that I live in an infinite and perfect universe. I don’t think remembering a PCE creates ‘the fatal attraction’ ... RICHARD: The following may elucidate what I mean by a connection with the peerless purity of infinitude:
RESPONDENT: ... how many people you spoke to at length who remembered a PCE haven’t continued with their life as usual, even though they aware of an opportunity? RICHARD: I have never kept count ... it would be the minority of them, though. RESPONDENT: If presented with the choice of 10 million dollars reward/ seeing God/ living in a PCE, how many would choose $64.000? RICHARD: Presumably ... the minority. * RICHARD: More than a few persons have had a PCE occur whilst listening to me/reading my words ... which is why I explained (further above) that my expressive writing is an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into this magical wonder-land that this verdant and azure planet is. ‘Tis the ‘all of their being’ which is the key. RESPONDENT: Well, I’ve read your writings extensively and intensively ... I intellectually agree with them, but you know that there is a world of difference between intellectual and experiential understanding. And no PCE’s occurred, although there were many realizations. RICHARD: Okay ... a realisation is not to be sneezed at, of course, where it sets one free of a habit of a lifetime. * RESPONDENT: ... this experience escapes any reference frame of thought, it’s pure consciousness as experienced by an individual. RICHARD: Hmm ... are you so sure that it does indeed escape ‘any’ reference frame of thought? RESPONDENT: You can easily and accurately describe how good it was last time you had sex with your partner. But these are only thoughts, they convey something ... but of what use they would be to me if I wouldn’t have any sexperiences? RICHARD: I was questioning your ‘escapes any reference frame of thought’ statement ... am I to take it that your analogy with the sexual experience indicates it does not escape ‘any’ reference frame of thought after all (as in thoughts which convey something)? As for what use a description is: everybody I have spoken to at length on this matter – everybody – eventually remembered having had a PCE. RESPONDENT: By the way, why doesn’t your current partner write on the mailing list? RICHARD: My companion of the last seven years has no interest in writing, period ... just as I have no interest in, for instance, playing the piano (or any other musical instrument). * RESPONDENT: I fully engaged myself on the spiritual path as a consequence of an ASC. Is it vital to remember/live a PCE in order to successfully practice actualism? RICHARD: Eventually ... yes; in the interim ... I would say not (going by another’s report). RESPONDENT: I would say it is essential to live a PCE otherwise all these discussions will degenerate sooner then later into intellectualisations rather then conveying individual experiences. RICHARD: Not while there are some that do recall a PCE ... even one such person could keep a discussion on track (keep it in accord with what this mailing list is set-up for). RESPONDENT: This is already happening on the mailing list, circles in a circus. RICHARD: Speaking personally I find the input from peoples of a religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical persuasion (if that is what you are referring to by your ‘circles in a circus’ phrasing) to be a salutary example – a real-life practical illustration – that the ‘Tried and True’ is indeed the ‘Tried and Failed’. There is nothing like a practical demonstration to drive the point home. RESPONDENT: What I’m doing right now is to sensibly use the information supplied here for daily use, see if it can stand practical life exposure and eventually create the favourable circumstances for a different CE to occur. RICHARD: A very sensible approach indeed ... intellectualising is not at all conducive to a PCE occurring.
CORRESPONDENT No. 25 (Part Six) 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 |
