|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 51
RESPONDENT: While my previous email is ‘marinating’ – so to speak – until an answer erupts from that mindless FBB [flesh and blood body] of yours, perhaps you would know why Vineeto, Respondent No. 18 and Respondent No. 50 are not answering to my emails? RICHARD: First and foremost: your previous e-mail could marinate – so to speak – until the moon turns blue and the texture and/or flavour of it would remain the same; second, as this flesh and blood body is not mindless all you are doing is displaying your ignorance in public for all to see; lastly, as I am not a mind-reader you are better off directing your question to the persons concerned. RESPONDENT: I wonder if by any chance you told them ‘leave Respondent with me; he’s mine, only mine’ or something of the sort? Just a thought :). RICHARD: Thank you for providing an example of how your mind works. RESPONDENT: I am particular interested in Vineeto’s eagerness to get more of your ‘goods’ and your inability to deliver to her enough of ‘your goods’. Can’t you satiate her? RICHARD: First, they are not my goods as they were here long before I was born and will be here long after I am dead ... forever, in fact; second, anyone’s intent to experience more of the universe’s largesse stems from the direct experience of it in a pure consciousness experience (PCE); lastly, I have never, ever, said I can deliver it ... I have made it abundantly clear that there is only one person anyone can change – themselves – and, as the identity who did that for this flesh and blood body is now extinct, even that ability is no more. In short: the actualism method is a do-it-yourself method. RESPONDENT: This is an old question that still remains unanswered. RICHARD: As a suggestion only: try reading the responses to your e-mails with both eyes open. RESPONDENT: So please click on the ‘reply’ button the moment you finish reading this email and give me an immediate straightforward answer. It’d be interesting to conclude this subject while at the same time observing how you react without much excogitation! RICHARD: As the subject was amply concluded on Wednesday, 01 October 2003, at 06:50 PDT, there is nothing to conclude in this e-mail ... and as I have no plan then no contrivance/machination ever has to happen in any of my responses. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Come on, do it now. RICHARD: As I was away from the computer when your e-mail came into my mail-box (at 04.57 AEST) this is the nearest to your ‘now’ that I have been able to do it for you. RESPONDENT: You got nothing better to do; your pension provides all your needs. RICHARD: As having a pension to provide all one’s needs means that one is no longer working at a job, in order to obtain the necessary wherewithal, then what you are conveying here is that being at work is a better thing to do than respond to your e-mail. Now I see it differently, of course, but obviously only you can best know what you think this e-mail of yours is worthy of.
RESPONDENT: I am particular interested in Vineeto’s eagerness to get more of your ‘goods’ and your inability to deliver to her enough of ‘your goods’. Can’t you satiate her? RICHARD: First, they are not my goods as they were here long before I was born and will be here long after I am dead ... forever, in fact; second, anyone’s intent to experience more of the universe’s largesse stems from the direct experience of it in a pure consciousness experience (PCE); lastly, I have never, ever, said I can deliver it ... I have made it abundantly clear that there is only one person anyone can change – themselves – and, as the identity who did that for this flesh and blood body is now extinct, even that ability is no more. In short: the actualism method is a do-it-yourself method. RESPONDENT: This is an old question that still remains unanswered. RICHARD: As a suggestion only: try reading the responses to your e-mails with both eyes open. RESPONDENT: Again you failed to answer. RICHARD: And again I will suggest you try reading the responses to your e-mails with both eyes open. RESPONDENT: Never have you responded to this question of Vineeto wanting her state [’wondrous’ or whatever, produced by your method] to last forever or at least have more of it. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to say it once more for emphasis: try reading the responses to your e-mails with both eyes open. RESPONDENT: Show me where have you responded. RICHARD: Now here is a turnabout if there ever was ... you asking me to direct you to that which is [quote] ‘too old; it’s the past’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: You are so good in producing transcriptions! RICHARD: Aye, but that does not mean I am at your beck and call ... if you overlooked it when it was happening, and if you really want to know, it is up to you to do your own leg-work. RESPONDENT: You waste so many words ... RICHARD: Ha ... you would have to actually read them in order to know whether or not they are a waste. RESPONDENT: ... why can’t you respond now [again, if you believe you have already responded]? RICHARD: I do not have to ‘believe’ I have already responded ... I know for a fact I have. RESPONDENT: Well, if this is a too uncomfortable subject to you, just drop it. RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, nice try indeed. RESPONDENT: But can I expect a response to my anterior email, which responded to your email part one + part two? RICHARD: Hmm ... I only responded to this new thread you started because you were most insistent that I provide an [quote] ‘immediate’ [endquote] answer. * RESPONDENT: Now you say that the goods are not yours ... RICHARD: Indeed I did say that ... and I have said it many times before. For example:
RESPONDENT: ... and that you deliver nothing, that you have never said such things. RICHARD: Indeed I did say that ... and I have said it many times before. For example:
RESPONDENT: My gosh I really need to give you a good search engine! RICHARD: Perhaps, upon sober reflection, you may be inclined to reconsider your ill-informed offer? RESPONDENT: Are you also going to say that the method is not yours ... RICHARD: Yep ... for example:
And another:
RESPONDENT: ... and that you have invented nothing ... RICHARD: Aye, and what is more, neither does anybody else. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... that you’re a mere ‘promulgator’, a ‘promoter’, an ‘explicator’? RICHARD: You are now talking about the role of The Actual Freedom Trust and not what I do:
What I do is sit at my computer, when the whim takes me, and share my discovery with my fellow human beings ... being retired, and on a pension, instead of pottering around in the garden I am pottering around the internet. It is a leisure-time activity, a retirement pastime-come-hobby, as it were, and a very pleasant thing to do indeed. I am having a lot of fun here at this keyboard. RESPONDENT: In your trust ... RICHARD: It is not my Trust ... is this not clear enough? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... there is nor this neither that, nor this neither that, only 4 million words that you [the trust, which I believe you are the CEO] wants to make known. RICHARD: First of all, in regards to this ‘CEO’ belief of yours, what part of the following did you not comprehend? Viz.:
As for the ‘there is nor this neither that, nor this neither that’ ... you must be referring to this:
All of that is drawn from experience ... none of it is theory, concept, or ideal. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: What for? RICHARD: For other people to do with whatever they will, of course. RESPONDENT: And what is in those four million words? RICHARD: There is an explication of the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice in those four million words (mainly in response to an untold number of objections to being happy and harmless). RESPONDENT: God knows! RICHARD: Not so ... no god, or goddess for that matter, knows anything about an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: What does ‘in order to operate under for sensible commercial reasons’ mean? RICHARD: Well, partly because the five nominal directors, who established the statutory legal body known as The Actual Freedom Trust, were well aware that they, and any other directors who may take their place one day, live in a litigious society ... but mainly to facilitate all the legal processes and bookkeeping details that are involved in publishing (in order to have an internet domain, for just one instance, there must be a registered business name and number). It is all just standard business practice.
RESPONDENT: Richard, you remind me of my neighbour’s son, a 9 year old boy who ‘knows everything’. RICHARD: You may find the following of interest then:
Most of my life I was an avid reader, devouring maybe two-three books a day, because I wanted to know, I wanted to find out, for myself, all I could 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, and have always appreciated the wealth of information available ... even as a child I would read encyclopaedias. And now, about half a century after having first availed myself of the bounty of the public library system, I am able to assess the fruits of all that research in the following manner:
RESPONDENT: He is keen in detecting what he sees as contradictory ... RICHARD: Then I am sure his keenness will be well-served – hypocrisy, double-standards, two-facedness, and so on, abound in the adult world – because it is as if there are two parts to the average adult brain: one part where all the ideals, principles, and standards lie (‘do as I say ...’) and another part where pretence, duplicity, and deceit lie (‘... not as I do’) and it would appear that never the twain do meet for them ... so much so that, generally speaking, by about age 15-16 or thereabouts, the average child is as screwed-up as all the adults she or he came into contact with in their formative years. RESPONDENT: ... and never leaves any comment unobserved, regardless if he is making any sense or not. RICHARD: There is another adage, other than the ‘do as I say not as I do’ one already mentioned, which you may or may not have come across:
RESPONDENT: He pretends to be thinking as an adult; he wants to discuss matters that would astonish you for a child that age. RICHARD: Good for him then, as it would appear that he has a keen interest in life, and there is nothing like extending oneself, reaching out for that which others say is beyond one’s ken, and thus finding out for oneself. RESPONDENT: The very last word must be his, and if you let him have it, he will not disguise a victorious look. RICHARD: Well, if you talk to him in a like manner to the way you write on this mailing list that is understandable ... after all, he is only nine years old and is, quite possibly, somewhat puzzled as to why an older person should communicate in that manner. RESPONDENT: He has self-confidence, the way his parents want him to be I suppose. RICHARD: Why do you suppose that? RESPONDENT: Maybe he should start thinking already about ‘help the world’ business! RICHARD: Maybe he already is ... most peoples are guilty of this crime you seem determined to make out of people helping each other. RESPONDENT: He’s a good kid but I rather discuss with you; you are not that innocent! RICHARD: Ha ... what is called the ‘innocence of childhood’ is not what innocence actually is: innocence is something totally new to human experience. * RESPONDENT: The actual never conditions the brain but the theory, the conclusion, the description, the abstraction, do condition it. The chair never conditions the brain but AF do condition. RICHARD: It would be handy to write this out in full (instead of just using the acronym) so as to see more clearly just what it is you are saying here: [example only]: ‘the chair never conditions the brain but an actual freedom from the human condition do condition’ [end example]. If you could satisfactorily explain to me how an actual freedom from the human condition conditions the brain I will be most surprised. RESPONDENT: Be surprised: AFFHC [AF + ‘from the human condition’) is a theory, a formula. RICHARD: This is what you are saying looks like sans the acronyms:
RESPONDENT: Why? Because it is no different from any other belief. RICHARD: This is what you are saying, in effect, then:
RESPONDENT: Beliefs obviously condition the mind. RICHARD: And again:
RESPONDENT: It conditions by alluring people to adopt a method which promises the ‘liberation’ from the human condition. RICHARD: Spelling out in full what the generic word ‘it’ represents this is what you are saying might look like:
RESPONDENT: The result of your method can be no other then its own projection. RICHARD: As the result of the very first application of the actualism method in human history was an actual freedom from the human condition then this is what you are saying in effect:
RESPONDENT: A self image/illusion is its own promise. RICHARD: Hmm ... this assertion would look something like this:
RESPONDENT: If you are able to recognise it, you’ll realize that the simple fact of recognizing it, means it’s not new, there is nothing new in that experience. RICHARD: Ha ... a variation on the hoary ‘he who knows does not know’ dimwitacism, eh? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: You are repeating the same old stuff. RICHARD: This is what this looks like in effect:
Needless is it to say I am still yet to be surprised? * RESPONDENT: What convinces you that everything that comes out of your mouth [‘finger tips’ rather] is the actual? RICHARD: It is this simple: what I write about life here in this actual world is a report coming immediately from the direct experience of this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space – there is this which is actually happening and the words form themselves in accord to the very thing being referred to as it is occurring – and, as they are coming directly out of actuality, it is no different to, say, looking at the clock when some asks me what the time is and I reply 3.06 PM (or whatever it is). RESPONDENT: Here you want people to believe you, don’t you? (Question No. 1). RICHARD: No, not at all. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Or rather believe your words [reports, descriptions, explanations ] which you say are proven, unambiguous, clear, lucid have you forgotten any complementary word? RICHARD: You must be referring to this exchange:
By ‘a proven track-record’ I am referring to the actualism method not only delivering, first a virtual freedom then an actual freedom for this flesh and blood body, but a virtual freedom for those who have applied the method with pure intent. What I am referring to by ‘an unambiguous report’ and ‘clear descriptions’ and ‘lucid explanations’ may be best demonstrated by this example:
RESPONDENT: The proof that this is false is in the recognition of the ‘direct experience of this moment’. RICHARD: Just to refresh your memory this is what you asked me:
This is how I responded:
May I ask? Would it have made any difference how I replied? Would you have not come out with your (borrowed) what-is-recognised-is-of-the-past wisdom irregardless of my response anyway? In other words: a set-up question designed to display one’s book-learning is not a sincere question by any definition. RESPONDENT: Do I need any method to be in the now, the present, the moment? RICHARD: It would appear so ... Viz.:
RESPONDENT: This is a child’s play! If you want to be in the present, your mind has to be totally silent, completely quite? Why can’t you get this? [replies to these questions are optional here because they will be considered futile anyways]. RICHARD: As I have no interest whatsoever of being ‘in the present’ again (having done just that, night and day, for eleven years and found it wanting) I shall not be replying to those questions anyway ... instead I will make the observation that such an attitude you display here – that you will consider any replies to be futile – indicates just how short the tether is with which you have leashed yourself to a certain set of teachings (which set of teachings will not deliver those goods for many hundred years). RESPONDENT: There are many people that believe they own, they see, they are truth/actuality, like you ... RICHARD: I have talked with many and varied peoples from many walks of life (I have both travelled the country and overseas), watched television, videos, films (whatever media is available), and read about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet), for more than two decades, to find somebody else either actually free from the human condition or even just knowing something about it, but to no avail. Therefore, if you could provide web pages, books titles, magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever that I can access – or other mailing lists that I can subscribe to – wherein the words of these ‘many people that believe’ they are actually free from the human condition can be found I would be most appreciative. RESPONDENT: ... and also those who belief they are Jesus, Buddha, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, etc. RICHARD: As I do not ‘belief’ I am any of those peoples – and that most certainly includes whoever you may care to put in the etcetera – you need have no concerns about me on that account ... I am most definitely this flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: The mad houses of the world are full of them! All these guys would be harmless if they didn’t have any followers. RICHARD: This is an apt moment to draw your attention to the following (unfinished) exchange:
This is what your sentence (further above) could look like when spelled out in full:
RESPONDENT: The followers are the problem because they empowered them. RICHARD: Perhaps, upon sober reflection, you may be inclined to reconsider this assertion? * RESPONDENT: Evidently, you must deny everything I say in order to maintain consistency with the ‘everybody got it wrong’ [‘except me’] formula. RICHARD: If you can demonstrate to me that somebody – anybody – has got it right I will be listening with both ears. RESPONDENT: Get some cotton swabs and clean your ears ... It’s very simple ... just look yourself in the mirror and you’ll find out the right one, the only one that is right! (Right at 180 degrees or upside down!) RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that you are not going to demonstrate that somebody – anybody – has got it right? If so, then are you prepared to acknowledge that your theorising, about me having to deny everything you say so as to maintain consistency with my oft-repeated ‘everybody has got 180 degrees wrong’ observation, is in error? And, further, are you prepared to acknowledge that describing such an observation as a formula is also erroneous? * RESPONDENT: Sometimes human beings experience a particular delightful state of mind that gives them a sensation of freedom and joy without interference of thought, the self. RICHARD: Aye, yet that ‘state of mind’ you refer to pales into insignificance when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul cease interfering and life is directly experienced as a flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: How can you compare? (Question No. 2). RICHARD: Experientially, of course, as for eleven years, night and day, there was no ‘I’ as ego interfering and since then, for over a decade now, also night and day, there has been neither ‘I’ as ego or ‘me’ as soul interfering. RESPONDENT: And ... how does your method give people a life without ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul? (Question No. 3) and please don’t repeat what you may have replied before, use your prolificacy. RICHARD: Click Here * RESPONDENT: A state of mind depends a lot on the type of relationship one is having. Some people like to play with these states in the belief that they are having very meaningful experiences which in the long run will transform them into ‘fantastic’ beings! RICHARD: There are no ‘beings’ – fantastic or otherwise – here in this actual world: the peerless perfection of the pristine purity the actual is ensures no ‘being’ can exist here ... nothing dirty can get in, so to speak. RESPONDENT: Pristine? RICHARD: Yes, pristine as in immaculate (unspoiled, untouched, flawless, faultless, spotless) ... a paradisiacal wonderland of never-ending delight and amazement. RESPONDENT: All this looks like dust to me, I can’t see a thing! RICHARD: Indeed not ... an identify (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is forever locked-out of paradise by its very ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Is ‘being’ = [equal to], and so on dirty? (Question No. 4). RICHARD: As ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) is the very passions that are the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition – passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – the expressive use of the word ‘dirty’ seems particularly apt. RESPONDENT: If you are no ‘being’ what are you? (Question No. 5). RICHARD: What I am is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: If your answer is ‘flesh and blood body’, you will be like that dog bitting its own tail believing it is a sausage! RICHARD: This may be an apposite moment to point out that the first person pronoun is used in all correspondence issuing forth from this keyboard to refer to this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware (unmediated awareness) for the sake of both convenience and the avoidance of pedanticism. For example, the passage quoted (further above) would look like this:
* RESPONDENT: It’s theirs and also your fantasy! RICHARD: As nowhere in all my words do I mention anything of what you describe [‘fantastic beings’] you can only be taking a wild stab in the dark with this exclamation. RESPONDENT: They want [whatever state they get sometimes] to last forever. RICHARD: Yet actualism is not such a ‘state’ ... that is what you make of it. RESPONDENT: Enlighten me. What is actualism? (Question No. 6). RICHARD: In short: actualism is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. RESPONDENT: If you can describe it in brief words but comprehensible ... RICHARD: Is that brief and comprehensible enough for you? RESPONDENT: ... without addressing me to your website (you know how much I dislike it, even if you try to convince me otherwise). RICHARD: I would not even try to convince you otherwise ... it is your dislike, you deal with it. * RICHARD: This flesh and blood body being conscious (which of course includes the brain in action) delights in recalling past experiences, on those few occasions it does, as this flesh and blood body has been just here, right now, all along simply having a ball. RESPONDENT: Whose memory are we talking about? RICHARD: I am talking about my memory. RESPONDENT: Your flesh and blood’s? RICHARD: No, I am this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Now, is ‘I’ = [equal to] flesh and blood body? (Question No. 7). RICHARD: Yep ... the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: Another great invention of yours! RICHARD: Just because an identity instinctually knows, feels and thus thinks they are not the body does not mean that an identity-less body has invented the fact it is a body ... let alone made it a great invention. RESPONDENT: You mean to say you have no ‘I’? (Question No. 8). RICHARD: This flesh and blood body not only has no ‘I’ (as ego) ... there is no ‘me’ as soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself) either. RESPONDENT: If answer is ‘yes’, how do you know you have no ‘I’, or that ‘you’ are not ‘you’ but a flesh and blood body? (Question No. 9). RICHARD: Apperceptively ... the word ‘apperceptive’, from the dictionary definition ‘the mind’s perception of itself’, refers to the unmediated awareness of being aware. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Isn’t AF complicated? RICHARD: No, it is incredibly simple ... so simple that it has been overlooked up until now. * RESPONDENT: ‘Happiness’ and ‘Freedom’ are the results of your method ... RICHARD: No, that is what you have made of it ... in part due to your [quote] ‘dislike’ [endquote] of The Actual Freedom Trust web site and for the other part wanting to shorten your short-list of what you considered were the [quote] ‘key words’ [endquote] on The Actual Freedom Trust home page for the sake of simplicity. RESPONDENT: ... the ‘goods’ that you ‘deliver’. RICHARD: Yet I do not deliver any goods ... what I offer is a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, plus an unambiguous report of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings. For an example: I always make it clear that there cannot be happiness without harmlessness ... and there cannot be harmlessness without happiness. What another does with the method, my report, my descriptions, my explanations, and my clarifications is their business, of course. RESPONDENT: Thence explain what these words actually mean. RICHARD: Sure ... here is the sequence so far:
After all, this is a discussion, when all is said and done, and not a monologue ... if I have no feed-back then I can only be working on assumptions about you. RESPONDENT: Count all the words you wrote just to escape this question and ask me ‘re-word it’. RICHARD: Here is the sequence in question:
When I look through it so as to count all the words you say I used to escape the question I suggested you re-word so that it made sense I cannot see even a single one ... perhaps you could point them out to me? RESPONDENT: Come on, you are a smart guy, you know what I mean. RICHARD: No, I do not know what you mean ... you asked me if you could shorten your short-list of what you considered were the [quote] ‘key words’ [endquote] on The Actual Freedom Trust home page for the sake of simplicity and, rather than a flat ‘no, you may not shorten it’ I asked you why you did not want to be harmless. And I asked why because this is a discussion, when all is said and done, and not a monologue ... if I have no feed-back then I can only be working on assumptions about you. RESPONDENT: Lets put it this way: I read your web’s front page and approach you ‘Richard, Happiness and freedom sounds good, enticing, I’d like very much to be happy and free. I don’t have that and to be honest I don’t know what happiness actually is. I know what it is not: when I am ill, I feel miserable, frustrated, having no pleasure. The mystics say if the ‘I’, the ‘ego’, the ‘self’ disappears I’ll be happy. I am very cautious about methods that promise this because I realize that any method is going to be exercised by ‘me’ [the ‘I’, the ‘ego’, the ‘self’] the very same thing that wants to eliminate itself . Therefore, please dear sir, tell me what is happiness and freedom (Question No. 10) before I make up my mind whether I’ll apply your method or not?’ RICHARD: And when you did approach me, saying in effect, ‘tell me what is happiness and freedom’ and I responded by asking whether there was any particular reason why you did not want to be harmless I received a 1,736 word reply containing, towards the end, the following eight words:
May I suggest that you look-up the word ‘sincerity’ in a dictionary before you write again (if you do)? RESPONDENT: Will this wording do, or do you want more re-wording play before you decide to answer? (Question No. 11). RICHARD: Yet I never wanted any re-wording ‘play’ – that is what you make of it – as I am entirely sincere and your question did not make sense in its present form ... yet, even so, I answered it in a straightforward manner. RESPONDENT: Perhaps if you could demonstrate to me now, with your own words, how/what your method is [functions] (Question No. 12) ... RICHARD: As I already have in one of my earlier e-mails to you, and as you dismiss non-current writing as being [quote] ‘too old; it’s the past’ [endquote] it would appear that you are never going to find out as I have no intention of regurgitating it here just for the benefit of your (borrowed) belief that words should be written/spoken anew. RESPONDENT: ... without addressing me to your website (you know how much I dislike it, even if you try to convince me otherwise). RICHARD: I would not even try to convince you otherwise ... it is your dislike, you deal with it. RESPONDENT: You can synthetise your descriptions of the method if you want, can’t you? (Question No. 13). RICHARD: I already did in one of my earlier e-mails to you and, as you apparently missed it back then, you will (a) never know if I can ... or (b) have to drop your (borrowed) belief that non-current writing is [quote] ‘too old; it’s the past’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Maybe I’ll practising it and get nuts like you guys, become one more of your devotees!! RICHARD: As I do not have any ‘devotees’ I am not in a position to respond. * RESPONDENT: ... why don’t you continue using your audio recorder and make the files available, as you do with the zip files? RICHARD: Because it is the content of the words which is important and not the sound of them as produced by this voice box. RESPONDENT: Oh really?! RICHARD: Indeed so ... words are words whether they are transmitted as pixels on a screen to be read by the eyes or transmitted as sound bytes to be heard by the ears. RESPONDENT: If your wife/companion asks you ‘darling, do you still love [care for] me [or if she wants to make love to you], will she be pleased with a written note instead of seeing, listening, touching your ‘flesh ...etc’? (Question No. 13). RICHARD: As I cannot know why you want to see this flesh and blood body, listen to this flesh and blood body utter these words, and touch this flesh and blood body’s flesh, etcetera, you will just have to mull this one over for yourself. RESPONDENT: Is ‘flesh and blood body’ = [equal to] ‘voice box’? (Question No. 14). RICHARD: The phrase ‘voice box’ is but another way of saying ‘vocal organs’ which, being situated in the larynx, are part and parcel of what constitutes a flesh and blood human body. RESPONDENT: What kind of a living thing do you think you are, in case you believe you are alive? (Question No. 15). RICHARD: First, I do not have to believe I am alive as I know that I am alive; second, what I am is a fellow human being sans identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul); and, lastly, thought is not required to be aware there is no identity present. RESPONDENT: Please don’t give me any more of that ‘flesh and blood’ crap. RICHARD: What would you prefer I give you then ... that I am not the body and that I am spirit, being, presence, god, truth, or whatever other name that institutionalised insanity popularly known as spiritual enlightenment has for that self-aggrandised identity which does not have peace on earth on its agenda? RESPONDENT: Isn’t AF complexly crazy? (Question No. 16). RICHARD: This is what this looks like in full:
As I have been rigorously examined by two accredited psychiatrists (one of them over a three-year period) and determined to be suffering from a chronic and incurable psychotic disorder then, according to the prevailing real-world wisdom, yes it is indeed completely crazy to be actually free from the human condition. In other words, to be utterly happy and harmless (absolutely free from malice and sorrow) and thus living in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, is to be insane according to sane people ... however, as 160,000,000 sane people were killed in wars alone, in the last 100 years, by their sane fellow human beings, one would be well-advised to take sanity’s wisdom with a grain or two of salt. Mainly because there is a third alternative to both sanity and insanity. RESPONDENT: A suggestion for a more actual [accurate] meaning of PCE = Perturbation of Consciousness Endlessly. RICHARD: Suit yourself ... it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and only you get to reap the rewards, or pay the consequences, of any action or inaction you may or may not do. Provided you comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols you will be left alone to live your life as wisely or as foolishly as you wish. I can only suggest (offer tips, hints, clues, insider information, and so on) ... what the other does with these suggestions is entirely up to them, of course.
RESPONDENT: If you are no ‘being’ what are you? RICHARD: What I am is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT No. 44: Pure identification then with the universe. For eleven years, you were identified with the absolute. Now you say ‘I am ...’, you made a shift to the universe, only the subject of identification changed. RICHARD: Did you not read the question I was responding to? Perhaps if I were to put it this way then: for eleven years, night and day, it was the ‘being’ within the body who identified with ‘The Absolute’ ... whereas what I am, as this flesh and blood body only (sans ‘being’ itself), is this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being. As the universe also experiences itself as a cat, a dog, and so on, and so on, what you are saying, in effect, is that every body is identifying themselves with the universe ... which is patently silly (if only because no body needs to identify with what they actually are). It is this simple: the very stuff of this body (and all bodies) is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe in that it comes out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed. I am nothing other than that ... that is what I am, literally. RESPONDENT: If you are not joking when you say ‘I [your f&bb] am the universe experiencing itself,’ or god, whatever, and teach people how to have ‘this awareness’, then you definitely need professional help. RICHARD: As I am not joking, and as I do say that is what I am, literally, and as I am not god or whatever, and as my reports, descriptions, explanations, clarifications, and the method which freed me, have been, are being, and will be, of assistance to my fellow human beings then, just like the very professionals who examined me back in the early-to-mid 90’s, and declared being happy and harmless (free of malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) to be insanity, you too conclude that I definitely need professional help. And what is your assessment of everyone else writing on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list? None other than that anybody actually doing something about being happy and harmless are [quote] ‘huge egos dreaming’ [endquote] and anyone who is presenting Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings of an after-death immortality are the only ones who are [quote] ‘making sense’ [endquote]. And then you also say you have done your bit in this forum and, as everything has thus been said, you bid
farewell and (quite aptly I might add) say you are heading for the old continent in the very near future So be it then ... c’est la vie, eh?
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 |
