|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 56
RESPONDENT: I have a question for Richard. I find your claims that you were the first to attain an actual freedom from the human condition a little hard to take. My question is how do you know this to be true without having met every single person alive or dead? I’ve read the recent correspondence on this issue but I cannot see a clear answer. RICHARD: Ahh ... usually I do give a clear answer but when I get told that it does not matter, to my co-respondent, if it is true or false and, furthermore, they do not even care whether there is any way to verify same, I just fail to see the point of doing so. As for needing to do a door-to-door survey, of every man, woman and child on this planet, before being able to say that one can know there is no other: I am unaware of any such requirement in any other field of human endeavour – such as the eradication of small-pox being announced for example – so why should there be such a requirement in the field of consciousness studies? Besides which it is a physical impossibility: nobody lives long enough to individually meet, question, and receive an answer, from each and every one of 6,000,000,000 people populating this planet (not to mention the language barrier) and nobody would want to take the time to read through, and verify, each and every 6,000,000,000 of the Q&A’s anyway ... would you? Moreover, with the rapid expansion of the information age such a course of action is simply not necessary. RESPONDENT: It’s important to me as I’m of the school ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’. I have no problem with your verifiable claims and the methods you outline allow for verification, which is great. RICHARD: Okay ... given you have literally asked for ‘extraordinary proof’ the following link provides a
description of how I actually know – experientially know – and quite ‘extraordinary’ it is too: I have supplied a brief exegesis of what can be found on that page before:
In other words I traversed territory which no enlightened being has ever navigated – virgin terrain somewhat akin to the ‘white-out’ experienced in a featureless landscape of snow and ice – until that ‘Great Beyond’ which has been proposed heretofore to only be possible at physical death became an actuality whilst the flesh and blood body was still alive. I am, of course, referring to not only that which has been described as ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ (only as an actuality and not a fantasy) but to being the actual experiencing of what has variously been called ‘the meaning of life’, ‘the purpose of the universe’, ‘the riddle of existence’, and so on. In short: being the experiencing of infinitude itself. I also knew early in 1981, at the commencement of the path that would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, that such a freedom was entirely new to human experience as I had had a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) six months prior wherein it was manifestly obvious that what the human race had made of such experiences was a degradation of the actual. Speaking in the context of the only religio-spiritual language I knew then (from the culture I was born into) I would say, to anyone prepared to listen at the time, that everybody has got it wrong because nobody has to physically die to get to heaven ... that eternity was just here right now because, as it is already always happening, it cannot cease at physical birth and recommence at physical death after a 70+ year interregnum. After the ‘something turning over in the base of the brain/nape of the neck’ event of September 1981 (as detailed in ‘A Brief Personal History’), and as the western-style mysticism I was experiencing moved deeper into being an eastern-style mysticism (I can recall telling my then wife at that time I was jumping out of the frying pan into the fire as somebody had to sort this mystery out), I just knew that, in order to be able to speak meaningfully about going beyond enlightenment I had to go through enlightenment so as to, not only understand it experientially for myself, but to be able to have insider information, so to speak, to pass on to my fellow human beings. For what is the point of enabling peace-on-earth, and thus demonstrating the actual way to live life for a benighted humanity, if one cannot explain the how, why, and what for, of it?
RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard for taking the time to reply to me. What I get out of what you said is that you *believe* rather than *know* that you were the first to have attained an actual freedom from the human condition. RICHARD: Oh? How do you get that out of what I said in my e-mail to you? Here it is again:
Here is what the word ‘extraordinary’ indicates to me:
In mid-1980, six months prior to the commencement of the path that would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, I had a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) wherein it was manifestly obvious that what the human race had made of such experiences was a degradation of the actual ... and five years later I had the first of many extra-extraordinary experiences – of going beyond the extraordinary experience called spiritual enlightenment – which experientially demonstrated (proved) to me that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience. Now, in matters of consciousness studies experiential proof is the only proof worthy of the name: if for you the word ‘experiential’ is synonymous with the word ‘believe’ then virtually nothing I have to say on The Actual Freedom Trust web site will have any validity in your eyes as just about everything I write about is experiential ... and you may as well stop reading this e-mail at this point. RESPONDENT: You affirm that you cannot meet every man woman and child on the planet and thus cannot prove that you were the first to have attained the freedom from the human condition. RICHARD: No, not at all ... what I made clear is that it is a physical impossibility to know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience via a door-to-door survey of all 6,000,000,000 peoples on this planet. I also made the observation that with the rapid expansion of the information age such a course of action is simply not necessary anyway. RESPONDENT: Thanks for clearing that up because the way you worded your statements it initially seemed to me that you somehow had an insight into every individuals interior state of being. RICHARD: No, it was not me that had the insight (to use your terminology) that no person had ever gone beyond enlightenment before ... it was the identity who used to inhabit this body all those years ago who did (the first one occurred in 1985). Viz.:
‘Tis impossible for me to have such experiences these days ... I am no longer enlightened. RESPONDENT: Such a god like state is quite contrary to what I have read on the Actual Freedom website. RICHARD: As that identity was ‘The Absolute’ (aka God) it was no mere ‘god like’ state ... it was the Full Monty. RESPONDENT: I have previously read the link supplied and the proof that you offer is not a proof for the uniqueness of your actual freedom ... RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? Here is the remainder of the brief exegesis, of what can be found on that page, which I provided in the very e-mail you are now responding to (the first part I have already re-quoted just above):
I did not need any more proof than that – indeed there is no other proof than that – and, just for the record, I would have preferred there had been tracks to follow as it was an enormously risky journey to go all the way through the institutionalised insanity known as spiritual enlightenment. It was an incredibly hazardous thing to do ... I could have got lost forever and never come out the other side. RESPONDENT: ... it tells me that you have attained actual freedom but does not tell me about anyone else. RICHARD: As it tells of absolutely everybody else I would suggest a re-read ... here is what I also wrote to you by way of an explanatory note:
RESPONDENT: You offer a method to attain actual freedom and that does allow for verifiable results – but again this cannot prove that no else has previously attained actual freedom before you – how can it? RICHARD: As nowhere do I say that the actualism method proves anything of the sort (it just happens to be the method which worked for me) this is a pointless question. RESPONDENT: Richard, with respect, just because you say so does not make it so. RICHARD: You do seem to be under some misapprehension: I am not in the business of proving to you (or anyone else for that matter) that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience ... I am simply providing a report of how I know it is. What another does with my report is their business. * RESPONDENT: As I’m sure you understand, all it takes is one contrary case to disprove your statement of uniqueness. RICHARD: Sure, and I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples, so as to compare notes as it were, but where is this ‘one contrary case’ that is already actually free from the human condition? I have been scouring the books for 20+ years now to no avail, plus many peoples on various mailing lists since 1997 have been unable to produce such a person and, if I may point out, neither have you. RESPONDENT: You say that you have yet to come across any such people in your long research. I believe that there are a number of people who have attained actual freedom but just use different terminology to you. The descriptions vary and the reports are coloured by cultural and personal influences but they are remarkably similar to what you report. I’ll offer up one example – Byron Katie. RICHARD: It only took me about five minutes to locate the following:
There is/are no god, goddess, gods, or goddesses, here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: You can read about her and her method (‘The Work’) at www.thework.org – I find that her system of four questions works in very nicely with what you have on offer and fast too. RICHARD: As her book, which the ‘four questions’ are in, is called ‘Loving What Is’ then the word ‘Loving’ should surely be a big enough clue that it is not a book about an actual freedom from the human condition – the affections are non-existent here in this actual world – and the ‘What Is’ part of the title is the second giveaway that it is not actual (the phrase ‘Loving What Is’ can easily be translated as ‘God Loving God’). RESPONDENT: I suspect that you will label her ‘spiritual’ ... RICHARD: Hmm ... being [quote] ‘God’ [endquote] is not a feature of being either a materialist or an actualist. RESPONDENT: ... and write her off but don’t be too quick to do this – she says that she offers a method for freedom. She doesn’t say that it is spiritual salvation. RICHARD: Sarlo’s Guru Rating Service (www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Ratings.htm) has her listed under the ‘Advaita’ heading (if that rating means anything). RESPONDENT: However, BK does not fret if people incorporate The Work with other stuff they’re into – that’s their business. RICHARD: If the ‘Advaita’ heading does mean something then such ecumenicalism as you speak of here is par for the course ... the Vedantic juggernaut has been absorbing all religio-spiritual disciplines under its all-embracing umbrella since time immemorial. * RESPONDENT: You said ‘usually I do give a clear answer but when I get told that it does not matter….’. It does matter to me. I find it worrying when a person claims to have found the only way to freedom. RICHARD: I have not claimed to have found the ‘only way’ to an actual freedom from the human condition ... I have said the actualism method is the only way which has been demonstrated to work thus far. Viz.:
And:
And:
There are other references but maybe those will do for now to show that the actualism method is not necessarily the only way. RESPONDENT: I find your insistence on ideological purity worrying too ... RICHARD: As actualism is not an ideology your worrying is a self-created worry. RESPONDENT: ... you lament the fact that people are going to take a little of Actualism and combine it with what they have already got. RICHARD: I presume you are referring to something like this:
If so I cannot see how you get a ‘lament’ out of that ... here is another:
There nary a ‘lament’ to be found there, either. RESPONDENT: I find your stance perplexing given the otherwise first rate material on your website. RICHARD: You may have gathered by now it is not my ‘stance’ at all ... that is what you make of it. RESPONDENT: All manner of crimes have been committed throughout history by people claiming to know the one true way. I don’t believe for a minute that what you have on offer would turn out the kind of drones that kill for their religion. RICHARD: Then why say it in the first place? Uh oh, I see why now ... look out folks, here comes the ‘but ...’ (and it is the despotic-dictator type of a ‘but’ too). RESPONDENT: But I do believe that freedom seeking ideologies such as yours that attempt negate other modes of freedom seeking are fascist in nature and doomed to starve from a lack of input from the wider ecology of ideas and modes of perception. RICHARD: Ha ... so the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – being as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible (virtually free from malice and sorrow) whilst still being a ‘self’ – which is a path marked by the sheer delight at the enjoyment and appreciation engendered by being here on this verdant and azure planet is a ‘fascist’ ideology in your eyes because it negates everything which is not actual, eh? Perhaps, upon sober reflection, you may care to re-examine your belief?
RICHARD: I am not in the business of proving to you (or anyone else for that matter) that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience ... I am simply providing a report of how I know it is. What another does with my report is their business. RESPONDENT: You’re right, you don’t need to prove anything. You report what you believe you know. RICHARD: No, I report what I experientially know – in matters of consciousness studies experiential knowing is the only knowing worthy of the name – and if for you the word ‘experiential’ continues to be synonymous with the word ‘believe’ then you may as well stop reading this e-mail right now ... because virtually nothing I have to say will have any validity in your eyes as just about everything I write of is experiential. RESPONDENT: However, I and many others have had our bullshit detectors activated. RICHARD: Aye, which is why I am responding at such length and in such detail. RESPONDENT: I thought that might concern you but obviously it doesn’t. RICHARD: As I know there is no ‘bullshit’ to detect there is indeed nothing for me to be concerned about. * RESPONDENT: You say that you have yet to come across any such people in your long research. I believe that there are a number of people who have attained actual freedom but just use different terminology to you. The descriptions vary and the reports are coloured by cultural and personal influences but they are remarkably similar to what you report. I’ll offer up one example – Byron Katie. RICHARD: It only took me about five minutes to locate the following: [Ms. Sunny Massad]: ‘And how was your relationship with your husband’s body? [Ms. Byron Katie]: ‘Uhhhh. [Sighs.] First time we made love it was just amaaazing. It was radical! Cuz it was God with God. And it was the receiving of it and the giving ah, it was just amazing! [endquotes]. There is/are no god, goddess, gods, or goddesses, here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: I think you’re too hung up on terminology. RICHARD: Oh? When someone says they are [quote] ‘God with God’ [endquote] in what way am I ‘too hung up on terminology’ if I take that to mean they are saying they are God ... and then making the observation that there is no such ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (by whatever name) in actuality? RESPONDENT: I use the word god from time to time but not in a personal-god sense. RICHARD: That would be because you have not yet realised you are that ... whereas Ms. Byron Katie has and, consequently, has devised a method (presumably the four questions) to enable such self-realisation to come about in others. RESPONDENT: I mean it in the sense of that which is greater than myself or reality. RICHARD: That would appear to be the sense she means it in too ... that which is greater than the ego-self and the universe (meaning that which is a non-material – a timeless and spaceless and formless – source of everything). RESPONDENT: You’ll find that Byron Katie has a similar understanding of the word. Some people say god, others use universe, nature etc. – you say ‘actual world’. RICHARD: As I know perfectly well what I mean, wherever I refer to this actual world, it is an exercise in futility to try and tell me I am meaning something else entirely. ‘Tis no wonder you have your ‘bullshit’ detector activated ... because that is precisely what you are reading into my words. * RICHARD: As her book, which the ‘four questions’ are in, is called ‘Loving What Is’ then the word ‘Loving’ should surely be a big enough clue that it is not a book about an actual freedom from the human condition – the affections are non-existent here in this actual world – and the ‘What Is’ part of the title is the second giveaway that it is not actual (the phrase ‘Loving What Is’ can easily be translated as ‘God Loving God’). RESPONDENT: Hmmm now that’s getting picky again. RICHARD: I do find it fascinating that clarity in communication is regarded as ‘picky’. RESPONDENT: Actually The ‘Loving’ in the title refers to accepting ‘what is’ which means accepting reality. RICHARD: Ha ... are you really saying that Ms. Byron Katie should have titled her book like this? Viz.:
Here are you very own words (from above):
Why would a god-realised person write a book about accepting that which is not greater when there is that which is greater to love? RESPONDENT: That comes clear when you read her book. RICHARD: I have no intention whatsoever of reading yet another book by yet another god ... those days a long gone. RESPONDENT: It doesn’t refer to mushy, sentimental, blind instinctual caring that you speak of. RICHARD: As the term I use for the greatest love of all – Love Agapé – does not even remotely resemble ‘mushy, sentimental’ love you are having a discussion with yourself here. RESPONDENT: BK just uses different language to you. RICHARD: That would be because she is speaking about something different ... the term ‘What Is’ does not refer to this actual world. RESPONDENT: At any rate (and this is important) the four questions in the method given (the Work) do NOT speak of god at all! RICHARD: Why is that important? The actualism question does not speak of being a flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto) yet nobody is under any illusion about no longer being a such a ‘being’ or ‘presence’ within the body is what the method is for ... other than peoples like yourself of course. May I ask, at this point, whether you comprehend anything – anything at all – about what actualism is and is not? * RESPONDENT: I find it worrying when a person claims to have found the only way to freedom. RICHARD: I have not claimed to have found the ‘only way’ to an actual freedom from the human condition ... I have said the actualism method is the only way which has been demonstrated to work thus far. RESPONDENT: Okay, but that’s very close to what I was complaining about – you claim to have the only way – so far! No one else has done better! RICHARD: As nobody else is yet actually free from the human condition by any other method it is indeed the only one that has worked so far. * RICHARD: (snip three references) ... there are other references but maybe those will do for now to show that the actualism method is not necessarily the only way. RESPONDENT: At least you’re open to the possibility of other methods but it’s still a worry to me that you choose to write off others who have found freedom because they don’t use your narrow and exacting terminology. RICHARD: First and foremost: if, or when, another person becomes actually free from the human condition via another method it too will have then been demonstrated to be effective ... until then I can only endorse the one that has actually worked (for obvious reasons). Second, I would not write off others that are actually free from the human condition – that would be silly – it is those who have found a spiritual freedom that I write off ... or, rather, it is the ‘Tried and Failed’ which I write off as there is always the possibility they may come to their senses (both metaphorically and literally). Lastly, why do you see clarity in communication as ‘narrow and exacting terminology’ (presuming you mean that in a pejorative sense)? * RESPONDENT: I find your insistence on ideological purity worrying too ... RICHARD: As actualism is not an ideology your worrying is a self-created worry. RESPONDENT: Okay, actualism isn’t an ideology but ... RICHARD: If I may stop the flow just for a moment (before you continue with your ‘but ...’)? This is what actualism is:
This is how I describe the direct experience that matter is not merely passive:
RESPONDENT: ... [but] it is conveyed using a body of language, right? RICHARD: Having taken pause to read the above you will see that what is being conveyed is that actualism is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. RESPONDENT: The body of language is an ideology that attempts to point to actualism. RICHARD: No, the words are a description of the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. Or, to put that another way, the words and writings on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site make it quite clear that actualism – the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism – is not ‘an ideology that attempts to point to actualism’ ... they are an invitation for the reader to directly experience for themself that they do not live in an inert universe. Put succinctly: actualism is experiential not ideological. And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not an ideal either ... or an idea, a belief, a concept, an opinion, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, an inference, a judgement, an intellectualisation, an imagination, a posit, an image, an analysis, a viewpoint, a view, a stance, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a world-view, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, or any other of the 101 ways of dismissing a direct report of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is. * RESPONDENT: All manner of crimes have been committed throughout history by people claiming to know the one true way. I don’t believe for a minute that what you have on offer would turn out the kind of drones that kill for their religion. RICHARD: Then why say it in the first place? Uh oh, I see why now ... look out folks, here comes the ‘but ...’ (and it is the despotic-dictator type of a ‘but’ too). RESPONDENT: I say it for the reason that it is very off-putting to hear you claim that you were the one and only. RICHARD: Why? Somebody – anybody – has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour ... why is this so difficult to comprehend? RESPONDENT: It sounds like aggrandised nonsense and seems very deluded. RICHARD: Why does it sound like aggrandised nonsense, and seem very deluded, to hear/read that somebody has finally enabled the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as a flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: Your whole heroic story sounds overblown. RICHARD: That would be because any journey through the human psyche is both fantastical and phantasmal: the human psyche is an illusory/ delusory/ hallucinatory metaphysical realm chock-full of chimerical will-o’-the-wisps and bizarre states of being ... and feeling/intuiting oneself to be god/ goddess, the timeless and spaceless and formless source of all time and all space and all form, is about as bizarre as ‘being’can get. RESPONDENT: It begs for a sceptical response which is a shame given your valuable material and methods. RICHARD: And just what ‘valuable material’ would that be? That I am this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto); that physical death is the end, finish; that I am not a god by whatever name as no such being/presence exists in actuality; that there is no timeless and spaceless and formless realm; that peace-on-earth is already always just here, at this place in infinite space, right now, at this moment in eternal time; that the pristine perfection of the peerless purity this actual world is ensures nothing dirty (no ‘being’ or ‘presence’) can get in; that the meaning of life lies open all around and has never been hidden, and that the way all this became apparent was by being attentive to how this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever actually alive) was being experienced, perchance? RESPONDENT: Many of us think of despots when we hear notions of ‘the one true way’ or in your case ‘the one true way so far’. RICHARD: As no other method has set any body free from the human condition just what makes you think of despots when I say it is the only method which has been effective thus far? RESPONDENT: The only differentiating barrier you have between yourself and other people who have found what you have found, is a very thin one crafted from language. RICHARD: What ‘other people’ are you referring to? If the one example you offered up is anything to go by then none of them have found what I have found. RESPONDENT: This is why you get very picky with your terminology. RICHARD: No, that is why clarity in communication is essential. RESPONDENT: Take away the strict and narrow definitions and your claims of uniqueness (or uniqueness so far!) evaporate. RICHARD: Yet can you take away what you describe as ‘the strict and narrow definitions’ without being silly? For just one example: I report being this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto) ... what is left if you take that away? * RESPONDENT: But I do believe that freedom seeking ideologies such as yours that attempt negate other modes of freedom seeking are fascist in nature and doomed to starve from a lack of input from the wider ecology of ideas and modes of perception. RICHARD: Ha ... so the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – being as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible (virtually free from malice and sorrow) whilst still being a ‘self’ – which is a path marked by the sheer delight at the enjoyment and appreciation engendered by being here on this verdant and azure planet is a ‘fascist’ ideology in your eyes because it negates everything which is not actual, eh? Perhaps, upon sober reflection, you may care to re-examine your belief? RESPONDENT: Examination is happening and always sober! RICHARD: Okay ... and what did you come up with upon re-examining your belief with an always sober examination? Is it still a ‘fascist’ ideology to negate everything which is not actual? Or is it a sensible, practical, down-to-earth, and intelligent course of action?
RESPONDENT: Examination is happening and always sober! RICHARD: Okay ... and what did you come up with upon re-examining your belief with an always sober examination? Is it still a ‘fascist’ ideology to negate everything which is not actual? Or is it a sensible, practical, down-to-earth, and intelligent course of action? RESPONDENT: I have found that I am one part fascist gatekeeper who decides what’s useful and what’s not on my individual journey and one part accepting hippie capable of embracing a wider ecology of perspectives and ideas. RICHARD: Hmm ... wider than what? As an actual freedom from the human condition is neither an idea nor a perspective As for your ‘individual journey’ ... unless you are planning on being a hermit on some remote planet in some faraway star-system, whilst you pursue your [quote] ‘freedom seeking’ [endquote] in the abstract realm of ideas and perspectives, it is inevitable (as you cannot help but be involuntarily putting out affective vibes and psychic currents by your very presence or being) that you will affect your fellow human beings with any of the varieties of malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, on many an occasion when you are feeling angry, or sad (and thus antidotally affectionate, or sympathetic), and so on, and so on, through the whole suite of affective feelings that you inextricably are at root. Given that as long as you remain an affective/ psychic identity within the body this will instinctively continue to happen why the reluctance to be happy and harmless instead (instead of adding yet more animosity/ amorosity and sorrow/ succour into the mix that humanity rides on and is run by)? Do you not like your fellow human beings? RESPONDENT: I can take what you have generously given and not feel obliged to buy into your unverifiable (i.e. by anyone but Richard) and inflated claims of uniqueness. RICHARD: Ahh ... this is the way I usually put it (just substitute the phrase ‘buy into my discovery’ for the words ‘believe me’ and it will all fall into place):
As it is the PCE which verifies what I have discovered I will re-present, from my previous e-mail, just what those ... um ... unique claims are comprised of (the way an actual freedom from the human condition differs from the ‘Tried and Failed’ solutions to all the ills of humankind) for your always sober examination. Viz.:
You may recall my observation in a prior e-mail that, due to the rapid expansion of the information age, it is simply not necessary to do a (physically impossible anyway) door-to-door survey of every man, woman and child currently alive and thus be motivated to access the following URL: www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Ratings.htm There you will find that Mr. Deva Sarlo, and his fellow collectors, have done your leg-work for you and have collected together a list of over 1250 people offering solutions to the human condition which you can peruse at your leisure and see for yourself whether an actual freedom from the human condition is indeed entirely new to human experience or not ... and here are a couple more URL’s where you can cross-check the information provided: www.nonduality.com/morea.htm Either that or cease claiming that what I have discovered is an [quote] ‘inflated’ [endquote] report of being entirely new to human experience and thus begin to contribute something of substance to this discussion list. ‘Tis high time for the ‘fascist gatekeeper’ either put up or shut up, eh?
RICHARD: ... hundreds of people have been poking away at what is on offer, especially since coming onto the internet, trying to find the flaws they are convinced must be there – which is one of the reasons why all correspondence is archived – and this only goes to show how badly people have been sucked in for millennia by the many and varied snake-oil salespersons. I am not at all surprised that people be suspicious. RESPONDENT: Richard, this is well said. It’s why I am unsatisfied with your claims of being historically unique in being actually free from the human condition. RICHARD: First and foremost: somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour ... is there any particular reason you prefer it to be somebody other than the person you are currently conversing with (and, perhaps, of some other gender, race, age, or era) that was the first to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth and thus make apparent the actual meaning of life? Second, I provided a description of how I know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience – and an extraordinary way of knowing at that (in accord with what you asked for) – yet, after dismissing the way I know as believing that I know, you reverted to the ordinary way of knowing to make your case that I cannot know as I had already affirmed it cannot be known the ordinary way of knowing. Third, I made it quite clear that I am not in the business of proving to you (or anyone else for that matter) that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience ... that I am simply providing a report of how I know it is and what another does with my report is their business. Fourth, when you said my extraordinary way of knowing was an inflated way of knowing (as a follow-up to previously saying it was ‘aggrandised nonsense’ which was ‘very deluded’ and ‘overblown’), I suggested two ways of finding out for yourself what is ‘inflated’ and ‘aggrandised nonsense’ which is ‘very deluded’ and ‘overblown’ and what is not – experientially in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and by accessing a list of over 1250 people and reading their descriptions of what they know – which you took to mean I was saying that it could be known definitively, by either way of finding out for yourself, that I was indeed the first to become actually free from the human condition ... when what I was saying was those ways of finding out for yourself would not only show it was not an inflated (‘aggrandised nonsense’ which was ‘very deluded’ and ‘overblown’) way of knowing but also show that what was discovered is, in fact, entirely different to what all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have been touting as the answer to all the ills of humankind (and thus, by default, entirely new to human history as an ongoing experiencing). Fifth, it was your claim that my extraordinary way of knowing was inflated (as in ‘aggrandised nonsense’ which is ‘very deluded’ and ‘overblown’) which I said needed to be either substantiated – rather than just capriciously stated – or ceased being made in the first place ... and not that you were to demonstrate I cannot know. Sixth, given that you dismiss the extraordinary way of knowing as believing that I know it may be pertinent to point out that I am well aware of the proposition made by Mr. Karl Popper that, logically, nothing can ever be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen) yet to have to personally verify every single person, thing or event in order to satisfy the demands of such a logical conclusion only serves to show the limiting strait-jacket that such an abstract logic is as it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands of such theoretical thinking (an academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in practice’). Seventh, in practice then, if the extraordinary way of knowing is held to be believing that something be known, any (apparently) previously unknown discovery is a new discovery by default until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise. Which is why I keep on asking the simple question where the person/persons already actually free from the human condition prior to 1992 is/are to be found. If somebody – anybody at all – could provide names and addresses or book titles or web site addresses or refer me to the relevant magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever I would be most pleased ... as I could compare notes, as it were, and thus advance human knowledge. Thus far, especially since coming onto the internet, nobody has been able to produce such a person or persons. Last, but not least, the following exchange may be of assistance as the question is particularly perspicacious:
RESPONDENT: That said, I’m finding your site useful and insightful. RICHARD: Good ... all I ever wanted, all those years ago when I scoured the books to no avail, was for the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition, and a virtual freedom in practice, to exist in the world. Now they do – they have taken on a life of their own and will continue to exist after my demise – and I am well-pleased. I did not want anybody to have to repeat what I went through. RESPONDENT: I’m grateful for the content and the attractive interface as well. RICHARD: The way the web site is set-up and maintained, other than my portion of it, is all Vineeto’s doing and the content of the web pages which do not have my name in the URL is either by Peter or Vineeto (unless otherwise referenced) – the entire library, for instance, or the introduction to actual freedom, for another, is not of my doing at all – and I do not vet anything that either Vineeto or Peter publish on the web site ... meaning that I do not decide, as you put it in another e-mail, what is of value and what is not (when I say there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation I mean it) as in a PCE actuality speaks for itself. It is all so simple here.
RESPONDENT: ... I am unsatisfied with your claims of being historically unique in being actually free from the human condition. RICHARD: First and foremost: somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour ... is there any particular reason you prefer it to be somebody other than the person you are currently conversing with (and, perhaps, of some other gender, race, age, or era) that was the first to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth and thus make apparent the actual meaning of life? RESPONDENT: I have nothing against to you being the discoverer. I just believe that it’s unlikely. It’s rare but not totally unique. RICHARD: I read through your response three times ... this is what stands out as the main stumbling block:
‘Tis no wonder this is such an issue for you ... you were under the impression that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan was the first to
enable the already always existing peace-on-earth
RESPONDENT: Here are some quotes from a book ‘Living Zen’ by Robert Linssen published in 1958 Grove Press. (snip quotes). RICHARD: This is what Mr. Robert Linssen has to say about the essence of Zen thought:
Altogether the search engine found 37 instances of the word ‘Divine’ ... here is but one other example:
As to what their ‘true nature’ is (also referred to as ‘profound being’ and ‘profound nature’) he has this to say:
And what is ‘the Reality’ (‘the Real’) that is the profound nature of his being? Viz.:
So, just what is ‘Love-Intelligence’? The phrase ‘Love-Intelligence’ returned 21 hits. For an example:
And the word ‘Love’ returned 48 hits ... for example:
Here is how to become this Love (a state of being no longer distinct from Intelligence):
And this ‘presence’ goes by many names:
The phrase ‘Cosmic Mind’ returned 43 hits ... for example:
And the phrase ‘Body of Buddha’ returned 22 hits ... for example:
The phrase ‘Zen Unconscious’ returned 20 hits ... for example:
And this ‘Totality-that-is-One’, outside of which absolutely nothing is, is none other than the ‘Divine’:
Another phrase for the Divine, outside of which nothing else exists, is the phrase ‘Universal Mind’. It returned 28 hits:
Lastly, and just as a matter of interest, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti returned 38 hits:
RESPONDENT: It makes for interesting reading in conjunction with the Actual Freedom website. There seems to be a remarkable similarity in concepts. RICHARD: You have to be joking, surely. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: I notice that a recruiting drive for a mystico-spiritual mailing list is currently occurring ... perhaps that is an option worth considering?
CORRESPONDENT No. 56 (Part Two) 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 |
