|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 19
RESPONDENT: There are many scientific discoveries yet to be made to reduce the erroneous conclusion of any who to purport to have discovered that they know what is after the death of the flesh and blood body. RICHARD: Are you saying that a person who says they know something are not being open (the specific example you provide is in regards to what happens for a person after physical death) and that one is to wait for scientists to conclusively prove it one way or the other? RESPONDENT: I am saying that scientist may yet prove that there are all sorts of actual paranormal happenings and events that have not yet been discovered. You, however, claim out front, there is nothing other than the ‘material’, as the human being is able to know it. I say there is no limit to what is to be discovered ... you set your own limits. RICHARD: You say ‘may yet prove that there are’ and go on to say that I set my own limits ... do you also allow (which is an equal part of ‘being open’) that science ‘may yet prove that there are not’? If so, and if it is indeed proved that there are not ... will you then be similarly saying that science sets its own limits? I only ask because science is all about finding out and discovering that which is in accord with the fact ... which would mean that you are saying that the fact sets its own limits. Speaking personally, I am entirely happy living in accord with the fact ... and the fact is not limiting at all. * RESPONDENT: Only those who take the stance that ‘they know’ are not [Richard] ‘‘being open’ (as in the ‘unlimited possibility of anything being possible’) ... inasmuch as one will be embracing each situation that life provides by emotionally welcoming, readily consenting to, receiving fully and unabashedly acknowledging every circumstance so as to find out, once and for all, just what is going on ... and to discover what intelligence actually is’ [endquote]. RICHARD: But I did ‘find out, once and for all, just what is going on’ and I did ‘discover what intelligence actually is’ ... yet you seem to be telling me that I should not have found out, that I should not have discovered. Does this not seem strange ... it is as if you are advocating never, ever knowing (unless, presumably, that one be a scientist)? RESPONDENT: Yes, that is what I am saying in the matter of what is life; what it is composed of (not just life here on Earth); consciousness; awareness; the power; the truth. RICHARD: Just to be sure I will double-check what you are saying ‘yes’ to: are you saying ‘yes’ to never, ever knowing, unless one be a scientist, what life is composed of (not just life here on earth) but in the area of consciousness, awareness, power and truth? RESPONDENT: What is to be discovered is not yet known. If you discover ‘once and for all’, then it’s over. That is your limit. RICHARD: I will run this past you once again: you say ‘what is to be discovered is not yet known’ ... will you acknowledge that once it is ‘discovered’ it is now ‘known’? RESPONDENT: You, yourself, say that you are this unending, infinite universe, and as such, how can that ever be over and done with? RICHARD: But I never said that this flesh and blood body as the universe is ever over and done with (it is perpetual) ... I specifically said ‘to find out, once and for all, just what is going on ... and to discover what intelligence actually is’. * RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it simply: 1. Are you open to Santa Claus ... RESPONDENT: Snip stupid questions. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... the questions about either being open to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny or knowing that they be a fable or a myth are not ‘stupid questions’ at all. Perhaps if I were to explain it this way: as a toddler I believed that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny truly existed; as a child I disbelieved that they existed ... and as an adult I know that they do not exist (outside of imagination). What do you find ‘stupid’ about this? * RICHARD: Furthermore ... would you say to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (if he were alive today) that he should be open to ‘The Masters’ of Theosophical Society? RESPONDENT: I am saying be open to what is not yet. You say you ‘have’ discovered. You ‘have’ this; you ‘have’ that ... as though what you have discovered is permanent. The only thing that is permanent is belief. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti discovered certain things about ‘The Masters’ of Theosophical Society: are you saying that what he discovered is not permanent ... and that the only thing permanent was his belief ? * RESPONDENT: To me, it is intelligent to not rule out accepting the possibility of knowing that which has not yet been discovered, and that is the point I was making. RICHARD: This does not make sense: you talk about ‘the possibility of knowing that which has not yet been discovered’ yet the moment it is known you say that the person that discovered it is not ‘being open’. RESPONDENT: Yes. The moment it is discovered and made into an ‘ism’, there is not much possibility of openness. The possibility of knowing (discovery) is killed by already knowing. RICHARD: I am rapidly being left with no alternative but to see that you are indeed advocating never, ever discovering anything ... and all because you say that to discover is to end the possibility of discovering. May I ask? Why do you prefer the potential over the actual? * RESPONDENT: That which is adhered to by the means of experiencing leaves little room for the new to be accepted (emotionally or factually). Viz.: [Richard]: ‘... that is the very point I was making (drawn from experience and not merely theorising)’. [endquote]. RICHARD: Again this makes no sense: someone experiences something new to human experience ... yet you say that this new discovery leaves little room for ‘the new to be accepted’. RESPONDENT: That is correct – if you are holding on to what you have already discovered. RICHARD: I am not ‘holding on’ to what I have discovered ... if for no other reason than I do not have to (it exists as a fact of its own accord). To live with the fact is to be free. * RESPONDENT: In no way am I considering to burn you at the stake for new and revolutionary discoveries. I would more than likely banish you for your own [quote] ‘struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement ... even those conditions which enslave them’ [endquote]. RICHARD: But I am in no way enslaved (I am freed of any enslavement) ... and that which was detrimental to advancement is gone forever. RESPONDENT: You appear to be enslaved by some state of being to which you have given the name, ‘actual freedom’. RICHARD: In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being actually free of the human condition? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being rid of the ‘I’, the ‘me’? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being no longer capable of anger or anguish ever again? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by living in the already always existing peace-on-earth? RESPONDENT: Do you smoke? Someone on the list asked you that question. RICHARD: And I answered in full ... here: * RESPONDENT: The ‘cognitive dissonance theory’ seems to be a pretty good description of your current belief that you are the ‘only one’ to have the complete knowledge of ‘what is, what was, and what will be’. RICHARD: ‘Tis not a ‘belief’ ... I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples ... so as to compare notes, as it were. RESPONDENT: How can you be free of the ‘human condition’ and at the same time be nothing but a ‘flesh and bones body’? RICHARD: Put simply: it is not the flesh and blood body which is the problem ... it is the entity (the ‘I’, the ‘me’) parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body who is the problem. RESPONDENT: Perhaps, what you discovered was a dissociation with ‘thou are that’ and called it ‘actual freedom’. RICHARD: ‘Tis the other way around: to be ‘That’ is to be dissociated ... dissociated from the veritable paradise this verdant and azure planet simply floating in endless space and time actually is. RESPONDENT: You may have some sort of ‘actual freedom’, but more than likely, it is a contrived freedom and not a ‘total freedom’. RICHARD: How can living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day be construed as being a ‘contrived’ freedom?
RESPONDENT: In no way am I considering to burn you at the stake for new and revolutionary discoveries. I would more than likely banish you for your own [quote] ‘struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement ... even those conditions which enslave them’ [endquote]. RICHARD: But I am in no way enslaved (I am freed of any enslavement) ... and that which was detrimental to advancement is gone forever. RESPONDENT: You appear to be enslaved by some state of being to which you have given the name, ‘actual freedom’. RICHARD: In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being actually free of the human condition? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being rid of the ‘I’, the ‘me’? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being no longer capable of anger or anguish ever again? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by living in the already always existing peace-on-earth? RESPONDENT: Do you smoke? Someone on the list asked you that question. RICHARD: And I answered in full ... here: RESPONDENT: I asked if you smoked. No where in this reply do I see where you made the statement that you do indeed smoke. RICHARD: As there are at least two references that leave no doubt as to the assenting nature of my reply I do wonder, at times like this, just what qualifications a simple country girl from Arkansas has to have to be an English Teacher ... in fact the entire post is in the affirmative (which includes not denying the question). Viz.:
And:
Howsoever, I am only too happy to spell it out unambiguously for you ... yes I do smoke tobacco. RESPONDENT: If you do smoke, do you inhale? RICHARD: Ha ... I have no plans to run for the presidency.
RESPONDENT: You may have some sort of ‘actual freedom’, but more than likely, it is a contrived freedom and not a ‘total freedom’. RICHARD: How can living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day be construed as being a ‘contrived’ freedom? RESPONDENT: I’m not a psychiatrist. Why don’t you ask yours? RICHARD: As it was you who said ‘more than likely’ (thereby insinuating that you know something I do not) I am asking you why it is not ... specifically why is it ‘more than likely’ that living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day is ‘a contrived freedom’ and not ‘a ‘total freedom’. And what would constitute a ‘total freedom’ anyway (according to you)?
RESPONDENT No. 10: ... it is given I delete most of the messages not addressed to me, they are mostly full of comparison and theory, at times I skim the rhetoric and find a Jewel, however for the most part it is repetition of age old thought. RICHARD: Okay ... and just where in what I write is this ‘repetition of age old thought’ to be found (given that you said ‘No Richard’ to my conjecture regarding your cavalier way of reading/responding)? RESPONDENT No. 10: The Transformation of our old will not come from discussion about our world, it will only come from the death of us. RICHARD: I am well aware of what you speak (a transformation of the old in lieu of the extinction of the old) ... plus we have had an extensive correspondence over the past three years, you and I, on this very subject. Speaking of which ... may I ask something pertinent? Do you ever actually read what I write? RESPONDENT No. 10: P.S.: I snipped below given you have it recorded, no need to repost it. RICHARD: Okay, I only posted it for your refreshment anyway ... I already know what you have written. What I am currently interested in is to see how much ‘repetition of age old thought’ you have found thus far in my writings. RESPONDENT: For one, I have found about 10,000+ repetitious words over a span of about four years. RICHARD: May I ask? Does ‘a span of about four years’ constitute ‘age old’ where you hail from? RESPONDENT: It is getting very old. RICHARD: I cannot see how ‘a span of about four years’ can be construed as being old ... let alone ‘very old’. RESPONDENT: Three thousand years into the future, your thought won’t be any older than it is today. RICHARD: Not so ... going by the scale of averages, by the year 2030 this flesh and blood body could very well be dead ... and so will its thought. However, there is a good chance that the accurate and articulate report of my on-going experience I have provided for my fellow human beings will continue to exist in both the pixel and the printed form for some time. RESPONDENT: I can’t see that your stock philosophy of ‘actual freedom’ is doing anymore for the world than all of the sages, avatars, seers, etc. that you say are such dismal failures. RICHARD: Presumably you cannot ‘see’ what it does because what you see is a ‘philosophy’ – in lieu of daring to experience the actual – and a ‘stock’ philosophy at that. A philosophy does nothing for the world. * RICHARD: ‘Tis fascinating to watch a ‘Transformation’ in action amongst its peers. RESPONDENT: Do you think the secret to success is to know something that nobody else knows? RICHARD: I do not need to ‘think’ what the secret to success is because I know what it is: daring to care about both oneself and one’s fellow human beings simultaneously ... and thus caring to dare. To dare to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth is the secret to success. RESPONDENT: Is that how you are gauging your success? RICHARD: No ... that is how you are gauging it. My whole reason for going public was so that I do not keep it for myself but, instead, share my experience with my fellow human beings. No matter how acerbic the response be at times.
RICHARD: And all this while every body is already walking around in this ambrosial paradise ... it is the direct and/or on-going experiencing of such consummate purity that perhaps 6.0 billion peoples miss out on. RESPONDENT: Oh, yes, Richard, by all means brag some more about what you have accomplished whilst the rest of the suffering masses are missing out on this already ambrosial paradise. RICHARD: If you see it as bragging then that is how you see it ... and I would guess that nothing I could say will alter that. RESPONDENT: Oh, I know – you are just stating a fact – stating it over and over again, and we are getting the message: you are totally wrapped up in Richard ... RICHARD: I have no idea where you are getting that message from. RESPONDENT: ... and what he has discovered and in Richard’s success at what no other man has ever accomplished. RICHARD: Every person who discovers something new has, per definition, succeeded at what no other person has accomplished ... why is this problematic for you? RESPONDENT: You have nothing to offer anybody. RICHARD: Then why keep on writing to me? RESPONDENT: Haven’t you ever noticed that? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: You are either totally demented or smoking something besides nicotine – or maybe both. RICHARD: If you had read all of my response to the smoking question
RESPONDENT: By the way, nicotine addiction is the foremost drug addiction in the world. RICHARD: I have read reports that it can be as difficult an addiction for some people to break free of as, for example, heroin (I have no personal experience of heroin so I can only go by other people’s reports). I experienced no difficulty whatsoever the last time I ceased smoking ... I simply desisted. RESPONDENT: The craving for nicotine enslaves it victims for yet another and another and another hit. RICHARD: One of the benefits of an actual freedom from the human condition is that one is free from enslavement ... thus religio/spiritual ‘no-no’s (such as smoking tobacco, eating meat or dairy products, drinking tea/coffee, being sexually active, using physical force/restraint where applicable, living in comfort and/or luxury and so on) do not apply. If you apply the religio/spiritual yardstick you will, of course, find all manner of things to point the finger at. In the interests of having a someway reasonable discussion I would like to point out that I live in suburban comfort ... why then do you not see me as enslaved to social security, electricity, mail deliveries, garbage disposal, hot and cold running water, sewerage, refrigeration, television, washing machine, soft bedding, supermarkets, medicines, police protection, planes, trains, buses and taxis, paved roads and so on and so on (almost ad infinitum)? Is it because your particular trip is about meat, sex and tobacco? RESPONDENT: You call that ‘actual freedom’, much less an ‘ambrosial paradise,’ or even better yet, ‘pure?’ RICHARD: No ... it is you who has applied the description ‘enslaves’ (and in a previous post ‘enslavement’) and not me. My answer now is the same as before. Viz.:
This may be an apt place to remind you that I lived for five years in what I call my ‘puritan period’: I whittled all my worldly possessions down to three sarongs, three shirts, a cooking pot and bowl, a knife and a spoon, a bank book and a pair of nail scissors ... I was homeless, itinerant, celibate, vegan, (no spices; not even salt and pepper), no drugs (no tobacco, no alcohol; not even tea or coffee), no hair cut, no shaving, no washing other than a dip in a river or the ocean. I possessed nothing else anywhere in the world and had cut all family ties ... whatever could be eliminated from my life that was an encumbrance and an attachment, I had let go of. In other words: whatever was traditionally seen as an impediment to freedom I discarded. Towards the end of that period I lived in total isolation and silence for approximately three months on uninhabited tropical islands off the north-eastern Australian seaboard ... paddling from island to island in a canoe. You are way out of your depth when it comes to the subject of enslavement, addictions and attachments.
RESPONDENT: No where in this reply do I see where you made the statement that you do indeed smoke. RICHARD: As there are at least two references that leave no doubt as to the assenting nature of my reply I do wonder, at times, just what qualifications a simple country girl from Arkansas has to have to be an English Teacher ... in fact the entire post is in the affirmative (which includes the question). RESPONDENT: No. 39 never asked you a direct question of whether you smoked or not, and I do not assume a statement to a question never asked to be interpreted 100% correctly. Qualifications for teaching include spelling out the facts in black and white by means of a direct statement of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a question. RICHARD: Oh? This is how it works in practice when the answer is in the negative:
Instead of which I provided a four-paragraph detailed response ... which included at least two references in the affirmative. Viz.:
And:
RESPONDENT: Now, as Richard, who claims to be an intelligent, actually free, happy and harmless blood and bones body has not unequivocally given a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ until now, I found a contradiction of terms in the statements ‘happy and harmless’ and ‘Yes, I do smoke.’ RICHARD: Okay ... this appears to be more truthful than your (further above) explanation: you have prejudged freedom vis-à-vis smoking tobacco therefore you cannot see that a four-paragraph considered response is in the affirmative (rather than a ‘as I do not smoke your question is a non-sequitur’ reply). It has nothing to do with being qualified to be an English Teacher at all ... your prejudice blinds you to the obvious. RESPONDENT: I, for one, cannot see that an intelligent human being would smoke; especially one who claims to be free. RICHARD: Exactly ... which goes someway towards explaining why you snipped the latter half of my detailed response off. RESPONDENT: I just wanted to be 100% certain about the issue. RICHARD: Hmm ... was that so that you could make your prejudgements about tobacco smoking (and meat-eating) with surety in this and other e-mails? Viz.:
And:
And:
And:
And I would guess that not one of my extensive responses has even begun to penetrate, eh?
RESPONDENT: You may have some sort of ‘actual freedom’, but more than likely, it is a contrived freedom and not a ‘total freedom’. RICHARD: How can living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day be construed as being a ‘contrived’ freedom? RESPONDENT: I’m not a psychiatrist. Why don’t you ask yours? RICHARD: As it was you who said ‘more than likely’ (thereby insinuating that you know something I do not) I am asking you why it is not ... specifically: why is it ‘more than likely’ that living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day is ‘a contrived freedom’ and not ‘a ‘total freedom’. RESPONDENT: Perhaps, that is something you should check into. RICHARD: No way ... many, many peoples say all kinds of things about me and I would have a full-time job if I did what you are suggesting. A person needs to demonstrate and substantiate their statement before I will consider it. * RICHARD: And what would constitute a ‘total freedom’ (according to you) anyway? RESPONDENT: Being without any defences ... (fences as ‘isms’, even ‘organ-isms’). RICHARD: The use of -ism The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. My memory of the dictionary definition was obviously somewhat hazy as I see from my records that I first re-formulated it thus:
Some years later someone told me they had heard about a ‘Philosophy of Actualism’. The ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ CD reports:
I could not disagree more (he also has a philosophy called ‘Actual Idealism’) ... also, there is a Web Page in the US of A titled ‘Actualism’ which I found via a search engine. But it is religious and spiritual ... which I find strange as the word ‘actual’ commonly means ‘existing in act or fact; practical; in action or existence at the time; present, current and not merely potential or possible’ and usually means being objectively accessible sensately or sensuously. I am yet to find the origin of the dictionary’s definition.
RESPONDENT: The craving for nicotine enslaves it victims for yet another and another and another hit. RICHARD: One of the benefits of an actual freedom from the human condition is that one is free from enslavement ... thus religio/spiritual ‘no-no’s (such as smoking tobacco, eating meat or dairy products, drinking tea/coffee, being sexually active, using physical force/restraint where applicable, living in comfort and/or luxury and so on) do not apply. If you apply the religio/spiritual yardstick you will, of course, find all manner of things to point the finger at. In the interests of having a someway reasonable discussion I would like to point out that I live in suburban comfort ... why then do you not see me as enslaved to social security, electricity, hot and cold running water, sewerage, refrigeration, television, washing machine, supermarkets, medicines, police protection, paved roads and so on and so on (almost ad infinitum)? Is it because your particular trip is about meat, sex and tobacco? RESPONDENT: You call that ‘actual freedom’, much less an ‘ambrosial paradise,’ or even better yet, ‘pure?’ RICHARD: No ... it is you who has applied the description ‘enslaves’ (and in a previous post ‘enslavement’) and not me. My answer now is the same as before. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘In no way am I considering to burn you at the stake for new and revolutionary discoveries. I would more than likely banish you for your own [quote] ‘struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement ... even those conditions which enslave them’ [endquote]. [Richard]: ‘But I am in no way enslaved (I am freed of any enslavement) ... and that which was detrimental to advancement is gone forever. RESPONDENT: Oh? Toxic cigarette smoke is an enhancement to a happy and harmless body? RICHARD: If you had actually read my response to the smoking question you would have the answer to your speculation about the ‘enhancement to a happy and harmless body’ already ... plus some discussion about the extent of toxicity. Have you noticed that the [quote] ‘struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement ... even those conditions which enslave them’ [endquote] came from a paragraph on the cognitive dissonance peoples display when it comes to exploring something new to human experience ... and specifically, in the instance being discussed, a way to end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides which epitomises the human condition? If so, do you further notice how you have adroitly deflected the discussion, on a Mailing List set-up to investigate such matters, into a routine discussion about tobacco smoking and meat eating instead (which deflection is but one form of cognitive dissonance in action)? Furthermore ... did you take any notice whatsoever of my paragraph (at the top of this page) on the value of the blanket application of the traditional religio/spiritual yardstick to something new to human experience (which application of the known onto the unknown is but another form of cognitive dissonance in action)? * RESPONDENT: You appear to be enslaved by some state of being to which you have given the name, ‘actual freedom’. RICHARD: In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being actually free of the human condition? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being rid of the ‘I’, the ‘me’? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being no longer capable of anger or anguish ever again? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by living in the already always existing peace-on-earth? RESPONDENT: As I stated before, ‘I don’t know’. I am not a psychiatrist, so I don’t know the term that they give to this ability. RICHARD: Aye ... and when I asked you for amplification, when you made that observation, you told me to look into it myself. Are you really saying that you can state any non-substantive thing that you like and there is to be no explanation? No examination? No validation? No investigation? No exploration? And you fondly think that this is then a discussion? A dialogue? An exploration into the appalling mess that is the human condition? Are you for real? * RICHARD: This may be an apt place to remind you that I lived for five years in what I call my ‘puritan period’: I whittled all my worldly possessions down to three sarongs, three shirts, a cooking pot and bowl, a knife and a spoon, a bank book and a pair of nail scissors ... I was homeless, itinerant, celibate, vegan, (no spices; not even salt and pepper), no drugs (no tobacco, no alcohol; not even tea or coffee), no hair cut, no shaving, no washing other than a dip in a river or the ocean. I possessed nothing else anywhere in the world and had cut all family ties ... whatever could be eliminated from my life that was an encumbrance and an attachment, I had let go of. In other words: whatever was traditionally seen as an impediment to freedom I discarded. Towards the end of that period I lived in total isolation and silence for approximately three months on uninhabited tropical islands off the north-eastern Australian seaboard ... paddling from island to island in a canoe. RESPONDENT: Ah, yes, I did the same thing – down to one small suitcase into which I could pack everything I owned, as attested in a ditty written in 1970: I gave up hope. I gave up dope. I gave up my believing. I gave up wine. I gave up time. I gave up cigarette smoking. I gave up meat. I gave up speech. I gave up incense burning. Next, I gave up music and began to listen in the search for understanding. Now, my mind is a seething pot. I am a living organism. (Interesting note: my ascetic period lasted three months, as well). RICHARD: And what is the end result of all your three-month giving-up in 1970 ... is there anything more to it than airing your prejudices about tobacco smoking and meat eating in public? Did you notice that I specifically said ‘whatever was traditionally seen as an impediment to freedom I discarded’? Are you at all interested in discussing the results of a five-year application of the traditional way to free oneself of enslavement, addictions and attachments? As I said ... you are way out of your depth when it comes to the subject of enslavement, addictions and attachments. * RICHARD: You are way out of your depth when it comes to the subject of enslavement, addictions and attachments. RESPONDENT: This physical organism rebels, not because of any belief, but because it has its own intelligence about what it will tolerate and what it will not. RICHARD: Whereas this flesh and blood body, having zero tolerance to alcohol, does not foist its particular allergy onto others as if it be a universal characteristic of freedom ... least of all dressing it up as being ‘its own intelligence’. RESPONDENT: Cigarette smoking is completely intolerable to a sensitive body, as is eating carrion. RICHARD: As the word ‘carrion’ (rotting or putrefying bodies) has a different meaning to the word
‘meat’ (the flesh of animals used as food, nourishment) are you interested in having a genuine discussion regarding
enslavement, addictions and attachments so as to uncover one of the benefits of an actual freedom from the human condition ... the
discovery of the intelligence which becomes apparent of its own accord upon freedom from prejudice (synonyms: prejudgement,
preconception, predetermination, preconceived idea, preconceived notion)?
RESPONDENT: You may have some sort of ‘actual freedom’, but more than likely, it is a contrived freedom and not a ‘total freedom’. RICHARD: How can living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day be construed as being a ‘contrived’ freedom? RESPONDENT: I’m not a psychiatrist. Why don’t you ask yours? RICHARD: As it was you who said ‘more than likely’ (thereby insinuating that you know something I do not) I am asking you why it is not ... specifically: why is it ‘more than likely’ that living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day is ‘a contrived freedom’ and not ‘a ‘total freedom’. RESPONDENT: Perhaps, that is something you should check into. RICHARD: No way ... many, many peoples say all kinds of things about me and I would have a full-time job if I did what you are suggesting. A person needs to demonstrate and substantiate their statement before I will consider it. RESPONDENT No. 21: I think No. 19 is right about this. (snip) RICHARD: ... maybe you could throw some light on how living in an ambrosial paradise twenty four hours of the day can be construed as being a contrived freedom? After all ... that is the subject under discussion. RESPONDENT: Richard, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post to No. 21 RICHARD: I am glad that you could see the absurdity ... it may be of interest to you to know that a couple of other people have made a similar type of observation regarding my posts to you ... especially the post you did not respond to (other than to snip off the last line so as to make your ‘more than likely’ comment at the very top of this page). But ... you might not be quite so able to see how ‘very funny’ it all is when it comes perambulating into your own backyard, eh? RESPONDENT: On to the gist of the matter, tho: I still do not know, Richard. I haven’t the faintest clue. RICHARD: Let me see if I can gain at least a glimmer of a notion as to how your mind works: you initially say that I ‘may’ have ‘some sort of’ actual freedom but that it is ‘more than likely’ that it is a ‘contrived freedom’ and not a ‘total freedom’ ... and when I ask for clarification as to how you could construe that living in an ambrosial paradise for twenty four hours of the day is a ‘contrived’ freedom you first tell me to ask a psychiatrist. When I point out that it is you who say it is ‘more than likely’ that it is a ‘contrived freedom’ (and not a psychiatrist who says that), thereby insinuating that you know something I do not, and again ask you why ... you promptly tell me that this is something I ‘should check into’. I demur, of course, because many, many peoples say all kinds of things about me and I would have a full-time job if I did what you suggest ... yet now you say you ‘still do not know’ how you could construe that living in an ambrosial paradise for twenty four hours of the day would be a ‘contrived’ freedom. You even add that you ‘haven’t the faintest clue’ how you could construe that living in an ambrosial paradise for twenty four hours of the day would be a ‘contrived’ freedom. You see, it all seems rather ludicrous ... so am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: Strange things happen to the human mind. RICHARD: If you are speaking generally I could provisionally agree – and if you are speaking of your own mind as evidenced in these posts I would unconditionally agree – but if you are speaking of the mind which is the brain in action in this flesh and blood body you will gain no such agreement from me. Nothing strange ever happens to this mind ... it is a freed mind. RESPONDENT: This ‘ambrosial paradise’ appears to be a ‘good’ strange thing, however. RICHARD: Speaking of ‘strange things’ ... does it not strike you as a strange thing that an accurate and articulate report from a fellow human being about being happy and harmless, about being freed from the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, about how delicious it is to be living on the ambrosial paradise that this verdant and azure planet is, could be met with so much scepticism and so many objections? Does this not bespeak volumes about the pertinency of the observation regarding cognitive dissonance (‘that peoples will invent reasons and struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement ... even those conditions which enslave them’)? For example: reasons and struggles such as deflecting the discussion away from exploring your (borrowed) ‘not knowing’ stance? And yet all this while the already always existing peace-on-earth is here for the living ... now.
RESPONDENT: You appear to be enslaved by some state of being to which you have given the name, ‘actual freedom’. RICHARD: In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being actually free of the human condition? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being rid of the ‘I’, the ‘me’? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by being no longer capable of anger or anguish ever again? In what way am I ‘enslaved’ by living in the already always existing peace-on-earth? RESPONDENT: As I stated before, ‘I don’t know’. I am not a psychiatrist, so I don’t know the term that they give to this ability. RICHARD: Aye ... and when I asked you for amplification, when you made that observation, you told me to look into it myself. Are you really saying that you can state any non-substantive thing that you like and there is to be no explanation? No examination? No validation? No investigation? No exploration? And you fondly think that this is then a discussion? A dialogue? An exploration into the appalling mess that is the human condition? Are you for real? RESPONDENT: I am for ‘real’. It is you who is not ‘real’. You have said as much yourself: There is no such thing as ‘reality’ here in this ‘actual world’. RICHARD: ‘Twas only an expression, a colloquialism (as in ‘are you genuinely exploring’). RESPONDENT: Furthermore, I have made my investigation, exploration, and if I merely explained what I have discovered, it would not be real for you, much less, ‘actual’. RICHARD: Okay ... here is what you ‘discovered’ (in the instance in question):
And (from a parallel post):
You say that if you ‘merely explained’ this (being ‘enslaved by some state of being’ and this ‘more than likely’ contrivance of mine that you have ‘discovered’) the explanation would not be real for me – much less actual – but that somehow a psychiatrist could make it real for me (maybe even actual) by giving me a term, a name, a label, for your discovery. Am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: You are responsible for your own examination, for that is the only thing you can learn from – not from my discoveries. RICHARD: No way ... many, many peoples say all kinds of things about me and I would have a full-time job if I did what you are suggesting. A person needs to demonstrate and substantiate their statement before I will consider it. * RICHARD: You are way out of your depth when it comes to the subject of enslavement, addictions and attachments. RESPONDENT: This physical organism rebels, not because of any belief, but because it has its own intelligence about what it will tolerate and what it will not. RICHARD: Whereas this flesh and blood body, having zero tolerance to alcohol, does not foist its particular allergy onto others as if it be a universal characteristic of freedom ... least of all dressing it up as being ‘its own intelligence’. RESPONDENT: Cigarette smoking is completely intolerable to a sensitive body, as is eating carrion. RICHARD: As the word ‘carrion’ (rotting or putrefying bodies) has a different meaning to the word ‘meat’ (the flesh of animals used as food, nourishment) are you interested in having a genuine discussion regarding enslavement, addictions and attachments so as to uncover one of the benefits of an actual freedom from the human condition ... the discovery of the intelligence which becomes apparent of its own accord upon freedom from prejudice (synonyms: prejudgement, preconception, predetermination, preconceived idea, preconceived notion)? Or is an authentic exploration into the appalling mess that is the human condition of no genuine concern to you? RESPONDENT: Is the world actually appalling, or is that just what I am projecting? RICHARD: The world that maybe 6.0 billion peoples live in – the ‘real world’ – is indeed ‘appalling’ ... whereas this actual world is an ambrosial paradise. RESPONDENT: Which dimension am I participating in? RICHARD: Apparently anywhere but this ambrosial paradise I call the actual world. RESPONDENT: Where there is love, there is no appalling mess. RICHARD: Hmm ... rose-coloured glasses provide no lasting solution. RESPONDENT: Love is a another dimension entirely. RICHARD: Not ‘entirely’, no ... a superimposed dimension. RESPONDENT: I have experienced the all those dastardly deeds that the human animal perpetrate on others of its kind. I have seen the violence; I have been the violence; I have been the victim of violence. That is all the of the dimension which is sorrow and malice – all those qualities you use to describe the human condition. I walked through the human condition of hell, and I came out the other side. As K said, perhaps if only as eight or ten people on the face of the earth really knew how to love, the force of that actual condition would affect a change of course for the human race. Where there is love there is no malice, no rape, no child abuse, no spousal abuse – none of that ‘appalling mess’. It doesn’t exist. RICHARD: Yet, as many of the various sages, saints and seers display anger and anguish from time to time – usually designated as ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sadness’ – it puts lie to your dream-statement ‘it doesn’t exist’. RESPONDENT: You, yourself, describe your being as living in an ‘ambrosial paradise’, actually free of the condition of violence. If that is so, then that is all that you can do. RICHARD: Not so ... I can go public with my discovery of the already always existing peace-on-earth: I can write books, I can organise and maintain a web page, I can write to mailing lists set up to discuss these matters ... I can do all manner of things so as to facilitate and enable an eventual end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides which epitomise the human condition. RESPONDENT: You can only live as you live, caring, free of violence, and learning. RICHARD: Ahh ... ‘learning’ is over when one is already actually free of the human condition. RESPONDENT: Furthermore, I am not judging smoking, drinking, or eating meat, etc. RICHARD: Humph ... only as an ideal. RESPONDENT: I just know for a fact what cigarettes to do the human organism. I know how they make one feel. We all have a common body. RICHARD: As there is no pernicious identity inside this body – replete with malice and sorrow and the antidotal love and compassion – pumping its chemicals through the blood stream I look askance at your assumption that we ‘have a common body’. RESPONDENT: I know the chemicals added to the blood stream do cause many harmful effects. That is not a prejudice. RICHARD: How on earth can you know (‘I just know for a fact’) what nicotine does when ‘added to the blood stream’ of a flesh and blood body sans pernicious identity – an entity replete with malice and sorrow and the antidotal love and compassion – pumping its chemicals through the blood stream? RESPONDENT: The same with alcohol. RICHARD: Au contraire ... this flesh and blood body has zero tolerance to alcohol. So much for your assumption (‘I just know for a fact’) that we ‘have a common body’, eh? RESPONDENT: And, I used the word ‘carrion’ specifically for the meat consumed for food because the bacterial decomposition of an animal begins immediately upon its death – other words, it begins to rot. Those are not prejudices. They are facts. RICHARD: As it is a fact that all living organisms begin to decay, to rot, upon their death (which includes all fruit and vegetables) your fact becomes a prejudice when you choose vegetarianism over omnivorism on this account. The word ‘carrion’ refers to meat that is past being suitable for human consumption ... to the point of containing those bacteria injurious to humans (but not to animals such as vultures or hyenas and so on). I am sure you would not eat a carrot or a zucchini, for example, once it reaches the point of decay equivalent to when meat becomes carrion ... have you never had to toss out vegetables because they are ‘too far gone’ to be edible? Furthermore ... do you eat bread once it has turned blue or blue-green with fungus? I could go on ... but that will suffice for now. RESPONDENT: The organism can be desensitised to just about anything. RICHARD: No ... not to ptomaine poisoning or e-coli bacteria, for instance. RESPONDENT: You eat meat; you are responsible for of the practice of animal mistreatment and ecosystem destruction. RICHARD: More prejudices (synonyms: prejudgement, preconception, predetermination, preconceived idea, preconceived notion) ... what about you being responsible for the practice of vegetable ‘mistreatment and ecosystem destruction’? Just because a carrot does not scream audibly when it is pulled from the ground (its source of nourishment) does not mean it is not being mistreated ... and any kind of gardening is ecosystem destruction at some level. In a similar manner to what I said in another post (which you found very funny) ... just about everything short of wandering naked through the forests hunting and gathering can be construed as ‘mistreatment and ecosystem destruction’. You have merely set an arbitrary level to suit your particular brand of prejudice ... and then chastise others from your supposed high moral ground (all the whilst saying ‘I am not judging’). I was a fruitarian for a short while in my five years application of the traditional ways of being free of enslavements, addictions and attachments ... and fruitarianism is a higher moral stance than the one you have taken. Even so ... it is shot-full of inconsistencies and hypocrisies too. RESPONDENT: I’m not saying that is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. RICHARD: Uh oh ... having delivered the sermon (prefaced with ‘I am not judging’) now come the platitudes. RESPONDENT: I am just saying that is the way it is. RICHARD: You may have gathered by now, if you have read my responses, that you are not ‘saying that is the way it is’ at all, eh? RESPONDENT: You concern yourself only with the physical dimension, and that is fine with me if that is all that you know and care to know. RICHARD: More platitudes ... coupled with amazing inaccuracy. I know the metaphysical dimension intimately having lived in it, night and day, for eleven years. RESPONDENT: I wish you well. RICHARD: Why? I am already always ‘well’. RESPONDENT: If only you could love, you would be changing the ‘appalling mess that is the human condition’. RICHARD: Yet night and day, for eleven years, there was only love (and compassion) ... you are not speaking to some mere tyro here. RESPONDENT: Love transforms all things. RICHARD: Aye ... ‘transforms’ is the key-word: but as it does not eliminate ‘all things’ therein lies the rub. RESPONDENT: I’m not suggesting that you can love, for it is as No. 12 said in some other post on here, love just comes out of nowhere, and ‘zap’ there it is. RICHARD: Are you referring to the post wherein I described to him how love (and its compassion) came unannounced and uninvited ... and stayed for for eleven years? RESPONDENT: Nothing there is the same as it is here in this actual world you speak of. RICHARD: No fantasy could ever be the same as this actual world ... actuality is magnificent beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and schemes. RESPONDENT: I would venture to say that love is the natural condition – not of the human being – but of the ‘force’. RICHARD: Never a truer word spoken in jest. RESPONDENT: P.S. Take this apart or put it back together any way you wish. RICHARD: No ... I did as I always do (respond honestly and thoroughly point-by-point). RESPONDENT: You try to cover too much ground in one post, for me. RICHARD: The only ground I have been covering in this post is meeting the prejudices regarding tobacco smoking and meat eating that you introduced in lieu of discussing that which is emotionally unacceptable (the intelligence which becomes apparent when one emotionally accepts that which is intellectually unacceptable). RESPONDENT: You topics are too long ... RICHARD: If I may point out? The tobacco smoking and meat eating topics are your topics ... I was talking of emotionally accepting that which is intellectually unacceptable (so as to have one’s native intelligence become apparent) and you raised all manner of red-herrings when you seized on the ‘cognitive dissonance’ paragraph I posted and sought to deflect the discussion away from exploring something new to human experience (where you raised a furphy about me smoking tobacco in lieu of discussing your ‘not knowing’ stance à la Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s tried and failed method). I even endeavoured to have you come back to the point under discussion in the part of this post you have snipped off. Viz.:
Incidentally, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti produced millions upon millions of words ... yet you find my posts ‘far too long’? RESPONDENT: ... and I merely peruse a post and put some things together, just FYI. RICHARD: As ‘FYI’ is the acronym for ‘for your information’ this makes lie of your avowal (further above) ‘I have made my investigation, exploration, and if I merely explained what I have discovered, it would not be real for you, much less, ‘actual’. You are responsible for your own examination, for that is the only thing you can learn from – not from my discoveries’. In other words: there is indeed to be no explanation, no examination, no validation, no investigation, no exploration into the appalling mess that is the human condition ... just a supposedly not knowing Respondent merely perusing my posts and putting some things together for my information. Well, well, well ... is this not indeed strange behaviour for one who initially said ‘I do not know’?
RESPONDENT: Strange things happen to the human mind. RICHARD: If you are speaking generally I could provisionally agree – and if you are speaking of your own mind as evidenced in these posts I would unconditionally agree – but if you are speaking of the mind which is the brain in action in this flesh and blood body you will gain no such agreement from me. Nothing strange ever happens to this mind ... it is a freed mind. RESPONDENT: This ‘ambrosial paradise’ appears to be a ‘good’ strange thing, however. RICHARD: Speaking of ‘strange things’ ... does it not strike you as a strange thing that an accurate and articulate report from a fellow human being about being happy and harmless, about being freed from the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, about how delicious it is to be living on the ambrosial paradise that this verdant and azure planet is, could be met with so much scepticism and so many objections? Does this not bespeak volumes about the pertinency of the observation regarding cognitive dissonance (‘that peoples will invent reasons and struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement ... even those conditions which enslave them’)? For example: reasons and struggles such as deflecting the discussion away from exploring your (borrowed) ‘not knowing’ stance? And yet all this while the already always existing peace-on-earth is here for the living ... now. RESPONDENT: Speaking more about ‘strange things’, you are a very ‘strange bird’. The more I read your posts, the more I see just how strange you are. There is an old saying which I will interpret for this circumstance: ‘If you can’t convince them with your intelligence, confuse them with your intellect’. RICHARD: And are you now confused? Because, if not, your adage is an irrelevancy. RESPONDENT: And since [quote] ‘... learning’ is over when one is already actually free of the human condition [endquote] there is no need for us to continue to write to each other ... RICHARD: I did ask why you wrote to me only a few posts ago. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... for your obvious intent is to display your knowledge, expertise, and success at ‘actualism’. RICHARD: I have never made a secret of the fact that I have discovered something new to human experience and that I am sharing this discovery with my fellow human beings ... has it taken you three plus years to see this? RESPONDENT: You’re selling ... RICHARD: Yet this sharing of ‘knowledge, expertise, and success’ is offered free of conditions. RESPONDENT: I’m not buying. RICHARD: Au contraire ... you have been, and still are, buying Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s conditioned ‘knowledge, expertise, and success’. RESPONDENT: Your freedom from the ego is also a joke. RICHARD: Not just ‘ego’ ... both ego and soul (if you are going to make a judgement you might as well make it look like you understand what you are condemning). RESPONDENT: Your ego is too big for you to see that it has any boundaries ... RICHARD: As I am not enlightened (aka ‘That Thou Art’ aka ‘Creator and Sustainer and Destroyer of the Universe’) ... your critique is applied to the wrong person. RESPONDENT: ... therefore, it appears as nonexistent – sort of like your ‘infinite universe’. RICHARD: As this universe was here long before I was born – and will be here long after I am dead – I am hard-pushed to see it as being my infinite universe. So much for your understanding (born out of your three-month ascetic period) regarding attachments and/or possessions, eh?
RESPONDENT No. 19 (Part Eleven) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ 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 |
