Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘C’ Correspondence

March 06 2000:

RESPONDENT No. 00: John De Ruiter, the hot shot guru from Canada whom some reckon to be ‘bigger than Jesus’, has become embroiled in a multiple marriage storm. He has shocked his devotees in Edmonton by announcing that ‘Truth has told him’ to marry two of his most attractive female followers (this in addition to his current wife and three children). The recent pronouncements of the blue eyed saviour have thrown the ashram into chaos, with disappointed women leaving in their droves. This includes dozens of recent British immigrants who have given up job, home and family in the UK, just to be near their enigmatic Master – even to the extent of marrying local Canadians! <snip>

RESPONDENT No. 3: As this was posited as gossip, I’d still suspect there was some truth in it. I think if one is going to go public with their realization, they have a certain responsibility to create an image that doesn’t make the guru business look like an immoral or mentally unbalanced alternative to normal society. And I’m afraid that, if true, John De Ruiter is not helping the situation with this latest move, in my opinion.

RESPONDENT No. 4: Andrew Cohen is hot on ethics and has criticised a number of teachers including his own, Papaji who is in the Ramana Maharshi line. Andrew talks about making evolutionary jumps in consciousness, but teachers or messengers from Papaji almost all see Andrew as going out on a limb. Catherine Ingrams, also works morality into her satsangs, and she was with Papaji for longer than Andrew, I think. But, for me, morality is not part of the teachings. That doesn’t mean it’s not relevant for society, just not relevant for enlightenment, whatever that maybe.

RESPONDENT No. 3: I agree that morality is not generally part of the teachings, but there are some other factors to consider. First, there is the general society which we live in, we still are part of it. But more than this, there is just the practical considerations. There still is our inner self, and so there is an inner morality that is not subjective or relative but is definite and concrete, such as when we are mean to another, we experience that suffering ourselves. This is the true morality, the inner one. As far as being promiscuous, this is also an inner reality. We can know whether what we are doing is in conformity to universal law by just listening to our inner senses.(...) If someone is going to be a public figure, an enlightened teacher, then it is somewhat of a responsibility to be impeccable in their actions.

RESPONDENT No. 2: Do you know any teachers who live up to that standard or even try?

RESPONDENT No. 3: Well, I think many have tried. But they fall down.

RESPONDENT No. 2: Then I suggest that the current evidence discounts morality as part and parcel of enlightenment.

RESPONDENT: It surprises me to see morality thrown into a debate about truth. Morality (...) will stand in the way to honesty and truth. A lover of truth (...) is neither ‘moral’, nor ‘immoral’, but unconcerned about it; ‘amoral’, if you want.

RICHARD: Indeed, yet a person is amoral only when they can totally and reliably be capable of spontaneously interacting in the world of people, things and events, in a way that is neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible, at all times and under any circumstance without exception. The $64,000 question then appears to be this:

Does the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom?

March 07 2000:

RESPONDENT: It surprises me to see morality thrown into a debate about truth. Morality (...) will stand in the way to honesty and truth. A lover of truth (...) is neither ‘moral’, nor ‘immoral’, but unconcerned about it; ‘amoral’, if you want.

RICHARD: Indeed, yet a person is amoral only when they can totally and reliably be capable of spontaneously interacting in the world of people, things and events, in a way that is neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible, at all times and under any circumstance without exception. The $64,000 question then appears to be this: Does the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom?

RESPONDENT: Why?

RICHARD: So that there will be peace-on-earth.

RESPONDENT: I mean, who decides what is ‘personally insalubrious’ and ‘socially reprehensible’ ...

RICHARD: Not ‘who’ ... peace-on-earth decides, each moment again, and relentlessly brings the wayward ego and compliant soul face-to-face with its own culpability, each moment again, for being the progenitor of all the ills of humankind.

RESPONDENT: ... and why give such incredible weight to social conventions?

RICHARD: If I may point out? The phrasing ‘neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible’ is entirely equitable and contains no ‘such incredible weight’ being given to ‘social conventions’ at all.

RESPONDENT: After all, ‘awakened ones’ have always been rebels. In some cases, such as ‘Jesus’, when they were alive they were criticized, and even killed, for being ‘socially reprehensible’.

RICHARD: Indeed. Hence the $64,000 question: does the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom [that amorality indubitably is]?

You would appear to be demonstrating, with your example, that it does not, eh?

March 09 2000:

RICHARD: Indeed, yet a person is amoral only when they can totally and reliably be capable of spontaneously interacting in the world of people, things and events, in a way that is neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible, at all times and under any circumstance without exception. The $64,000 question then appears to be this: Does the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom?

RESPONDENT: Why?

RICHARD: So that there will be peace-on-earth.

RESPONDENT: Are you serious?

RICHARD: I mean what I say and I say what I mean. How can one live in peace-on-earth if one is not capable, at all times and under any circumstance without exception, of totally and reliably and spontaneously interacting in the world of people, things and events in a way that is neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible?

*

RESPONDENT: I mean, who decides what is ‘personally insalubrious’ and ‘socially reprehensible’ ...

RICHARD: Not ‘who’ ... peace-on-earth decides, each moment again, and relentlessly brings the wayward ego and compliant soul face-to-face with its own culpability, each moment again, for being the progenitor of all the ills of humankind.

RESPONDENT: What is the connection of this with ‘social reprehensibility’?

RICHARD: If one nurses malice to one’s bosom, for example, one is incapable of interacting in the world of people, things and events with impunity. The same applies to ‘personal insalubrity’: if one nurses sorrow to one’s bosom, for instance, one is forever locked out of peace-on-earth.

The pristine nature of peace-on-earth is impeccable ... nothing dirty can get in.

*

RESPONDENT: ... and why give such incredible weight to social conventions?

RICHARD: If I may point out? The phrasing ‘neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible’ is entirely equitable and contains no ‘such incredible weight’ being given to ‘social conventions’ at all.

RESPONDENT: But then it is hanging there between the lines.

RICHARD: If I may suggest? Try taking the words at face value as I always say what I mean; there is no subterfuge, no hidden meaning, no secret agenda, no ulterior motive.

RESPONDENT: If that interaction is prescribed to be not socially reprehensible, the prescription is obviously putting an incredible weight on social conventions.

RICHARD: Then similarly it could be said: ‘If that interaction is prescribed to be not personally insalubrious, the prescription is obviously putting an incredible weight on personal standards’. As I said (further above): the phrasing is entirely equitable.

It may be that it is ... um ... rebelliousness which is putting a slant upon what you read, perchance?

*

RESPONDENT: After all, ‘awakened ones’ have always been rebels. In some cases, such as ‘Jesus’, when they were alive they were criticized, and even killed, for being ‘socially reprehensible’.

RICHARD: Indeed. Hence the $64,000 question: does the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom that amorality indubitably is?

RESPONDENT: Enlightenment does not seem to be an ‘altered state of consciousness’, but the end of the ‘alteration’.

RICHARD: With my use of the phrase ‘altered state of consciousness’ I am merely following the generally accepted convention. However, I can re-phrase the question this way: does the end of the ‘alteration’, known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name), bestow such a remarkable freedom that amorality indubitably is?

*

RICHARD: You would appear to be demonstrating, with your example, that it does not, eh?

RESPONDENT: My example?

RICHARD: Yes ... the example you provided (above). Viz.: [quote]: ‘awakened ones’ have always been rebels. In some cases, such as ‘Jesus’, when they were alive they were criticized, and even killed, for being ‘socially reprehensible’. [endquote]. This example clearly shows that rebels cannot live in peace and harmony with their fellow human beings ... and what is the use of being amoral if it does not enable peace-on-earth?

RESPONDENT: Is this suddenly an argument ad hominem?

RICHARD: Not unless you fondly imagine you are ‘The Parousia’.