Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

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?

RESPONDENT No. 6: So I think you are saying that enlightenment is not a necessary step to where you are now?

RICHARD: It is totally unnecessary ... plus detrimental to both individual and communal salubrity.

RESPONDENT No. 6: Is enlightenment a more useful or evolved place to be than pre-enlightenment?

RICHARD: No, to be enlightened is to be anti-life ... peace-on-earth is scornfully discarded so as to secure a vainglorious after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. In other words: selfish immortality.

RESPONDENT: Are you in the right forum?

RICHARD: Yes. I am discussing ‘Truth’ like all get-out and, as Mr. John De Ruiter is an Enlightened Being, then his philosophy is the philosophy of enlightenment ... and I am certainly comparing and contrasting and sharing my experience and expertise in the entire area of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality and metaphysicality as per the welcome message. Viz.:

• [List Moderator]: ‘Welcome to JdeR. I am happy to announce the John de Ruiter Truth Discussion group. You are invited to join. Please contribute. We are collecting resources, links etc. We aim to compare, contrast and share ideas in an open-minded way. You are invited to subscribe and then post, or just browse. The List is open to all (...) John de Ruiter’s philosophy, meetings, etc., Truth, acceptance, and being both warmly and gently OK with what is’.

The list is open to all ... why do you ask?

*

RESPONDENT: All I know of John de Ruiter is what I read on his website (www.johnderuiter.com) and comments from an internet acquaintance. However, from this little, I wondered if you were in the right forum.

RICHARD: Okay ... now that I have explained that I am indeed discussing ‘Truth’ like all get-out and (as Mr. John De Ruiter is an Enlightened Being his philosophy is the philosophy of enlightenment) as I am certainly comparing and contrasting and sharing my experience and expertise in the entire area of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality and metaphysicality as per the welcome message, am I to take it that you are not wondering anymore whether I am in the right forum? If not, please let me know because I am only too happy to discuss the subject of aptness further with you.

RESPONDENT: Enlightenment is the letting go of ego’s barriers and the remembering of Innocence. Innocence does not perceive suffering. Innocence is ‘illusion free’. Innocence does not generate its own thought system. Innocence does not study so-called ancient scriptures. Innocence ‘gnows’ god/goddess is an ego delusion. Innocence ‘gnows’ that the answers to all questions lie in the mirror.

RICHARD: I cannot resist – it is probably just the way you put the sentences together – but the reference to all the answers being found ‘in the mirror’ is so reminiscent of Mr. Narcissus being enraptured through bathing in his own glory that he was oblivious to what was actually happening.

RESPONDENT: If someone had something ‘original to say’, the Richard whose intellectual articulations paint these posts will not see it through the thickness of those egoic barriers. Richard, your pain, your suffering, is very pronounced in your postings.

RICHARD: I can assure you, for whatever that assurance is worth, that I experience no ‘pain’ or ‘suffering’ whatsoever. Therefore I do not know what it is you are seeing in my writing which makes you think this ... or why.

RESPONDENT: From what I’ve heard about being in John de Ruiter’s presence, from my observations that only healed Healers can heal, you should very much consider going to Edmonton. You need some rest my intellectual post-mate. Some rest from your trillions and trillions of beliefs that have your real Mind straight-jacketed. I Certainly wish you Peace.

RICHARD: Hmm ... as you have capitalised ‘Peace’ it is just as well that your wishes are ineffective.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps if you could just acknowledge one or two things happening in your life, and ask: what would someone have to believe to be having this experience? And keep asking and repeating that question till you get an answer.

RICHARD: You are going to have to tell me what these ‘one or two things’ are because what is happening in my life is utter fulfilment and total contentment each moment again. The on-going experience of such happiness and harmlessness, as is already always here in this pristine actual world, has not come about through believing (or trusting, hoping, having faith and so on).

One cannot enable peace-on-earth via ‘having to believe’.

RESPONDENT: If you can, try asking that question without moving your tongue. Not moving your tongue is very effective in meditation. When we cease moving our tongue, our thinking quiets. As our thinking quiets, we merge more and more with the Now in the present.

RICHARD: I have never meditated (either with or without moving the tongue) so I cannot comment on your advice. However, if you are advocating this technique as being an effective method to ‘merge more and more with the Now’ it does expose the lie of your protestations about how you ‘do not ‘become love’; you are already Love’. In other words:

• You do not merge more and more with the Now; you are already Now.

But never mind ... you would make a good engineer.

RESPONDENT: Richard, according to his own articulated dialogue, has not, in this lifetime, ever been in the Now.

RICHARD: Except that I repeatedly say that the ‘Me’ that was did live ‘in the Now’ for eleven years ... thus I have intimate knowledge of what you speak of. The exchange you are referring to went like this:

• [Respondent]: ‘Awareness is in the Now’.
• [Richard]: ‘Everything is happening only at this moment in eternal time ... there is nowhere or nowhen else than just here right now’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Try thinking you are in the Now. You can not do it’.
• [Richard]: ‘But I am not ‘in the Now’ ... this flesh and blood body is already always just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time’.

This is because there are three I’s altogether ... but only one is actual.