Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: How would I know whether I had this freedom you speak of?

RICHARD: The peerless purity and pristine perfection of this actual world is tangibly obvious.

RESPONDENT: How would I know I wasn’t fooling myself?

RICHARD: Such peerless purity and pristine perfection cannot be fabricated.

RESPONDENT: How have the ‘others’ that claim this freedom not seen they are fooling themselves? I speak of Barry Long, Krishnamurti, Tolle, Jesus and so on and so forth.

RICHARD: The freedom that those others claim – a religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical freedom – is not this freedom being discussed (an actual freedom).

RESPONDENT: (...) There are many existing conceptual systems that try to explain a PCE under their own terms (Eckhart Tolle is one that I enjoy). (...)

RICHARD: What Mr. Eckhart Tolle reports/ describes/ explains is what is popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment. For instance: http://store.yahoo.com/soundstruestore/interview-tolle.html

RESPONDENT: How do you explain auras – to me it is a soul or a spirit.

RICHARD: The same way I explained [quote] ‘near death experiences, past life memories, séances, mediums, hauntings, demonic possession, astral travelling, dreams, UFO’s, clairvoyants & children who see fairies, angels, nature spirits, demons etc.’ [endquote] to you eight days ago, on Saturday 6/08/2005 AEST (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 37, 6 August 2005), and the same way I explained [quote] ‘Outer body experiences (OBE’s) and near death experiences’ [endquote] to you, thirty-four months ago, on Thursday 24/10/2002 AEST (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 37, 24 October 2002) ... it is identity which generates same/ they are all the product of identity.

And, as identity is born of the instinctual passions (genetically endowed at conception by blind nature as a rough and ready survival package), upon the cessation of all affections when the body dies so too does any identity formed thereof also cease.

RESPONDENT: In the book – Power of Now written by Eckhart Tolle he says the key is to be in CONSTANT contact with the inner body (i.e. sensation of body) and that will rapidly transform your consciousness.

RICHARD: A search of the entire book for ‘constant contact with the inner body’ returned no hits at all; a search for ‘constant contact’ similarly returned nil hits; a search for ‘conscious contact’, however, found this (on page 99):

• [Mr. Eckhart Tolle]: ‘As long as you are in conscious contact with your inner body, you are like a tree that is deeply rooted in the earth, or a building with a deep and solid foundation. The latter analogy is used by Jesus ...’. [endquote].

As to what he means by [quote] ‘your inner body’ [endquote] there is this (on page 92):

• [Mr. Eckhart Tolle]: ‘The body that you can see and touch cannot take you into Being. But that visible and tangible body is only an outer shell, or rather a limited and distorted perception of a deeper reality. In your natural state of connectedness with Being, this deeper reality can be felt every moment as the invisible inner body, the animating presence within you. So to ‘inhabit the body’ is to feel the body from within, to feel the life inside the body and thereby come to know that you are beyond the outer form’. [endquote].

Needless is it to add that a search for ‘sensation of body’ returned nil hits?

RESPONDENT: Do you agree with him.

RICHARD: As the full title of that book is ‘The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment’ it must be patently obvious from the very beginning that what he has to say has nothing whatsoever to do with what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... perhaps this extract, from page two, will make it crystal-clear:

• [Mr. Eckhart Tolle]: ‘The word enlightenment conjures up the idea of some superhuman accomplishment, and the ego likes to keep it that way, but it is simply your natural state of felt oneness with Being. It is a state of connectedness with something immeasurable and indestructible, something that, almost paradoxically, is essentially you and yet is much greater than you. It is finding your true nature beyond name and form. (...) Being is the eternal, ever-present One Life beyond the myriad forms of life that are subject to birth and death. However, Being is not only beyond but also deep within every form as its innermost invisible and indestructible essence. This means that it is accessible to you now as your own deepest self, your true nature. But don’t seek to grasp it with your mind. Don’t try to understand it. You can know it only when the mind is still. When you are present, when your attention is fully and intensely in the Now, Being can be felt, but it can never be understood mentally. To regain awareness of Being and to abide in that state of ‘feeling-realisation’ is enlightenment’. (Publisher: New World Library; October 1, 1999; ISBN: 1577311523).

RESPONDENT: You emphasise ‘flesh and blood bodies’ a lot ...

RICHARD: Aye ... whereas Mr. Eckhart Tolle clearly says your true nature is [quote] ‘beyond name and *form*’ in the above quote and that you are [quote] ‘beyond the outer *form*’ further above. [emphases added]

RESPONDENT: ... and your question HAIETMOBA points to being aware of the millions of electrical impulses firing through out the body at any moment. So is that all that is needed – to be permanently in touch with physical sensation of the body while living life ... so the catch phrase would be ‘Don’t think. FEEL!!!

RICHARD: I see that I posted the following only 10 days ago:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘To me it seems contradicting to use (and believe) thought to stop believing in thoughts.
• [Richard]: ‘Put simplistically (for maximum effect): the actualism method is about using thought to examine feelings’ (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 88, 4 August 2005).

The question is: did you see it?

*

RESPONDENT: How do you explain auras – to me it is a soul or a spirit.

RICHARD: The same way I explained [quote] ‘near death experiences, past life memories, séances, mediums, hauntings, demonic possession, astral travelling, dreams, UFO’s, clairvoyants & children who see fairies, angels, nature spirits, demons etc.’ [endquote] to you eight days ago, on Saturday 6/08/2005 AEST (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 37, 6 August 2005), and the same way I explained [quote] ‘Outer body experiences (OBE’s) and near death experiences’ [endquote] to you, thirty-four months ago, on Thursday 24/10/2002 AEST (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 37, 24 October 2002) ... it is identity which generates same/ they are all the product of identity.

RESPONDENT: So auras are not real?

RICHARD: In the same way that no soul, or spirit, exists in actuality no aura does either.

RESPONDENT: Even though kiritilin photography can observe it.

RICHARD: What is popularly known as ‘Kirlian Photography’ does not record auras of a soul or a spirit.

RESPONDENT: Just a product of ego?

RICHARD: If you were to cast your eyes upward you will see I specifically said [quote] ‘of identity’ [endquote] ... just as I did on the first occasion, thirty-four months ago, that you asked these same or similar questions. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘You say that there is no soul or self but just flesh and bones therefore no life after death. Therefore how do you explain Outer body experiences (OBE’s) and near death experiences where people report seeing events and their own physical bodies in Real Time. (...).
• [Richard]: ‘(...) I explain OBE’s (out of body experiences) and NDE’s (near death experiences), where the identity residing inside the flesh and blood body locates [orientates] itself outside the flesh and blood body, in the same way I explain altered states of consciousness (ASC’s) and any other paranormal, supernatural or suprasensory experiences ... they are all the product of identity, the psychological and psychic entity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 37, 24 October 2002).

RESPONDENT: Umm not very convincing argument ... cameras don’t lie ...

RICHARD: If you are still referring to what is popularly known as ‘Kirlian Photography’ I would suggest doing some research before making a statement such as that (it being a non-camera process where a high-voltage/ high-frequency electrical discharge is applied across a grounded object on a photographic plate, film, or paper).

RESPONDENT: ... and cameras don’t have ego either.

RICHARD: Neither do the mechanical objects, such as coins or paper clips, that have yielded a ‘Kirlian Aura’, either.

(...)

RESPONDENT: You emphasise ‘flesh and blood bodies’ a lot ...

RICHARD: Aye ... whereas Mr. Eckhart Tolle clearly says your true nature is [quote] ‘beyond name and *form*’ in the above quote and that you are [quote] ‘beyond the outer *form*’ further above. [emphases added]

RESPONDENT: ... and your question HAIETMOBA points to being aware of the millions of electrical impulses firing through out the body at any moment. So is that all that is needed – to be permanently in touch with physical sensation of the body while living life ... so the catch phrase would be ‘Don’t think. FEEL!!!

RICHARD: I see that I posted the following only 10 days ago:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘To me it seems contradicting to use (and believe) thought to stop believing in thoughts.
• [Richard]: ‘Put simplistically (for maximum effect): the actualism method is about using thought to examine feelings’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 88, 4 August 2005).

The question is: did you see it?

RESPONDENT: No I didn’t see the above post ... so you use thinking to examine thinking?

RICHARD: I do not use the actualism method ... never have and never will (it was the identity in residence all those years ago who did).

RESPONDENT: You use the word ‘feelings’ but isn’t it more accurate to say ‘thinking’ as anger, sadness, etc.

RICHARD: No, anger and sadness are emotions/ passions (aka affective feelings).

RESPONDENT: i.e. ‘feelings’ are actually thoughts i.e. ‘no one likes me’ ‘I am alone’ etc.

RICHARD: The thought ‘no one likes me’ is not the (affective) feeling of being collectively disliked; the thought ‘I am alone’ is not the (affective) feeling of aloneness.

RESPONDENT: There are sensations behind thought i.e. tightness, heaviness, sinking feeling, I give you that but the problem to be examined is the thought which creates the tightness (unhappy) feeling.

RICHARD: Have you never been frightened by a sudden and unexpected loud noise (for example) before you could think? Are you not aware that the freeze-fight-flee instinctual reaction is also observable in other animals than the human animal? Have you not read about the laboratory tests demonstrating that feelings come before thoughts in the perceptive process? Has it not occurred to you that a baby is born with (affective) feelings ... which is well before thinking begins?

Moreover, as all animals are born with instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, are you suggesting they can think?

RESPONDENT: So you use a thought to judge another thought ... nothing new ... everyone does it.

RICHARD: This is just a waste of a sentence.

RESPONDENT: This is quite a shot in the arm. I realised with this exchange more clearly than ever before the difference between enjoying the moment and conditional pleasure seeking. I was riding my bike today thinking about how someone had said something to make me sad, because it reminded me of [whatever]. I tried to cheer myself up by thinking contrary thoughts. Then I yanked my head away and looked at the trees waving about in the warm summer air. They seemed gay to a point of being ridiculous. The whole world looked ridiculously gay and merry in a baffling way. The world seemed to be turning in on itself. It was stupendous! (Jan 4, 12:35 AM; #161xx, see Richard, List D, No. 44, 2 January 2014).)

RICHARD: G’day Srinath,

Before commenting on your above [quote] ‘enjoying the moment’ [endquote] post, I will first draw your attention to two specific portions of your 5th email to this forum (16 days after you subscribed). <snip>

*

The reason why I am drawing these instances of the expression [quote] ‘in the moment’ [endquote] to your attention is because I make it quite clear, on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website, that it is not applicable to actualism.

(An online search using the search-term <‘in the moment’ site:actualfreedom.com.au> (sans the < and > symbols of course) will readily return all instances; similarly ‘in the present’ and ‘in the now’, and so on and so forth, can be substituted for that ‘in the moment’ search-term).

For example (from 2002):

• [Richard]: (...). I have oft-times said that if one allows this moment to live one (rather than trying to live in the moment) one’s journey will be over sooner rather than later. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 32, 27 April 2002).

The following instance (written in 2000) is more explicit as to why trying to live [quote] ‘in the present’ [endquote] is not applicable to actualism.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: (...) the essential character of the perfection of the infinitude of this universe which born me, is living me and will die me in due course, is enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. ‘I’ give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) ... and let go the controls. (Richard, List B, No. 25f, 22 June 2000).

The parenthesised [quote] ‘rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present’ [endquote] will be self-explanatory, non?

In the following example, a co-respondent endeavoured to make out that my report of something radical – so radical as to be entirely new to human knowledge/ human history – was not exclusive to actualism (from the year 2004).

Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: (...) being in the moment with one’s senses/ emotions/ thought – which is a part of actualism but not exclusive to actualism (...).
• [Richard]: First of all, ‘being in the moment’ with one’s senses/ emotions/ thoughts is not part of actualism ... thus any question about exclusivity is without substance. (...). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 68, 13 July 2004a).

It was obviously an insufficiently-researched anagraph – a trait all such criticasters display – because as early as 1997 (the year I first went public, online, with my discovery) I was making it quite clear I was not talking about [quote] ‘living in the moment’ [endquote].

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 12]: (...). Your words about ‘living in the moment’ don’t do much for me, as every mindless person I meet is actively promoting the lifestyle of ‘living in the moment’. It is the fashion of the age.
• [Richard]: (...). I typed the words ‘living in the moment’ into the search function of this computer and sent it back through my posts and it could not find the phrase anywhere. Perhaps you could send me your copy where it does say that? (Richard, List A, No. 12, No.01).

Needless is it to add that Respondent No. 12 never did produce any such reference (there being no such thing, of course, for him to produce)?

Regardless, his running-mate tried the same line on me many weeks later.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: I have no ego or soul; no self or Self; no God or Truth ... simply the moment-to-moment apperception of myself as being this physical universe’s experience of itself as a sensate, reflective human being.
• [Co-Respondent]: This is commonly called ‘living in the moment’. Women and children are particularly good at this, while cows and dogs are even better.
• [Richard]: I beg to differ. This is not called ‘living in the moment’. No. 12 tried that accusation on me weeks and weeks ago. (Richard, List A, No. 4, No.08).

I have, of course, made it equally clear that the variant expression [quote] ‘live in the present’ [endquote] similarly does not apply.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: My experience showed that by allowing the PCE to happen (on a daily basis, sometimes two-three times a day) a momentum built up of its own accord which could not be stopped ... an inevitability came into action.
What ‘I’ did was to give ‘myself’ permission to let go of the controls and allow the moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present). In short: if one ceases objecting to being here – without swinging to an opposite such as gratitude – then the rest is history.
This is because this moment is where it is all at. This moment is where it is all happening – all of the universe is happening all-at-once – and it is all happening all-at-once just here and it is all happening all-at-once right now.
And it is all already always happening anyway ... irregardless of ‘me’ and ‘my’ objections. (Richard, List B, James2, 6 June 2001).

The following example (from 2001) goes into more detail as to why [quote] ‘living in the present’ [endquote] does not apply to actualism/ actual freedom.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: Where one lets the moment live one – rather than what is called ‘living in the present’ – it will be seen with startling clarity that this moment is eternal ... and not ‘timeless’. Anyone who succeeds in ‘living in the present’, which is experienced as being that fleeting moment sandwiched between the past and the future, is present as a self (albeit an impersonal self) in/ as an oceanic feeling of oneness ... which gives the impression of being ‘timeless’.
This moment is not ‘timeless’ ... for, although the fact is that it has no duration, as ‘then’ and ‘now’ and ‘then’ (was here then, is here now, will be here then), it does not negate the fact that this moment is already always here now (eternally here).
It is never not this moment ... ‘tis not fleeting at all. (Richard, List B, No. 19f, 30 January 2001g).

I also point out (in 2003 for instance) how I have experiential knowledge of being/ living in the now, in the present, in the moment – night and day for eleven years in fact – and found it wanting.

Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: Do I need any method to be in the now, the present, the moment? This is a child’s play! If you want to be in the present, your mind has to be totally silent, completely quite? Why can’t you get this? (replies to these questions are optional here because they will be considered futile anyways).
• [Richard]: As I have no interest whatsoever of being ‘in the present’ again (having done just that, night and day, for eleven years and found it wanting) I shall not be replying to those questions anyway (...). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 51a, 10 October, 2003).

And that 2003 response of mine renders this an apt place to draw the following to your attention.

Viz.:

#152xx
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:51:44 –0000
To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
From: Srinath
Subject: Re: A bunch of questions re: AF

• Srinath: [...]. I still don’t get ‘the moment’ thing. As in I can get that whole thing of ‘the moment is all we have, the past is history and the future is fantasy’ thing that I’ve heard spoken of forever in advaita with its most recent iteration in Tolle’s Power of Now.
Is this the same thing in AF?
What’s so special about the moment that I should surrender to it or savour it? Is it because it’s the only true way of being happy ( as Tolle implies )?

First of all, there is a ‘Selected Correspondence’ page – all the selected correspondence was personally chosen for their real-world relevance by feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ over a decade or so – where I have answered queries about Mr. Eckhart Tolle (aka Mr. Ulrich Tolle for 30+ years).

Viz.:

www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-eckharttolle.htm

(There really is no substitute for taking notice of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website).

Second, as Mr. Eckhart Tolle is an unapologetic spiritualist it simply does not make sense to even think for a moment – let alone type it out and click ‘send’ – that anything he has to say would be applicable to something entirely new to human history/ human knowledge.

Yet a month later you do so again (and not only expanding on that spiritualistic theme from Ms. Oprah Winfrey’s protégé, plus providing a video link to his syrupy recitation of Chapter 4 in his 2003 best-seller as well, but chose to drag in that mathematically-modelled relativistic (i.e., subjectivistic) ignis fatuus so beloved of theoretical physicists as well).

Viz.:

#154xx
Date: 27 Sep 2013 15:00:22 –0700
To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
From: Srinath
Subject: RE: Re: Time, Space and Pure Intent

• Srinath: [...]. Ok so the moment is beginning-less and endless or is that just time? Or is time = the moment?
Also are time and space interlinked in AF cosmology?
Is it time-space as per the theory of relativity?
Where I’m at currently is visualising things moving in 3 dimensional space-time where the forward movement of time (as well space) is an illusion created by the movement of objects. All is a vast stillness that never changes. Any- thing that happens in the stillness cause time and space to come into being, partly because of physical laws and partly because of our own human need for apprehending the movement of objects. I seem to be experiencing time as a gigantic void now.
So if the movement of time is an illusion, then does time have any properties at all? One could just call it the great nothing and leave it at that. But clearly to me at least notionally even the idea of an unmoving, eternal time has properties. Namely that stuff seems to happen within it rather than the other way around. And that it is ever present and never past or future.
If all this is true then I can see why Richard invites us to enjoy and appreciate the moment. Because past and future are fictions. Those two vectors don’t exist in actual time.
Actual time is not a vector. It is a point. It is an eternal void.
Real time/ human times are conventions only. The product of human memory and society. The way in which we process ‘nowness’. Even this has changed over time and is acculturated. There are primitive tribes that have very few words to describe the past and future. In Asia and parts of the West time was circular or a spiral. In the modern West time is linear. A vast straight line that recedes infinitely on either end. All these are useful fictions.
Is it something like what Tolle says? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkgNIJLpBEI [...].

As already mentioned, the video link you provided is an oral rendition selected from Chapter 4: The Now (pages 37-47) of the book ‘Stillness Speaks’ ©2003Eckhart Tolle; Namaste Publishing, Vancouver, Canada. (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qcfueLfqxR8C).

In that chapter there are more than a few instances of him using the expression [quote] ‘in the Now’ [endquote].

Viz.:

• ‘When you don’t feel at home in the Now ...’. [p. 40].
• ‘To have your attention in the Now ...’. [p. 41].
• ‘That anchors you in the Now’. [p. 42].
• ‘When your attention moves into the Now ...’. [p. 44].
• ‘The moment you enter the Now ...’. [p. 44].
• ‘The more you live in the Now ...’. [p. 44].
• ‘When you step into the Now ...’. [p. 45].

Also needless is it to add I have already answered queries about [quote] ‘in the Now’ [endquote] in regards to actualism/ actual freedom?

Viz.:

• [Co-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.
• [Co-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. (Richard, List C, No. 7, 3 July 2000).

And again (also in the year 2000).

Viz.:

• [Co-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:

• [Co-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’.
• [Co-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’. [endquote]. (Richard, List C, No. 7, 3 July 2000).

This is because there are three I’s altogether ... but only one is actual. (Richard, List C, No. 7, 1 August 2000).

In 2004 I provided a much more detailed response to a co-respondent’s [quote] ‘in the now’ [endquote] phantasies.

Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: The example you gave about moving from here to there, etc., is exactly what dawned to me 10 years ago, and I used it to prove there is no time. Every moment I am in the now ...
• [Richard]: If I may interject? More than a few peoples have experienced being ‘in the now’ (aka being in the moment and/or being in the present and/or being in the here and now and so on) and have reported the feeling/ intuition of being timeless – and that it proves there is no time (the word timeless means ‘no time’ just as deathless means ‘no death’) – yet that is not what I am reporting/ describing/ explaining at all ... let alone ‘exactly’.
• [Co-Respondent]: [Every moment I am in the now] ... and only memory says that I am passing from intermediate position in space. You are using exactly my words as in tape recorder.
• [Richard]: No, not at all. If you were to re-read what I wrote (further above), plus what I have written elsewhere on this topic on many an occasion, you would see I am saying that one is just here, at this location, right now, at this moment – and not ‘in the now’ (or ‘in’ the here and now, or ‘in’ the moment, or ‘in’ the present, and so on) – and that it is never not this moment (which by no stretch of the language can be construed as ‘there is no time’ or that it is timeless).
I even state categorically (further below in this post you are responding to) that time is actual. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... my original impression of this thread was that the time itself doesn’t exist in actuality’.
• [Richard]: ‘Time itself (as in durationless time/ eternal time/ beginningless and endless time) does indeed exist in actuality: time as a measure of the sequence of events (as in past/ present/ future) is but a convention.
Presumably some pre-historical person/ persons noticed what the shadow of a stick standing perpendicular in the ground did such as to eventually lead to the sundial – a circular measure of the movement of a cast shadow arbitrarily divided into twelve sections because of a prevailing duo-decimal counting system – and then to water-clocks/ sand-clocks and thence to pendulum-clocks/ spring-clocks and thus to electrical-clocks/ electronic-clocks and, currently, energy-clocks (aka ‘atomic-clocks’) ... with all such measurement of movement being a measure of the earth’s rotation whilst in orbit around its radiant star.
Put succinctly: it is not time itself (eternity) which moves but objects in (infinite) space’. [endquote]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 4a, 6 July 2004).

In short: the identity within is forever locked-out of time (time as an actuality, that is, and not time as a convention).
• [Co-Respondent]: Why though this did not change me?
• [Richard]: Going by your description – ‘what dawned to me 10 years ago’ – it was a realisation and, unless a realisation is acted upon, it remains just that ... a realisation.
‘Tis just as well though (otherwise you would have been yet another ‘Timeless One’), eh? (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44h, 15 August 2004).