Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Flogged Misconceptions

RESPONDENT: I don’t think you even understand the first thing about Eastern spirituality. Nor Western, come to think of it.

PETER: I was never much interested in the philosophy of either Eastern spirituality nor Western mysticism for that matter – being a practical person, I was more interested in finding out how Eastern spirituality worked in practice, i.e. in garnering an experiential understanding.

When I got the spiritual ‘bug’, I turned my back on the materialist world, abandoned my worldly goods, literally wore the orange robes and lived full-time in several spiritual communes – which is to say I lived the spiritual life fully for a period of 17 years. I sat at the feet of arguably one of last century’s most influential Enlightened Masters for a good many years and was eventually able to get to see first-hand the behind-the-stage goings-on of his rise and eventual demise. I then sat at the feet of another, lesser-known Enlightened Master for several years and had yet another opportunity to experience first-hand the behind-the-stage shenanigans … and I was about to join yet another commune of a New-Age Guru when I finally came to experientially understand that the whole of the famed Eastern Spirituality was nought but ‘Olde Time Religion’.

Nowhere did I experience the peace and harmony within the communes that I expected would be the result of devotees who passionately believed ‘We Are All One’ or ‘We Are All That’ or ‘We Are All One Consciousness’ et al.

At present I live in a town that is a Mecca for spiritualists of all ilks and again no-where do I see anything that remotely resembles peace and harmony within the spiritual communities, let alone between the various spiritual communities. Not only that, the spiritualists hold themselves aloof from the rest of the community in which they live by clinging to a spurious moral high-ground based solely on the belief that their particular beliefs are superior to the spiritual/religious beliefs of others. And from this righteous lofty perch they look down on the unwashed, the unaware and the unawakened on whom they lay the blame for the all of the ills of mankind – all the while in denial of the part that they themselves are playing in sustaining the fictitious, but played-out-as-if-it-was-real, battle between Good and Evil, the mythical battle that is the very crutch upon which of all spiritual and religious beliefs are founded.

In other words, spiritualists are busily attempting to rise to the top of a heap which has no existence outside of human imagination – both the heap and the top.

RESPONDENT: I don’t want to dispute with you what other people have said although I must tell you that all the quotes of Krishnamurti you brought to our discussion are completely misleading.

RICHARD: There were only three quotes: first, in what way is it completely misleading to provide a quote which demonstrates that the state of permanency Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had realised was the hoary spiritualist goal of an after-death permanency? And second, in what way is it completely misleading to provide a quote which demonstrates that he (a) did not know how to live ... and (b) was interested in life after death? And lastly, in what way is it completely misleading to provide a quote which demonstrates that he did not come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded ... rather than being caused by conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning)?

RESPONDENT: You have no understanding of the man ...

RICHARD: In what way does it show no understanding of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to provide a quote which demonstrates that the state of permanency he had realised was the hoary spiritualist goal of an after-death permanency? And in what way does it show no understanding of him to provide a quote which demonstrates that he (a) did not know how to live ... and (b) was interested in life after death? And lastly, in what way does it show no understanding of him to provide a quote which demonstrates that he did not come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded ... rather than being caused by conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning)?

RESPONDENT: ... all you can do is belittle him, for your point to rise up to the surface.

RICHARD: If I may point out? I do not need to belittle him in order to make my point ... his own words do that.

RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘body’.

RICHARD: As I can only presume that by ‘SC ‘body’’ you are referring me to my ‘Selected Questions’ topic labelled ‘Body’ I checked through both pages and cannot find ‘Vipassana’ mentioned at all: if you could provide the text where Richard ‘perhaps’ does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought.

And the reason why I suggest this is also because of this (in a recent post):

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) I myself do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition, but the [Vipassana] technique works and it is not at all what Richard or Vineeto describes it to be. THAT is why I say they do not understand the technique’. (Saturday 06/11/2004 AEDST).

As you not provide the text, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is ‘not at all’ what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to.

RESPONDENT: From what I have been taught, the teaching of Vipassana is to go beyond both body AND consciousness, or mind.

RICHARD: Indeed ... here is but one instance (among many) where Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes it abundantly clear that full release is beyond both body and consciousness:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) Lastly, the discourse drives the point home by explaining that the instructed disciple is

• [quote] ‘Disenchanted with the *body*, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with *consciousness*. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released’. He discerns that ‘Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world’. SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66; ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic).

Note well it says ‘there is nothing further for this world’ ... if that is not a clear indication of a withdrawal from this sensate material world I would like to know what is. [emphasises added].

RESPONDENT: (...) Are you sure actualism is 180 degrees opposite?

RICHARD: Ha ... as I am this flesh and blood body only, and as this flesh and blood body being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, being sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is what consciousness is (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition), I am most assuredly not disenchanted with the body/disenchanted with consciousness ... let alone fully released from same (and thus) discerning there is nothing further for this world.

RESPONDENT: Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks.

RICHARD: As the only occasion I am cognisant of, wherein you have read anything of what I have written about the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west, is the e-mail I wrote to you on Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST – wherein I quoted from what Mr. Ba Khin had to say – I can only assume that you are characterising him (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) as being a quack.

Especially so as you specifically say that you [quote] ‘do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: It is obvious that the people on this list do not know too much about Buddhism. There are many different schools of Buddhism. The knowledge of Richard in regard to Buddhism and Gurdjieff is pathetically limited, and he also does not seem to really understand the teaching of J. Krishnamurti. He has shaped it all to fit his preconceptions, to make ‘actualism’, but anyone who goes to the website and has any real understanding of some of these topics would be instantly repelled, as his presentation comes across as very ignorant.

RICHARD: If you could supply an instance of this ‘pathetically limited’ and ‘very ignorant’ knowledge/presentation it would be appreciated ... as would an example of where it seems I do not ‘really understand’ the teachings brought into the world by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti.

It may be pertinent to add that I am no student of the many and varied teachings of the many and varied sages and seers – I have made no formal study of the jillions of words engendered by such peoples – as my knowledge/understanding is the intimate knowledge/understanding which comes from having lived that/been that, night and day for eleven years, which those teachings refer to.

RESPONDENT: Personally, I went to the web site with an open heart and an open mind.

RICHARD: Ahh ... therein lies a clue as to why you were ‘instantly repelled’.

RESPONDENT: I had no preconceptions about actualism and actually approached it fresh.

RICHARD: If I may point out? Your very first e-mail to this mailing list showed no such approach – as in, for example, your [quote] ‘it seems that the philosophy of Actual Freedom may be the same as my own’ [endquote] observation – which post, and my response, may be found at the following URL:

As you never did respond you may have missed it the first time around.

RICHARD: I am using ‘detachment’ in the Buddhist meaning of ‘withdrawal from the world of the senses’. I would never endorse any such method.

RESPONDENT: While there may indeed be some who proclaim to be Buddhist who hold to this definition of detachment it is by no means ‘the Buddhist meaning’ as Richard would have us believe.

RICHARD: Methinks upon closer examination you will find that it is indeed ‘the Buddhist meaning’ of the word. Contrary to popular belief, Buddhists are not actively pursuing peace-on-earth per se.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica ‘Ultimate Reality’ in Buddhism is called ‘Parinirvana’ (Complete Nirvana) or the freedom of spirit (by whatever name) brought about by release from the body. According to the Buddhist assessment of the human condition, delusions of egocentricity and their resultant desires bind humans to a continuous round of rebirths and its consequent ‘dukkha’. It is release from these bonds that constitutes ‘Nirvana’, or the experience of Enlightenment. ‘Nirvana’ – in Buddhist religious thought and spiritual philosophy – is but the initial goal of the mindfulness disciplines and practice in that it signifies the transcendent state of freedom achieved by the extinction of desire and of individual consciousness. That this is only the inaugural objective is very clear to the discerning eye because – while liberation from rebirth does not imply immediate death and thus release into the ‘Ultimate Reality’ – the physical death of a ‘Perfect One’ (an Arhat or a Buddha) does. Thus while the immediate aim of the Buddhist path is release from the round of phenomenal existence with its inherent dukkha by attaining Nirvana (the enlightened state in which the fires of greed, hatred, and ignorance have been quenched), Nirvana is not to be confused with total annihilation because, after attaining Nirvana, the enlightened individual will continue to live, burning off any remaining karma until the state of ‘Final Nirvana’ (Parinirvana) is attained at the moment of physical death. It may be noted that, during the early centuries of Buddhist history, not only were there the three major pilgrimage centres – the place of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s birth at Lumbini, the place of his Enlightenment at Bodh Gaya, the Deer Park in Varanasi where he preached his first sermon – but particularly the village of Kusinara, (or Kushinagara) located in the eastern district of Deoria, which is the place of his Parinirvana.

Quite obviously, this is a very self-seeking approach to life on earth ... something that all metaphysical peoples are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s immortality (by whatever name) in some spurious ‘After-Life’ (by whatever name) is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined spirit (by whatever name) after physical death. So much for their humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All religious and spiritual and mystical quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All metaphysicists fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing the timeless ‘State of Being’ ... the ‘Deathless State’. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the overriding importance of the survival of ‘self’ by whatever name.

RESPONDENT: Rather, detachment (properly understood in the context of the teachings of Buddha) is regarded on one level as an ending of the identification process; identifying with possessions, beliefs, titles, jobs, status, etc.

RICHARD: The word ‘detachment’ is a common English rendering of the mental absorption deemed necessary for the removal of what the Buddhists conceive of as being the cause of birth in the first place (in Pali ‘nirodha’ more properly means ‘cessation’). It refers to the ‘mindfulness’ that leads to the cessation of ‘dukkha’ through the cessation of craving. In Buddhism, ‘craving’ (Pali ‘tanha’ or Sanskrit ‘trishna’) is said to draw creatures on through greed – and drives them on through hate – while ignorance prevents their seeing the truth of how things are or where they are going (ignorance is regarded as a basic factor in the continuity of existence). Therefore the Buddhist ‘detachment’ ( ‘nirodha’) is seen as the removal of a poison, the curing of a disease, not as the mere denial of it (opposed to the assertion of it) or the obstruction of it (in conflict with the favouring of it) since both assertion and denial confirm and maintain alike the basic idea or state that is required to be cured ... which state is known as ‘clinging’ (Pali ‘upadana’). The word ‘upadana’ means literally ‘taking up’ (‘upa’ plus ‘adana’) and is used for what the Buddhists maintain is the assumption and consumption that satisfies craving and produces existence. As craving pre-dates birth, such upadana is the condition sine qua non for ‘being’. And, as clinging’s ending is Nirvana, the Buddhist detachment (as ‘cessation’) is not to be confounded with mere negativism or nihilism ... it is a total disassociation of self from the world of people, things and events. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan expressly states that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66). Vis.: (snip quotes)

RESPONDENT: To return to the ‘Buddhist meaning’ of detachment. I have never come across a ‘Buddhist’ definition as presented by Richard.

RICHARD: I beg to differ. Mr. Gunaratana Mahathera (the ‘Venerable H. Gunaratana Mahathera’ of the Bhavana Society; Rt. 1 Box 218-3 High View, WV 26808. USA.), for just one example, said on December 7, 1990:

• [quote]: ‘Vipassana is the oldest of Buddhist meditation practices. The method comes directly from the Sitipatthana Sutta, a discourse attributed to Buddha himself. Vipassana is a direct and gradual cultivation of mindfulness or awareness. It proceeds piece by piece over a period of years (...) this Sutta offers comprehensive practical instructions on the practice of mindfulness meditation’. [endquote].

An examination of this core Sutta shows a pronounced and deliberate withdrawal from the world of the senses and this flesh and blood body itself. Vis.:(snip quotes)

RESPONDENT: In the view from here, withdrawal from the world of senses is the opposite of what Buddha mind ‘teaches’.

RICHARD: Maybe you have psychic access to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s secret ‘Teachings’ whilst I have only the recorded scriptures to go by. Those multitudinous scriptures consistently point to a total withdrawal from this sensate physical world. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s advice is for a total disassociation of self from the world of people, things and events. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan expressly states that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66). Vis.:

[Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease (...) But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease (...) ‘Feeling is not self (...) ‘Perception is not self (...) ‘Mental fabrications are not self (...) ‘Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease (...) ‘What do you think, monks: Is form constant or inconstant?’ [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’. [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?’ [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Stressful, Lord’. [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?’ [Messrs. Monks]: ‘No, Lord’. (...) [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Is feeling constant or inconstant?’ [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant Lord’. (...) [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Is perception constant or inconstant?’ [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’. (...) [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Are fabrications constant or inconstant?’ [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’. (...) [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘What do you think, monks: Is consciousness constant or inconstant?’ [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’. [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?’ [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Stressful, Lord’. [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?’ [Messrs. Monks]: ‘No, Lord’. [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am’. Any feeling whatsoever (...) Any perception whatsoever (...) Any fabrications whatsoever (...) Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am’. (...) Seeing thus, the instructed noble disciple grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released’. He discerns that ‘Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world’. http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/samyutta/sn22-59.html

RESPONDENT: Withdrawal from the senses seems more consistent with the ascetic practices the one who became slandered as ‘the Buddha’ practiced trying to become enlightened. He renounced such practices afterwards, saying they only harm the practitioner (not that this only applies physically, of course).

RICHARD: Not so. The above Sutta was spoken by the awakened Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and not the ascetic practitioner.

RESPONDENT: But I am digressing into my own view perhaps too far without seeing if we are both interested.

RICHARD: Indeed ... your views have nowt to do with Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s ‘Teachings’ or Buddhism per se. In fact, your views are as lucid as the views of another poster whose views you admired so much ... such self-congratulatory praise speaks volumes about the crippled status of your intelligence.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I think you had the bad luck, while you were looking for enlightenment ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Where have I ever said I was looking for enlightenment? And I ask this because, to the contrary of what you may think, I have always made it perfectly clear that it was a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) which set the process in motion and not an altered state of consciousness (ASC).

That I became enlightened along the way to an actual freedom from the human condition does not mean I was looking for enlightenment ... indeed I did not even know such a thing existed before it happened. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, I’ve been following this discussion with interest and have a couple of questions for you: Which of the 3 ways [Jnani, Bhakti, Yoga] did you use to achieve spiritual enlightenment in 1981?
• [Richard]: ‘Well, none of those 3 ways, actually ... I inadvertently ‘discovered’ another way: ignorance. I was aiming for the pure consciousness experience (PCE) and landed short of my goal ... and it took another 11 years to get here.
To explain: I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again. By being born and raised in the West I was not steeped in the mystical religious tradition of the East and was thus able to escape the trap of centuries of eastern spiritual conditioning.
I had never heard the words ‘Enlightenment’ or ‘Nirvana’ and so on until 1982 when talking to a man about my breakthrough, into what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ via the death of ‘myself’, in September 1981. He listened – he questioned me rigorously until well after midnight – and then declared me to be ‘Enlightened’. I had to ask him what that was, such was my ignorance of all things spiritual. He – being a nine-year spiritual seeker fresh from his latest trip to India – gave me a book to read by someone called Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. That was to be the beginning of what was to become a long learning curve of all things religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical for me. I studied all this because I sought to understand what other peoples had made of such spontaneous experiences and to find out where human endeavour had been going wrong.
I found out where I had been going wrong for eleven years ... self-aggrandisement is so seductive.
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf16.htm#08Jan01).

I was not even religious before it all started – I did not even know that there was a difference between a Christian monk and a Buddhist monk, for example, other than that one wore brown robes and the other saffron robes – as I had lumped all religion under the category of superstitious clap-trap way back in childhood and lived a totally secular life.

RESPONDENT: [I think you had the bad luck, while you were looking for enlightenment], to meet blind teachers and vagabonds, like Peter and Vineeto, like Osho with his Rolls Royce’s and his orgies.

RICHARD: No, I never met any teachers (aka seers, sages, masters, gurus, and so on) at all before I became enlightened – I was entirely ignorant of the whole milieu of spirituality/ mysticism and its attendant master/disciple phenomenon – and only came across the writings of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain 5 years later when I met the woman who was to become my second wife and who was what was called a ‘Rajneeshee’ at the time. As she rapidly became an ex-Rajneeshee, when we started to live together, I learnt a lot from her about what he had to say ... plus I also read many of his books (about 90 all told), watched several videos, and listened to numerous tape recordings, so as to get it straight from the horse’s mouth.

Why do you say he was a ‘blind’ teacher?

RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti is a special case.

RICHARD: Do you realise you are saying, in effect, that you had the good luck to meet a special teacher?

RESPONDENT: Once he called Osho murderer, because Osho was blackmailing a woman to destroy her if she had to leave him.

RICHARD: I have been told that the ... um ... special teacher criticised the blind teacher but have never seen any of it in print ... perhaps you could supply the relevant quote?

RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti never spoke for enlightenment, unless he was speaking with cultures that were understanding only this word, instead of truth etc.

RICHARD: Which probably means that being ‘truth etc.’ refers to the same thing as being enlightened

RESPONDENT: You tried to underestimate him, by using certain sort sentences of him.

RICHARD: If you can provide an example where I have done so I will be only too happy to attend to it.

RESPONDENT: The same you done for Buddha Jesus, by call him a flat earth god man, etc.

RICHARD: Are you saying that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene knew that the earth was an oblate spheroid in orbit around the sun?

RESPONDENT: I really don’t understand why is so important for you to call Jesus a flat earth dogman ...

RICHARD: Oh? What is it about the word ‘omniscient’ (having infinite knowledge) that you do not comprehend?

RESPONDENT: ... in the moment you don’t respect science yourself.

RICHARD: You have raised this topic before (less than two weeks ago):

• [Respondent]: ‘You reject the whole science ...
• [Richard]: ‘I do not reject science ... I reject pseudo-science and/or science fiction masquerading as science and factoids. (September 22 2003).

And maybe you missed this one as it was in an exchange with another (from three weeks ago):

• [Richard]: ‘... I am on record more than a few times as having said that I appreciate the benefits brought about by both applied mathematics and practical science. (September 10 2003).

I could provide some more examples but maybe this will do for now?

RESPONDENT: The same you said for U.G. Krishnamurti.

RICHARD: You have lost me here ... are you saying I said Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti was ‘a flat earth god man etc.’ or are you saying I said he was enlightened when I (apparently) should have said he was ‘truth etc.’ or are you saying I underestimated him by ‘using certain sort sentences of him’?

RESPONDENT: And many other people scientists or not.

RICHARD: This has become so vague as to be unanswerable in its present form ... just what is this ‘the same’ you are referring to in regards Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti and these many other people be they scientists or not?

RESPONDENT: You have a tendency to disagree with everybody.

RICHARD: You may have misunderstood my oft-repeated ‘everybody has got it 180 degrees wrong’ statement ... it, of course, refers to matters of consciousness studies in general and, specifically, to where the answer to the problem of the human condition lies (in the world and not away from it).

It is not meant to refer to all fields of human endeavour.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Design, Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.