Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

December 20 2000

RESPONDENT: Richard ... a few days ago I put forward my point of view that ‘Richard is an Artist and the material he works with is fools’. I have changed my viewpoint Richard. My current viewpoint is that ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’ is a vehicle and the driver they are using is a fool. My current viewpoint is that Richard you are being, or will be, used.

RICHARD: Hmm ... I recall that on 14/06/2000 you were proposing to the contributors to The Actual Freedom Mailing List that they consider participating in ‘... an actual freedom workshop, a weekend of exploring together what it means to be actually free on this planet in the year 2000 ... Byron Bay in the Spring’. This proposal of yours came just after your circular on 6/06/2000 advertising and promoting a spiritually-based tantric-sex workshop that you were collecting the $375.00 participation fee for. You are not the only person to try to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion ... and you will not be the last.

RESPONDENT: Exactly; my point exactly.

RICHARD: Good. Have you ever noticed how honesty and facts sit so well together?

RESPONDENT: The Actual Freedom Trust will turn ‘your’ Actual freedom into a ‘pay-as-you-participate religion’, whilst all I and you do is write words.

RICHARD: Whatever it is that The Actual Freedom Trust may or may not do in some indeterminate future is purely speculative ... whereas, far from what you do is to merely ‘write words’, you have been and are currently attempting to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion.

RESPONDENT: I have not.

RICHARD: If I may point out? You have already acknowledged that you did (further above) where you agreed that you are not the only person to try to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion and that you will not be the last (‘exactly; my point exactly’) so as to demonstrate your theory that The Actual Freedom Trust will do likewise. You cannot have it both ways: either you did (and therefore your extrapolation is theoretically feasible) or you did not (and therefore your extrapolation is rendered unfeasible).

Put simply: your denial (‘I have not’) invalidates your prognosis (‘exactly; my point exactly’).

RESPONDENT: I have been pointing out the tendencies that are inherent in any organisational system to corrupt itself over time.

RICHARD: Not so ... you have been pointing out the tendencies that are inherent in any power-based hierarchical ‘organisational system’ to corrupt itself over time. I have no power or ‘powers’ whatsoever ... and there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation. With no ‘top dog’ or ‘queen bee’ sitting on their throne and initialising the inevitable ‘chain of command’, an ‘organisational system’ need never, ever become corrupt. Or, as one person famous in history put it:

‘Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

RESPONDENT: You display a degree of insolence by twisting my words to suit your agenda.

RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... thus from now on when I write something such as ‘you are not the only person to try to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion and you will not be the last’ and you reply ‘exactly; my point exactly’ I am to read that as you meaning ‘I have not’, eh?

‘Tis good that you now explicate your use of the English language ... it helps to explain all the confusion thus far.

RESPONDENT: The words of mine are clearly documented on various websites.

RICHARD: The specific words in question are just up at the top of this page ... there is no need for anyone to negotiate their way through your various websites.

RESPONDENT: They will stand the test of time; and your unwillingness or inability to address my questions directly is also documented permanently. An honest answer on your part in regard to many of the questions I ask of you would be ‘I Richard, am not willing to answer that question right now’. Given such an answer from you I would say ‘thankyou Richard for your answer’. But you keep twisting and turning like you want to save the world under your own efforts; by yourself, without the help of your companions; you will be seen as the one to destroy the dragon of the self, and you will be seen as the king who pulled out the sword from the rock with your own strength and ... and in the movie of the event you want top credits. It is surely obvious already to the more intrepid readers that you use your intelligent logical circuits when you so desire and at other times you merely twist the input to create the output you desire.

RICHARD: Basically what you are saying here is that I am not giving you the answers that you think I should be giving you.

RESPONDENT: I have never ever attempted to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion. You take some examples you have documented more than once and you jump to a conclusion from inadequate data. You could rather spend your time seeking more information before sitting in judgment of all around you. For example I suggested you may have valued a trip to Pune or Egmond and what do you say? You were too busy finding actual freedom. Fine.

RICHARD: It is more than just ‘fine’ ... it meant peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, for this flesh and blood body, and thus paves the way for a global peace-on-earth.

RESPONDENT: But then you pretend actual knowledge of what happens there. You have second and third hand knowledge of a whole movement of people towards and into actual freedom and you pretend that that knowledge is somehow direct and accurate. It is not.

RICHARD: Allow me to present the source of the ‘second and third hand knowledge’ which is relevant to this E-Mail once again:

• [Respondent]: ‘Workshop – An Introduction to Humaniversity Therapy – The Art of Emotional Freedom. Since 1978, The Humaniversity in Holland has been showing people how to live lives of authenticity, love, friendship and meaning. It is rare that the programs or methods of Humaniversity Therapy have been offered in Australia. This July in Sydney a precious opportunity exists for you to experience and benefit from Humaniversity Therapy, when Hellmut Wolf leads a weekend workshop Cost: $A375 + GST <snip> Bookings and payment information: email xxx@xxx.com.au [endquote].

I see the words <workshop>, <humaniversity>, <therapy>, <emotional freedom>, <love>, <friendship>, <cost> and <payment> in your circular ... are you really saying that your words are just my ‘pretend actual knowledge’? A visit to the ‘Humaniversity’ Web Site elicited this information:

• [quote]: ‘Although the Humaniversity is an independent organization, there has always been a strong spiritual connection to the enlightened Indian Mystic Osho. Most of the Humaniversity Staff are sannyasins, i.e. disciples of Osho <snip> The Humaniversity is focused on the fulfilment of the human spirit. It has a very positive orientation to understanding and encouraging the realisation of this potential. You will therefore gain not only an appreciation of the human psyche and mental disorder, you will also gain a rich and deep understanding of the elements required for self-realisation’ [endquote].

I see the words <spiritual>, <enlightened>, <mystic>, <osho>, <sannyasins>, <disciples>, <spirit> and <self-realisation> in this introductory paragraph on the ‘Humaniversity’ Web Site ... are you really saying that their words are just my ‘pretend actual knowledge’?

• [Respondent]: ‘I was thinking about Actual Freedom some more today. And I thought ... if every other path has workshops and such ... how about an actual freedom workshop! A weekend of exploring together what it means to be actually free on this planet in the year 2000 ... What do you think? Byron Bay in the Spring’.

I see the words <every other path>, <workshops and such>, <an actual freedom workshop>, <a weekend of exploring together>, <Byron Bay in the Spring> in your E-Mail ... are you really saying that your words are just my ‘pretend actual knowledge’?

All these words are your words and their words ... not mine.

RESPONDENT: You have no knowledge of tantra directly.

RICHARD: I have ... I have told you before that I lived in the enlightened state night and day for eleven years and I have told you before that my then wife for the last seven of those eleven years was a sannyasin when she met me. And I have told you before that as she rapidly became an ex-sannyasin I learnt a lot about that spiritual milieu known as the ‘Sannyas-World’ ... I explored tantra personally and directly. Plus I have read about 90 books of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain, I have listened to about twenty audio tapes, I have watched about fifteen video tapes and have had face-to-face discussions with sannyasins, neo-sannyasins, ex-sannyasins, non-sannyasins, friends of osho, or whatever name they now go under.

RESPONDENT: You judge it from outside its environ. You are a spiritual voyeur unwilling to enter into direct experience and I imagine that your unwillingness to directly experience is based on arrogance that hides a deep fear.

RICHARD: Yet I lived humanity’s ultimate dream night and day for eleven years and all you can say is ‘you are a spiritual voyeur unwilling to enter into direct experience’, eh?

RESPONDENT: You turn actual freedom into a vehicle for judgment of other people including those who worked hard to create Pune and other centres of the advancement of actual freedom.

RICHARD: I do not have to have been to Poona to know that it certainly was not ‘a centre of the advancement of actual freedom’ ... your words are becoming more and more risible as this E-Mail goes on.

RESPONDENT: You sat at home with your encyclopaedic resources and have assumed that your intellectual observational constructions somehow correspond to the actuality of events that happened far away from where you were sitting on your virtual holy mountain getting enlightened and post-enlightened. You are a virtually cloistered intellectual and you deign to make statements about what the wisdom of osho – for example – was pointing to; and you do that in front of your TV (poetically speaking Richard; I am using an imagery device; not a literal – I thought I had better explain that to you before you take my words at face value). You are an armchair explorer into freedom Richard.

RICHARD: Basically you are saying that I am not to make any observation about the sannyas-world unless I am or was a sannyasin. Which means that I am not to make any observation about the Christian-world unless I am or was a Christian. Which means that I am not to make any observation about the Hindu-world unless I am or was a Hindu. Which means that I am not to make any observation about the Buddhist-world unless I am or was a Buddhist. Which means that I am not to make any observation about the Taoist-world unless I am or was a Taoist. Which means that I am not to make any observation about the Islamic-world unless I am or was a Muslim. Which means that I am not to make any observation about the Jewish-world unless I am or was a Jew. Which means that I am not to make any observation about the Jain-world unless I am or was a Jain. Which means that I am not to make any observation about the Sikh-world unless I am or was a Sikh.

Which means that I am not to make any observation about the Whatever-world unless I am or was a Whatever.

RESPONDENT: Many of us did it in the actual world.

RICHARD: I would suggest that you ‘did it’ (whatever it is that you did) in a conceptual ‘actual world’ ... nothing ‘dirty’ can get into this actual world of purity and perfection.

RESPONDENT: Thus you became bound to your concept of actual freedom whilst many others on the planet have been moving collectively and synergistically and with a sense of absolute individual autonomy and aloneness towards and into and enabling actual freedom on this very planet now, in our flesh and blood bodies.

RICHARD: Your phrasing (‘in our flesh and blood bodies’) is the give-away: the word ‘in’ indicates that you are speaking of the entity, the ‘self’ (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the body ... which is what you have indicated elsewhere:

• [Respondent]: ‘Actual freedom ... simplicity, acceptance, natural ease-of-process of being human (with ‘self’)’.

Thus it is you who are ‘bound to your concept of actual freedom’ and not me ... and you cannot even conceptualise an actual freedom correctly into the bargain.

RESPONDENT: Your work is interesting and valuable Richard; it is a pity you are a thief of concepts and a derider of actual humans, I have never ever attempted to turn an actual freedom into a pay-as-you-participate religion. I have merely and constantly and consistently stated that your simplistic classification scheme wherein all wisdom and contributions from humanity are redundant and of no value and your wisdom and contribution is of supreme value is malicious and harmful. I state it again and I will keep coming back to this point no matter how many times you attempt to throw the focus on attention on various spuriously constructed ‘red herrings’. The only point worth coming back to Richard is that you deride and negate the value of my work; the work of Krishnamurti, the work of most participants on this list except the ones who frame their understanding in your self-perceived way; and you deride and strip of value the work and being and play of all wise and playful saints and crazy wisdom masters down thru the ages.

RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... and then I too will ‘state it again’ and I too will ‘keep coming back to this point’ as well:

• [Richard]: ‘I acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of all the peoples who puzzled over and proposed and explored the ‘flat earth theory’ and the ‘geocentric cosmology’ for umpteen years but I ascribe no value whatsoever to their work ... I ascribe value to those who proposed a ‘spherical earth’ and the ‘heliocentric system’. I have only ever been interested in facts and actuality.

I can copy and paste until you either ‘get it’ or go away to more gullible pastures (there are those that do) ... I have all the time in the world to do whatever it is that the situation warrants at the time.

RESPONDENT: It is your capability to act so ungratefully and so maliciously Richard; but you cannot then turn around (180 degrees) and claim that you are enabling peace on earth. Far from it. You are absolutely part of the problem not part of the solution (note the irony here Richard in my simplistic classification scheme); further you claim to be delivering a way that will help people to enter into actual freedom; you are merely setting up the early infrastructure for an organisation that will corrupt the purity of your experience as virtually all organisations that are built around an apperceptive human do.

RICHARD: You do seem to be overlooking a pertinent point here: I have no power or ‘powers’ whatsoever ... and there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation. Just in case you still do not comprehend I will repeat my earlier explanation (much further above) here for your re-perusal and further contemplation:

• [Richard]: ‘With no ‘top dog’ or ‘queen bee’ sitting on their throne and initialising the inevitable ‘chain of command’, an ‘organisational system’ need never, ever become corrupt. Or, as one person famous in history put it: ‘Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

RESPONDENT: Richard I am not attempting to turn an actual freedom into a pay as you go religion; I am attempting to extract the truth from you and an organisation that has been set up seemingly for the purpose of declaring that ‘we are right and you are wrong’; i.e. to propagate ancient wisdom.

RICHARD: If you could direct me to the scriptures or ancient texts that contain this ‘ancient wisdom’ that advocates the extirpation of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the ‘self’ and the ‘Self’) I would be very pleased to read of it. I have been scouring the books for twenty years now to no avail.

RESPONDENT: Fine; go ahead and propagate ancient divisive wisdom but why not do it under the umbrella name ‘Ancient Wisdom Trust’ instead of the highly misleading commercially based trading and funding names that you are presenting to the undiscerning public. Fair Trading NSW take note.

RICHARD: And so you end your exposition with what seems to dominate your thinking – lawsuits and litigation – as if facts can be legislated out of existence or, failing that, you are perhaps advocating the return of the draconian censorship that retarded the advance of human knowledge for millennia and stifled any expression of ‘peace in our time’.

Or perhaps you have some other agenda?

December 20 2000

RESPONDENT: What do you mean by the term ‘mutual communication’ Richard?

RICHARD: In this context I mean a discussion wherein the other does not create artificial problems such as having a viewpoint – which they hold to be correct and true – that persuades them to see that Richard similarly has a viewpoint and which also induces them to see that he is demanding that the other adopts the viewpoint that their viewpoint causes them to see as ‘simplistic classification schemes’ instead of a description of simply living.

RESPONDENT: No, Richard, you have got things confused in your mind by intent or otherwise.

RICHARD: Are you saying that I have ‘got things confused’ about mutual communication being blocked by artificial problems when I said that:

1. The other has a viewpoint that they hold to be ‘correct and true’?
2. This viewpoint persuades them that their respondent also holds one?
3. This viewpoint induces them to see that the viewpoint they see the other holding also causes them to see that the other is demanding that they see what their viewpoint is making them see the other to be demanding?
4. This viewpoint forces them to see that a description of simply living is a ‘simplistic classification scheme’?

Are you so sure that it is me that is confused? What if I were to personalise it? Viz.:

1. You do have a viewpoint that you hold to be ‘correct and true’.

Is this a correct statement? If so, then:

2. Your viewpoint does persuade you that Richard also holds one.

Is this a correct statement? If so, then:

3. Your viewpoint does induce you to see that the viewpoint you do see Richard holding also causes you to see that Richard is demanding that you see what your viewpoint is making you see Richard to be demanding.

Is this a correct statement? If so, then:

4. Your viewpoint does force you to see that Richard’s description of simply living is a ‘simplistic classification scheme’.

Is this a correct statement? If so, then, it is you who was confused and not me. And, after all is said and done, you did say initially that ‘the problem I have with Richard is that he demands that the people around him adopt his viewpoint and his rather simplistic classification schemes of complex phenomena and systems’ as if life actually were made up of complex phenomena and systems when it is not. Life is incredibly simple yet it does happen quite often that simply living, when described to university graduates (for example), can sometimes all-too-easily be classified as ‘reductionist’ or ‘simplistic classifications’.

RESPONDENT: When I introduced the term ‘simplistic classification schemes’ I was referring to – for example – your insistence that until now humans have had two choices – to be normal or to be spiritual – and henceforth there is a third option – the Way of ‘Actual Freedom’.

RICHARD: Perhaps it would help if you were to provide some examples that are not either being normal (being ‘human’, being ‘natural’, being a ‘humanist’, being a ‘materialist’ and so on) or being abnormal (being ‘divine’, being ‘supernatural’, being a ‘theist’, being a ‘spiritualist’ and so on) instead of just endlessly telling me I am forcing you into what you deem to be ‘simplistic classification schemes’?

RESPONDENT: I say this is a simplistic classification scheme and your tendency to intellectualise and constrain the actuality and cogitation to those categories shows that you like to manipulate people into seeing things your way.

RICHARD: Then I guess you would categorise the three states of matter (solid, liquid, gas) as being a ‘simplistic classification scheme’ as well? What about the animal, vegetable, mineral description ... is that a ‘simplistic classification scheme’ too? And then there is the three main racial types (Negroid, Asiatic, Caucasian) ... are they a ‘simplistic classification scheme’ also? I could go on, but these examples will do for now.

RESPONDENT: In other words you are not yet free.

RICHARD: Why? Are you saying that I am not free because I provide a descriptive word (‘materialist’ and ‘spiritualist’ or ‘human’ and ‘divine’ or ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ and so on) for what would otherwise be a long-winded explanation each time one talked about oneself and others and life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?

RESPONDENT: You still want people to adopt your point of view.

RICHARD: You are so convinced that the actual freedom from the human condition, which I experience each moment again, is a ‘point of view’ (such as you have) that it makes you blind to the obvious:

Life is so very simple.

RESPONDENT: You construct the discourse in such a manner as to constrain less agile minds than mine to a limited range of prescribed choices that you ordain as having correspondence to ‘actuality’.

RICHARD: Yet nowhere have you broadened the ‘prescribed choices’ ... all you have done is complain about what I describe.

RESPONDENT: Your simplistic classification schemes and your berating of ALL Humans to accept your scheme as the final arbitrator of the ‘human condition’ is not only rude and malicious on your part; it is probably bordering on the intellectually unsustainable ...

RICHARD: Well then, either come up with some viable examples that are ‘intellectually sustainable’ or else cease carping ... demonstrate what you are so glibly saying (put your money where your mouth is).

RESPONDENT: ... and in my way of thinking and FEELING it indicates a possibility – I say POSSIBILITY Richard – that in fact you are harbouring a deep untreated psychosis ...

RICHARD: Yet you can only offer this amateurish psychologising by completely ignoring the fact that I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists – one of whom examined me over a three-year period – and by a psychologist qualified in the field who came weekly to my home during the same three-year period.

It really pays to read-up on what I have already written many times and published on my web page.

RESPONDENT: ... that is much more volatile and volcanic and painful than ‘sorrow’ or ‘malice’, that your mind-in-process keeps at bay by segmenting the availability of your entire apperceived self into your own simplistic classification scheme ‘Actual Freedom’ and ‘Self’.

RICHARD: This sounds reminiscent of something I have written at various places throughout my web site. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘... ‘disassociation’, or ‘disassociative identity disorder’ are dissociative reactions or attempts to escape from excessive trauma tension and anxiety by separating off parts of personality function from the rest of cognition as an attempt to isolate something that arouses anxiety and gain distance from it. For example, in everyday life, mild and temporary dissociation, sometimes hard to distinguish from repression and isolation, is a relatively common and normal device used to escape from severe emotional tension and anxiety. Temporary episodes of transient estrangement, depersonalisation and derealisation are often experienced by normal persons when they first feel the initial impact of bad news, for instance. Everything suddenly looks strange and different; things seem unnatural and distant; events can be indistinct and vaporous; often the person feels that they themselves are unreal and everything takes on a dream-like quality’. (Richard, List B, No. 14g, 10 December 2000).

There is more where that came from, but if that does not satisfy you then maybe this will:

May I suggest again that you read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust Web Site?

RESPONDENT: I am saying that you, Richard, will not be free until you embrace the self along with the pain and anger and ... sense of absolute betrayal ... that you continuously are experiencing there. Does that resonate at all in you Richard?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: I would like to explore this possibility further.

RICHARD: I will not be holding my breath waiting.

December 21 2000

RESPONDENT: The hypothesis that you are benign and harmless and free of malice and sorrow I hold as proved incorrect. It is not the case. I have documented consistently my observation that by persistently categorising the contributions of humans into WRONG normal and spiritual possibilities, or RIGHT Richard possibilities; you are propagating, continuing, and enhancing malicious disrespectful and legally reprehensible and offensive behaviour.

RICHARD: Are you really suggesting that anyone – anyone at all – who makes a discovery about anything at all relating to human life on this planet, which discovery advances human knowledge and improves the quality of human life, should keep that discovery to themselves just because you are lurking in the wings waiting to pounce upon them for having the audacity to point out that there is a better way of doing something? How can anyone say that the current way is the wrong way without saying that it is the wrong way? Golly, just try driving your car north along a south-bound one-way street ... and as sure as eggs is eggs there is a large red sign saying: ‘Turn Around ... You Are Going The Wrong Way!’

RESPONDENT: No Richard. I am telling you to ask me about my experience rather than assuming that you know and I do not.

RICHARD: I have no interest whatsoever in your experience as you have already made it clear what you propose as the solution to all the ills of human kind. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘There is only one position to take in order to bring an end to suffering and malice and sorrow and ignorance. When you meet another person enjoy their company. When another person offers you their company freely, enjoy the opportunity. Richard missed an opportunity. ‘I enjoy your company; you enjoy mine’. Simple’.

This idealism is in marked contrast to your recently stated real life experience. Vis:

• [Respondent]: ‘... recently in a cafe in Byron Bay when Vineeto came to me and I invited her to sit down and I was half way thru a sentence when she interrupted I immediately spontaneously told her to fuck-Off. And she did. She activated her Free Actuality and fucked off to the next table. I told her to fuck off because I am a human being with self with a history with value ...’.

Yet what does your idealistic solution to all the ills of human kind have to say?

• [Respondent]: ‘Simple ... the way to Actual Freedom is simple: step one, is to welcome people as they are and enjoy their company ...’.

This is why I have no interest whatsoever in your experience ... your experience sucks.

RESPONDENT: You continuously deride my experience with osho and with veeresh and with many others and with myself and you do not do that from a position of understanding – you do it from a position of pre-judgment of my experience.

RICHARD: If the end result of all your years of experience with ‘osho and with veeresh and with many others’ is typified by your (further above) real life example in a cafe then you are hard-pushed to justify your ‘you do it from a position of pre-judgment of my experience’ theory.

Anyway, whether I do or do not ‘pre-judge’ is beside the point at this moment.

RESPONDENT: You do the same for others. I merely represent a virtual class-action against you.

RICHARD: Hmm ... I would guess that these ‘others’ would have found another representative by now, if this ‘class-action’ had any existence outside of your fantasy, because your appraisal is dismal, your delivery feeble and your follow-through abysmal ... at the very least a representative would brief themselves thoroughly and read my responses carefully.

RESPONDENT: I respect your experience Richard. I am well aware I am pushing you right now; but that is because you insist on twisting everything I say to suit your own agenda.

RICHARD: I can assure you are not ‘pushing’ me one bit ... I have been challenged by experts.

RESPONDENT: The other day you insisted I am a follower of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain. This was already after I had told you I am not.

RICHARD: You must be referring to the following information:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am so glad to have had the opportunity to have been a sannyasin of bhagwan who latterly called himself osho; and then announced there is no more ‘sannyas’ in his point of view; there are only ‘Friends of OSHO’ ... It is sad and cute and laughable that there are so many people on the planet still calling themselves sannyasins; or arguing that sannyas is not where it is at; when the man who made it all up – out of the ancient teachings – and energised the whole phenomena in the 1970s and ‘80s on planet earth; stated clearly a few years before his death, that it had been great; it had worked; now it could finish. Some of the most PERCEPTIVE and FREE humans on the planet were drawn to the event over a few decades and some of us got the point. Some did not’.

I do comprehend that, after being ‘a sannyasin of bhagwan’, you did indeed cease being a sannyasin when he said to ... and became instead a ‘friend of OSHO’ as he said to a few years before his death. How could I not comprehend this when you made it all so clear by emphasising that you did what he said to do by telling me that ‘some of us got the point. Some did not’? Of course I comprehend ... you even said that it is ‘sad and cute and laughable that there are so many people on the planet still calling themselves sannyasins’.

RESPONDENT: I tell you again I am not a follower of anyone.

RICHARD: Let me see ... when you were ‘a sannyasin of bhagwan’ you were what could be and has been described as a follower of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain – a disciple sometimes known as a ‘Rajneeshee’ at the time – who supposedly was practicing total surrender to the master (if you were not a disciple practising total surrender to the master then you cannot describe yourself as having been ‘a sannyasin of bhagwan’).

Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain then came out with the notion, latterly known as ‘Friends of OSHO’, around about the time that the US authorities were scanning his credentials vis-à-vis entrance requirements (when he pretended to no longer be a religious leader replete with followers and came out with the farce that he had a lot of ‘friends’ he was living with in the good old US of A so as to be able to stay there). And, after he was no longer able to stay in the US (or pretty well anywhere else in the world), and wound up back in the Poona Ashram he had precipitously abandoned some years before, he declared that from now on he would no longer be known as ‘Bhagwan’, replete with followers (disciples known as ‘sannyasins’), but as ‘Osho’ ... replete with followers (disciples known as ‘friends of OSHO’).

That he found some references to ‘friends’ in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s words in regard to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s followers (disciples called ‘Bhikkhus’) that somehow would emphasise the devoted nature of the relationship between master and disciple only goes to drive home the point that a ‘friend of OSHO’ is most definitely a surrendered disciple ... or should be if they have understood him properly.

You did say to me that ‘some of us got the point. Some did not’ did you not?

RESPONDENT: You do not take my words at face value, you interpret them and twist them to illustrate that your simplistic classification scheme is correct. It is not correct and its only utility is creating dissent and malice and sorrow.

RICHARD: In this specific instance I disregarded your facile explanation of what a ‘friend of OSHO’ is and opted for Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s version ... I prefer fact to fancy any day of the week.

RESPONDENT: I repeat ... I am not normal; I am not spiritual, and I am not on your ‘third way’. How do you fit me into your paradigm Richard? I state I do not fit into your existing simplistic classification scheme and what do you do; you do not take my words at face value as you claimed you always do [and then get upset when I call your game in this respect] you attempt to squeeze me in so that you do not have to expand your scheme.

RICHARD: As I said: I opt for Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s classification ... I prefer fact to fancy any day of the week.

RESPONDENT: You do not want to expand your scheme because that would mean you would have to change the front page of your website which you do not seem to have done substantially since Moses was a boy.

RICHARD: If something is entirely adequate as-it-is then why change it?

RESPONDENT: Instead of attempting to fit me and others into your paradigm Richard you can choose to respect that we are humans just like you and so if we do not fit into any of your three boxes then that just may be evidence that in fact the Three Box Theory of the entire history of humanity until Richard came along just may need some more consideration. But be careful; if you change the three ways theory – which is the basis of your statements, and thus why I keep on coming back to it; then the actual freedom trust will have to produce some new illustrative graphics to support and present and elucidate and set in stone the newly derived theoretical understanding that you will from then on present as actual freedom.

RICHARD: Only in your dreams and schemes.

RESPONDENT: But; I recall the production of the graphics was a delight the first time around so; perhaps the next time it will be just as much fun.

RICHARD: Everything I do with these computers is fun.

RESPONDENT: Richard ... the main point once again which you keep insisting on sliding away from ... you cannot squeeze everybody into your simplistic classification scheme. You are rude and arrogant and ignorant by attempting to do so. Do you respect what I say is my experience ...

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: ... or do you use your experience as a limit to your willingness to immerse yourself more fully in an understanding of mine. You present yourself as the arbitrator of what is the right way. You do not ask me of my experience you prejudge it. Of course I am not then going to turn my car around and follow your instructions in this so called one-way street. Why? Because you do not even deign to find out from me whether I am even IN a car (a poetic concept here Richard) ... you just superimpose your experience onto actuality ... here is Respondent; he must be driving a car up a one-way street because I Richard discovered that truth was one hundred and eighty degrees opposite to where I had been heading.

RICHARD: Indeed you are facing 180 degrees away from peace-on-earth (as is evidenced by your cafe behaviour) ... but it is your life you are living and, as I can only suggest, then what another does with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to them.

RESPONDENT: I was heading in the wrong direction so everybody else must be also. I am driving a car; so Respondent must be also (a poetic image, Richard). Richard you might learn by asking people what their experience is rather than telling them. Please continue to tell about your experience Richard; it is fascinating. I am well aware you preferred not to answer my question about any possible traumatic experience in Vietnam, that you twisted the question as usual and addressed a peripheral issue in the hope that the reader will not notice that you are escaping. Did you ever go AWOL for example? (another poetic concept Richard).

RICHARD: It was not a ‘peripheral issue’ that your basic premise was incorrect ... it was central to your thesis. As for your amateur attempt at psychologising (‘I do not intend to take the classic Freudian approach ... I leave it to more competent systematic researchers in the psychiatric field to determine whether my hypothesis is correct’) you are way, way out of your depth. I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists – one of whom examined me over a three-year period – and by a psychologist qualified in the field who came weekly to my home during the same three-year period.

May I suggest that you leave the psychologising to the psychologists and the psychiatry to the psychiatrists?

RESPONDENT: I am enjoying this conversation immensely; it is a lot of fun for me; but I am neglecting other projects; and I am now wanting to get all the emails of today and yesterday onto actualfreedom.com so that people can read more about Richard’s wondrous and absolutely unprecedented way to actual fredo-frogdom (note the irony Richard).

RICHARD: Aye, you have already told me about ‘serving’ me up with irony ... it is just as well I have neither rueful n or other sorrowful feelings to be activated, eh?

RESPONDENT: So I may begin to phase away from entertaining you with my examination of your selfless self and move onto for example cyberhum.org for awhile until my natural actual process (N.A.P.) brings me back to this ongoing and learningful and revealing examination (OaLaRE) of Richard {surname not for publication; but free in all other respect (irony)} of Byron Bay. There is a beautiful lightning storm beginning here in Bundeena and I will turn my PC off now and perhaps lie on my bed with the blinds open and the french door open and stare into the night; thru the trees outside my bedroom window and think about my life for awhile. Think about my life was a term a partner of mine used as her description of contemplative meditation. She was actually free more or less or the same degree as you are, Richard. Although you are pretty free yourself. Just you deny your self. And that is a big denial. Incredibly significant for you. I enjoyed your company immensely in Byron Bay; pity you are such an arrogant Actually Free B****** (it is a term of endearment in Australia and you might take it that way).

RICHARD: And thus do you go spiralling off into the night – as myopic as you came – trailing your debris behind you.