|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 53
RESPONDENT: Can you comment on this, Richard? From Mystique (Mistake) of Enlightenment: Pt.1: UG. www.well.com/user/jct/mystiq1.htm [snip four paragraph quote about stigmata mysticus]. RICHARD: I have far better things to do with my time ... such as sitting with my feet up on the coffee-table watching comedies on television. RESPONDENT: Talk about cheap points ... Score! RICHARD: You would have to be grasping at straws to read cheap point-scoring into my disinclination (having just finished responding to your previous e-mail) to provide yet another opportunity for *you* to score cheap points upon my acquiescing to your request ... to wit: asking me to explain (as in your ‘you’ll have to explain that one’ phrasing) the verbatim words of Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti in a three-paragraph quote which I had deliberately only prefaced with the Sanskrit meaning of the term ‘sahaja samadhi’, which is used to designate the natural state of non-duality/union, so as to pre-empt such ill-founded responses. Needless is it to add that, when I did provide the explanation you requested, you took the opportunity to score the aforementioned cheap points? For example:
There were more of similar ilk ... but maybe those will do for now? * RESPONDENT: (...) Perhaps you care to explain these swellings that UG gets with phases of the moon or his talk about glands and how physically he feels what another may feel and even get marks on his body. Are they spiritual swellings? RICHARD: What is it that you do not understand about the phrase ‘stigmata mysticus’ that you seek my explanation? RESPONDENT: [Are they] ASC swellings and marks? RICHARD: What is it that you do not understand about Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s suggestion in the quotes you
provided RESPONDENT: Is his physical sensitivity psychosomatic? RICHARD: May I suggest? Type the word <nadis> into a internet search engine and see what comes up ... then try <nadis AND stigmata> (or however the particular search-engine requires ‘find both words’ to be entered) and lastly type <mystical AND stigmata> for a western-style explanation. RESPONDENT: In all those 11 years of enlightenment, surely you experienced these things. RICHARD: Not being born and raised in the Indian culture – and thus not being steeped in their spiritual heritage – such tradition-inspired swellings and colourations played no part in my experience ... and, being agnostic if not atheistic from a very young age, neither did the corresponding culturally-conditioned mystical stigmata of the country I was born and raised in manifest itself either. Plus I was not what is known as ‘an ecstatic’ anyway.
RICHARD: There is nothing like bringing an issue out into the open so that it can be examined, eh? (...) RESPONDENT: ... lets assume, that because of A, B & C, that one can logically arrive at the premise that I am a spiritualist or spiritual in nature; what then? RICHARD: Then the issue is out in the open so that it can be examined. RESPONDENT: What is the point of defining me? RICHARD: So that the issue can be out in the open and thus examinable. RESPONDENT: Where to from there? RICHARD: To the examination, of course. RESPONDENT: What good is this label you are sticking on me ...? RICHARD: The good (as in ‘benefit’) that an examination can bring. RESPONDENT: What good (as in ‘benefit’) does an examination bring? RICHARD: The good (as in ‘benefit’) that only an examination can bring. RESPONDENT: Sorry but this is part and parcel of your method ... RICHARD: This has nothing whatsoever to do with the method – asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) – that the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago devised and successfully applied ... this is the straightforward business of examining (aka inspecting) an out-in-the-open issue in order to ‘investigate its nature, condition, or qualities’ (Oxford Dictionary) and, as human history attests to the good (as in ‘benefit’) which that action of ‘searching, investigating, or inquiring’ (Oxford Dictionary) can bring about with virtually any subject, your apology (as in your ‘sorry’ phrasing) for not proceeding with what you provisionally agreed with (as in your ‘let’s assume’ phrasing) is not only ill-founded but smacks of grandstanding into the bargain as nobody can be that ignorant of such a well-established activity as the examining process indubitably is. RESPONDENT: As it is your neurotic, anal obsession to pin labels on all and sundry, even though you claim there are no such labels in the actual world ... RICHARD: If I may point out? I have never said there are no short classifying phrases or names
The use of -ism on the end of a word (from the Latin ‘isma’ meaning ‘of action, something done’) simply indicates the characteristics of a person or a thing – it is used to form a noun of action naming the process, the completed action or the result, with emphasis on character or conduct (it is the forming of a term denoting a trait or peculiarity) – and the use of -ist on the end of a word (from the Latin ‘ista’ for forming agent-nouns from verbs) merely denotes a person studying, practicing, or being occupied with something either professionally or on a large scale ... that you see their usage as neurotic, anally-obsessive, or juvenile is your trip, not mine. RESPONDENT: ... I will pass on joining in and playing your juvenile game of pin the tail on the spiritualists. Thus any examination of said labels, that don’t exist in actuality anyways, would be a fruitless endeavour and a waste of my time. RICHARD: As it was you who chose to write to me in the first place (to inform me that you use the label ‘materialist’ to define yourself) it would appear that fruitless endeavouring and time-wasting has a certain attraction despite your protestations to the contrary. Moreover, four e-mails ago I explicitly stated that if you writing to inform me you use the label ‘materialist’ to define yourself was nothing other than the incidental issue of correcting my misapprehension then that was, of course, the end of the matter ... yet you chose to propose a ‘let’s suppose’ scenario, instead of ending the issue there and then, and have fruitlessly endeavoured and time-wastefully used much bandwidth in pursuing the matter ever since. It would appear that your protestations are as hollow as your avowed dismissal of labels and labelling.
RICHARD: The reason why I provide that example [of Mr. Gaudapada’s spirituality] is because of what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say about him: [quote] ‘The saints are trying to tell you, so they are always in the field of duality; whereas the sage or seer, or whatever you want to call him, is in the state of undivided consciousness. He does not know that he is a free man, so for him there is no question of trying to free others. He is just there, he talks about it, and then he goes. Gaudapada had no disciples – he refused to teach anybody’. [endquote]. And: [quote] ‘You must challenge what I am saying without the help of your so-called authorities. You just don’t have the guts to do that because you are relying upon the Gita, not upon yourself. That is why you will never be able to do it. If you have that courage, you are the only person who can falsify what I am saying. A great sage like Gowdapada can do it, but he is not here. You are merely repeating what Gowdapada and others have said. It is a worthless statement as far as you are concerned. If there were a living Gowdapada sitting here, he would be able to blast what I am saying, but not you’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT No 27: OK, so you are saying that since UG says that Gowdapada can falsify his [UG’s] words, and that he was a ‘great’ sage means that UG is spiritual? RICHARD: In the first passage (further above) he clearly says [quote] ‘the sage or seer, or whatever you want to call him, is in *the state of undivided consciousness*’. [emphasis added] ... would you say that Mr. Gowdapada, whom Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti says is ‘a great sage’, was in such a state? If so it is pertinent to see how Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti describes his own state: [quote] ‘All these visions and everything were happening for three years after the ‘calamity’. Now the whole thing is finished. The divided state of consciousness cannot function at all any more; it is always in *the undivided state of consciousness* – nothing can touch that. [emphasis added]. To not put too fine a point on it: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has defined Mr. Gowdapada with the label ‘great sage’ (and others like him with the labels ‘sage’ or ‘seer’) because he – and they – are not in what he calls ‘the field of duality’ but are in what he calls ‘the state of undivided consciousness’ ... has he not? RESPONDENT: As far as ‘the state of undivided consciousness’ goes ... just substitute your word ‘actuality’ for undivided consciousness ... RICHARD: You mean like this? Viz.:
And here is the substitute description:
RESPONDENT: ... are you so sure they don’t mean the same thing? RICHARD: As I have intimate knowledge of both the state of undivided consciousness (having lived that/been that, night and day, for eleven years) and the condition which ensues when one goes beyond that state via ‘self’-immolation in toto (night and day for more than a decade now) I can assure you that there is no such thing as [quote] ‘the state of actuality’ [endquote]. In short: there are no states of being here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Have you confronted Mr. UGK with your concern over the words he uses? RICHARD: Where did I say I had ‘concern’ over the words Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti uses? RESPONDENT: Have you nailed him down in regard to what meaning he is using these terms? RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? Viz.:
I may be a lot of things ... but I am not a miracle worker. RESPONDENT: Apparently he didn’t deem it necessary to invent a new vocabulary or phrasing for age old descriptions unlike yourself and Mr. JK. RICHARD: Well, well, well ... finally you acknowledge, albeit in a circumlocutory manner, just what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s natural state is none other than. I appreciate that you acknowledge this ... I have no further questions.
RICHARD: [quote] ‘(...) it is ‘me’ who is responsible for an action that results in ‘my’ own demise – without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here) – as it is ‘me’ who is the initiator of bringing about this sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously, and with knowledge aforethought from a pure consciousness experience (PCE), set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for ‘I’ cannot end ‘myself’). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and intentionally (cheerfully and blessedly), is press the button ...’. RESPONDENT: Mr. Clarity in Communication, aka, Richard: what button? Where is the button? What is the button made out of? What presses the button? Is this button a metaphor? Is it material? Spiritual? Metaphysical? You have used this word ‘button’; is it an actual button perhaps? The rest of this lovely fantasy, that you lay out for us, is as clear as a fantasy can be, yet what about this ... BUTTON ??? RICHARD: As the rest of that quote of mine is a fantasy I have laid out for you then so too is that label you are focussing upon (there is nothing of that nature in actuality) ... perhaps a re-read of the following may provide the clarity you are asking for:
RESPONDENT: ... The rest of this lovely fantasy, that you lay out for us, is as clear as a fantasy can be, yet what about this ... BUTTON ??? RICHARD: As the rest of that quote of mine is a fantasy I have laid out for you then so too is that label you are focussing upon (there is nothing of that nature in actuality) ... RESPONDENT: So if there is nothing of that nature in actuality – that being ‘the BUTTON’, then why call it a button? Is this the authors poetic license? Is it a metaphor? You have yet to explain what exactly you mean by this button. You do claim to be all for clarity in communication and you are one to refer to the dictionary when it suits your needs? RICHARD: If it is a dictionary definition you are wanting ... here is one:
* RICHARD: ... perhaps a re-read of the following may provide the clarity you are asking for: [Respondent]: ‘(...) I am certainly glad you have so altruistically cleared that up for me’. [Richard]: ‘(...) Incidentally, I am not altruistic – altruism is an instinctual inheritance which expires as the identity – and any and all (seemingly altruistic) actions are motivated solely by the fellowship regard engendered by an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event. It is all so simple here in this actual world’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: And what do these few, old and at first, second and third glance, seeming irrelevant to this topic, cut & pasted lines, have to do with this button issue? You are less clear than ever. Did someone accidentally caffeinate your decaf espresso? Still no clarity, sorry chief. RICHARD: Perhaps a re-read of the following may provide the clarity you are asking for:
Put simply: I did nothing – ‘twas the (fantasy) identity who pushed the (fantasy) button which ensured ‘his’ (fantasy) demise – as I have been just here, right now, all along ... simply having a ball. Here is the relevant passage from the ‘Introduction To Actual Freedom’ you said was [quote] ‘pretty impressive in its simplicity and logic’ [endquote] and suggested was [quote] ‘the perfect framework for a standard education course’ [endquote] ... perhaps a re-read will provide the relevance you are asking about:
Just substitute the word ‘fantastical’ for ‘fictitious’, so as to suit your phrasing (further above), and it should all become clear.
RESPONDENT: (...) You have yet to explain what exactly you mean by this button. You do claim to be all for clarity in communication and you are one to refer to the dictionary when it suits your needs? RICHARD: If it is a dictionary definition you are wanting ... here is one:
RESPONDENT: OK, so it is a metaphorical button. And, it is a metaphorical ‘pressing’ of that metaphorical button. RICHARD: Here is my initial response:
As this is in accord with what the figurative expression ‘press the button’ refers to (as in the ‘initiate an action or train of events’ phrasing above), and as it is daring to care altruistically about all the misery and mayhem that epitomises the human condition which sets in motion the corresponding altruistic process that will ensure peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, it is anything but a ‘metaphorical’ initiating and anything but a ‘metaphorical’ action or train of events ... it is a once-in-a-lifetime initialisation of a never-to-be repeated process/action/train of events. Put simply: it takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism). RESPONDENT: In reality, actuality and fantasy, there really, actually and even fantastically, is no pressing going on and no button. RICHARD: There does seem to be some confusion on your part with what the expression refers to and the expression itself ... just as there was with labels and what the labels refer to in another thread. Viz.:
To put it bluntly: the illusory/ delusory identity will die an illusory/ delusory death commensurate to its pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts to being just here, right now, 24/7. The doorway to an actual freedom from the human condition has the word ‘extinction’ written on it ... which is why probably so very few dare to care. For to dare to care is to care to dare. RESPONDENT: Why you use ‘pressing’ and why you use ‘button’ has got me beat ... RICHARD: It is nothing more mysterious than using an expressive phrase ... the English language has a plenitude of them. For instance:
RESPONDENT: ... and seems in stark hypocritical contrast to your criticisms of all and sundry and their use of certain words which you never hesitate to jump all over and to label and to define them as this or that and in essence pure fantasy/not actual and hence not being worthy of cleaning your stinking toilet. RICHARD: As what its usage seems to be and what its usage actually is are two entirely different things it may be worth your while to focus on the latter rather than the former. RESPONDENT: Thanks for finally clearing that up ... RICHARD: You are very welcome ... you are not the first to confuse what an expression and/or a label refers to with the expression and/or label itself (and you will probably not be the last). RESPONDENT: ... albeit in your rather tiresome unnecessary circumlocutory manner. RICHARD: Oh, I did not find it tiresome at all – I was only too happy to clear up the issue – and, in view of your
continued incomprehension, it was entirely necessary to conduct it in a way which kept to the point initially made ... to wit: only totalistic ‘self’-sacrifice
for the benefit of this body and that body and every body will do the trick In a word: altruism. RESPONDENT: No further clearing up ‘this button issue’ necessary. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that the matter is finally settled. * RICHARD: [quote] (...) ‘my’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence. (...) [endquote]. Just substitute the word ‘fantastical’ for ‘fictitious’, so as to suit your phrasing further above [now snipped], and it should all become clear. RESPONDENT: Tis still not clear. The whole thing seems a freaking fantasy to me. RICHARD: Okay ... just substitute the words ‘as much a freaking fantasy’ for the words ‘as fictitious’, then.
RESPONDENT: (...) You have yet to explain what exactly you mean by this button. You do claim to be all for clarity in communication and you are one to refer to the dictionary when it suits your needs? RICHARD: If it is a dictionary definition you are wanting ... here is one: [quote] ‘press the button (fig.): initiate an action or train of events ...’. (Oxford Dictionary).RESPONDENT: OK, so it is a metaphorical button. And, it is a metaphorical ‘pressing’ of that metaphorical button. RICHARD: Here is my initial response: [Richard]: ‘... it is writ large all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that the altruistic instinct (aka altruism) is what initiates the process’. [endquote]. As this is in accord with what the figurative expression ‘press the button’ refers to (as in the ‘initiate an action or train of events’ phrasing above), and as it is daring to care altruistically about all the misery and mayhem that epitomises the human condition which sets in motion the corresponding altruistic process that will ensure peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, it is anything but a ‘metaphorical’ initiating and anything but a ‘metaphorical’ action or train of events ... it is a once-in-a-lifetime initialisation of a never-to-be repeated process/ action/ train of events. Put simply: it takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism). RESPONDENT: In reality, actuality and fantasy, there really, actually and even fantastically, is no pressing going on and no button. RICHARD: There does seem to be some confusion on your part with what the expression refers to and the expression itself ... RESPONDENT: You think it may be possible that just perhaps there is some confusion or mistaken comprehension on your part, in your deciphering of others human beings use of words, phrases and/or expressions as well? RICHARD: I appreciate that you acknowledge – with your ‘as well’ phrasing – that it is anything but a metaphorical initiating and anything but a metaphorical action or train of events that the figurative expression ‘press the button’ refers to in the passage in question. Viz.:
Needless is it to add that the irrevocable ‘self’-immolation which ensues is also anything but a metaphorical ending of identity in toto (even though ‘my’ demise is as much a ... um ... a freaking fantasy as ‘my’ pernicious existence was? I only ask because you did say, in the previous e-mail, that it was still not clear why my report that there is no altruism here in this actual world (nor, of course, selfism) was relevant to this topic – the topic which you initially classified as [quote] ‘this lovely fantasy’ [endquote] – even though you had asked if the button which is pressed was an actual button. Viz.:
Unless this matter is cleared up it is pointless to move on to the next topic you have raised (further above and further below in this e-mail) about the possibility of me being as confused or mistakenly comprehensive of other human beings’ use of words, phrases and/or expressions as well as you. I am, of course, referring to the topic of the state of being – the [quote] ‘state of undivided consciousness’ [endquote] as contrasted to [quote] ‘the field of duality’ [endquote] – that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is in as arguably being the same as the condition which ensues when the ‘being’ in question altruistically ‘self’-immolates in toto for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. In other words, is the condition where there is no separative ‘being’ whatsoever in, or associated with, the flesh and
blood body (and hence no separation of sensibility I do look forward to your considered response.
RESPONDENT: Richard cut and pasted this UG sentence out of a whole paragraph [quote] ‘There is no such thing as a direct sense-experience’. [endquote]. He conveniently omitted the entirety of the subject and took it out of context like there is no tomorrow. UG was responding to a question on artistic creativity: Richard took this so far out of context, it really is shameful. RICHARD: If I may point out? I was responding to another commenting that they were [quote] ‘immediately struck by the similarities’ [endquote] between the way Richard reports experiencing the world and the way Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti does ... and, as he is on record on many an occasion as saying that all that which is sensorially experienced – time and space and form – are created by thought, it is entirely apt to provide the quote as I did as its extraction from the context in which he made that statement does not distort, or in any other way change, the entirety of the subject then being discussed (artistic creativity vis-à-vis sensuality) given that, for him, sensuality (which he describes as ‘the field of pleasure’ further on down the page) is possible only through ‘the help of knowledge’ (aka thought). Here are some quotes about thought creating the universe (aka time and space and matter):
And:
Again:
Once more ... short and to the point:
Perhaps you might explain how it ‘really is shameful’ that I (supposedly) took the quote ‘so far out of context’ so as to have ‘conveniently omitted the entirety of the subject’ ... here is the full paragraph you provided so as to, apparently, substantiate your point by doing so sans comment (with the extracted quote in question highlighted):
Incidentally, I do appreciate that you are providing such an on-going opportunity to discuss the topic of whether Mr. Uppaluri
Krishnamurti’s natural state of being – the state of undivided consciousness called ‘sahaj samadhi’ in the Indian language There is indeed nothing like bringing an issue out into the open so that it can be examined
RESPONDENT: Richard cut and pasted this UG sentence out of a whole paragraph [quote] ‘There is no such thing as a direct sense-experience’. [endquote]. He conveniently omitted the entirety of the subject and took it out of context like there is no tomorrow. UG was responding to a question on artistic creativity: Richard took this so far out of context, it really is shameful. RICHARD: If I may point out? I was responding to another commenting that they were [quote] ‘immediately struck by the similarities’ [endquote] between the way Richard reports experiencing the world and the way Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti does ... and, as he is on record on many an occasion as saying that all that which is sensorially experienced – time and space and form – are created by thought, it is entirely apt to provide the quote as I did as its extraction from the context in which he made that statement does not distort, or in any other way change, the entirety of the subject then being discussed (artistic creativity vis-à-vis sensuality) given that, for him, sensuality (which he describes as ‘the field of pleasure’ further on down the page) is possible only through ‘the help of knowledge’ (aka thought). RESPONDENT: So he is saying all that is created by thought and without the aid of knowledge, aka thought, you have no way of whether something is hot, cold, painful, pleasurable, red, white, green, large, small, rough, smooth, far way, near, etc. ... is that what he is saying? RICHARD: What he is saying is that there is [quote] ‘no such thing as a direct sense-experience’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: And you are saying what? RICHARD: That there is indeed [quote] ‘direct sense experience’ [endquote].
RESPONDENT: (...) You have yet to explain what exactly you mean by this button. You do claim to be all for clarity in communication and you are one to refer to the dictionary when it suits your needs? RICHARD: If it is a dictionary definition you are wanting ... here is one: [quote] ‘press the button (fig.): initiate an action or train of events ...’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: OK, so it is a metaphorical button. And, it is a metaphorical ‘pressing’ of that metaphorical button. RICHARD: Here is my initial response: [Richard]: ‘... it is writ large all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that the altruistic instinct (aka altruism) is what initiates the process’. [endquote]. As this is in accord with what the figurative expression ‘press the button’ refers to (as in the ‘initiate an action or train of events’ phrasing above), and as it is daring to care altruistically about all the misery and mayhem that epitomises the human condition which sets in motion the corresponding altruistic process that will ensure peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, it is anything but a ‘metaphorical’ initiating and anything but a ‘metaphorical’ action or train of events ... it is a once-in-a-lifetime initialisation of a never-to-be repeated process/action/train of events. Put simply: it takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism). RESPONDENT: In reality, actuality and fantasy, there really, actually and even fantastically, is no pressing going on and no button. RICHARD: There does seem to be some confusion on your part with what the expression refers to and the expression itself ... RESPONDENT: You think it may be possible that just perhaps there is some confusion or mistaken comprehension on your part, in your deciphering of others human beings use of words, phrases and/or expressions as well? RICHARD: I appreciate that you acknowledge – with your ‘as well’ phrasing – that it is anything but a metaphorical initiating and anything but a metaphorical action or train of events that the figurative expression ‘press the button’ refers to in the passage in question. RESPONDENT: I am not acknowledging anything about a button ... RICHARD: I never said you were ... I specifically cited what the figurative expression ‘press the button’ refers to in the passage in question. RESPONDENT: ... as I have no knowledge of said button or its initiation of certain events. RICHARD: I am only too happy to copy-paste the relevant text down here so as to save you looking back above to locate it. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: My point being that there really is no material button and therefore this button is a metaphor. RICHARD: As there ‘really is’ the powerful instinct called altruism in the real-world – as contrasted to the powerful instinct called selfism – genetically endowed by blind nature at conception as a rough and ready survival software package your continued focus upon the expression itself, and not upon what the expression refers to, reminds of something you wrote to this mailing list a couple of months ago. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I have no problems with using ‘press the button’ as an expression that initiates an action or train of events. RICHARD: Good ... but do you have a problem with the expression specifically referring to daring to care altruistically about all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition as being what sets in motion (aka ‘initiates’) the corresponding altruistic process (aka ‘action or train of events’) which will ensure peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body? I only ask because if you are indeed convinced there is no ‘how’ (à la more than a few spiritualists’ teachings) you may very well wind up languishing in the same-old affective state of being which has been lauded down the centuries by sages and seers as the summum bonum of human experience. Put simply: not only are you not [quote] ‘already here’ [endquote] you never will be ... you are forever locked-out of this actual world by your very being (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself). In other words you are not ‘the carrot’ ... never were and never will be.
CORRESPONDENT No. 53 (Part Six) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
