|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 77
RESPONDENT: Now that I have had a chance to read a lot of the information on the web site as well as a large portion of Richard’s journal and having experienced a few PCE’s (or perhaps excellence experiences) lasting for half a day at a time as well as remembered quite a few other PCE’s, I have some observations to make and questions to ask. My observations/questions, in no particular order, are as follows: 1. Relationships – In a PCE, there is no need for a relationship as everything is already perfect. There is an enormous feeling of well being and there seems to be no particular motivation to go and find another person and prove that two people of the opposite gender can live together in peace, harmony, equity, etc. – My question is: ‘What motivates Richard to be in a relationship with a woman if he is living in Actual Freedom (which I understand to be more or less a permanent PCE)?’ I mean, why bother? RICHARD: It is not to ‘prove’ that two people can live together in peace and harmony that I am currently living with a female companion – it is impossible to be anything other than happy and harmless here in this actual world – and it is no ‘bother’ at all to live in marriage-like association with a fellow human being of either gender (according to sexual orientation) ... it is both a delight and a privilege. RESPONDENT: – My observation is that if Richard (who claims to live in Actual Freedom) and Devika/Irene (who claimed to have lived in Virtual Freedom) could not really make a go of it, than there are no observable facts to show that two people of the opposite gender who practice/live actualism can indeed live in peace, harmony and equity. RICHARD: As I did ‘really make a go of it’ – and still do, of course, in my current association – your observation makes no sense at all. RESPONDENT: Apologies to Peter and Vineeto as they have been together for only a few short years and, once again, we cannot observe their daily lives to sort out fact from fiction (besides, they do not claim to live in Actual Freedom anyway). RICHARD: Neither did my previous companion ... I will pass on your apologises to her the next occasion we happen to meet. RESPONDENT: – Another observation from Richard’s correspondence with Irene (his ex-wife Devika) is that his perception of their 11 year relationship was starkly different from Irene’s perception/experience of it. RICHARD: The ‘perception/experience’ of my previous companion – regarding her 11-year association with me – which you are referring to was being made from the state of Love Agapé and Divine Compassion ... which she described as ‘Matriarchal/ Matrilineal’ Love/ Compassion (as contrasted to Patriarchal/ Patrilineal Love/ Compassion). RESPONDENT: Richard’s perceptions/experiences of a perfect relationship documented in his journal could perhaps even be called ‘delusions’ of sorts (much like delusions of enlightenment) given Irene’s subsequent criticism of Richard, his character, his state of freedom and his method. RICHARD: As my experience with my previous companion is, of course, still of the perfect kind (no matter how she experiences me) then what you are saying is, in effect, that life here in this actual world is delusional. Here is my question: where, then, is life not delusional? RESPONDENT: It also seems that when Irene/Devika was free of the relationship, she spoke quite differently (and it seems with more honesty) about her experiences in the marriage and its shortcomings. This, of course, is not uncommon for one person to ‘wear the mask’ to meet the other person’s expectations, so that relationship continues. Once the relationship is over, the mask comes off and the real truth comes out. Of course, this is just my take on the whole situation. Nevertheless, observable facts are that for two people who claim to be free of malice, their exchanges on this mailing list certainly did not ‘exude happiness and harmlessness’ to put it mildly and politely. One can only imagine what it must have been like in real life. RICHARD: If, as you claim at the end of this e-mail, all this is being written as a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is happening it would not only be impossible to ‘imagine’ what the day-to-day marriage was like it would not be necessary ... it is startlingly obvious in a PCE that it can only ever be perfect. RESPONDENT: 2. Is Richard actually free as he claims to be? RICHARD: Indeed he is. RESPONDENT: – This seems to be a very difficult question to answer and the web site abounds with contradictions. RICHARD: And just what ‘contradictions’ would they be? RESPONDENT: As Richard chooses to remain anonymous, it is impossible to observe his behaviour in every day life and make any conclusions about it. RICHARD: Whereas those who have observed can (and that includes accredited psychiatrists/psychologists). RESPONDENT: – Richard is quite right in his observations about many so called ‘Enlightened Masters’ and their inability to live up to their own teachings. By observing their lives, it becomes quite obvious that they all have ‘dark sides’, ‘blind spots’, superstitions, unresolved emotions, personality quirks etc., etc. Also by experiencing ‘enlightening states’ one call also see (with some real honesty) numerous shortcomings in oneself. Notice that I do not call it ‘Enlightenment’ because of the inherent contradictions and lack of perfection and consistency. I therefore use the term ‘enlightening states’. – Richard’s interactions with people on the mailing list do not seem to be consistent with his claim that he lives in actual freedom and that he is happy and harmless 24 hours a day. RICHARD: And just how should the interactions on a mailing list of a person actually free from the human condition be, then (according to you)? RESPONDENT: Many people have noticed Richard’s argumentative attitude, one-upmanship, determination to win arguments at all cost, claims that he is the best thing since sliced bread, claims that he is the only free person in the world, evasiveness in answering direct questions, nit picking with precise definition of words to avoid answering difficult or uncomfortable questions, refusing to really listen to anybody else’s observations or points of view etc., etc. RICHARD: In response to the last three items on your list (the first four are already answered in the section you have taken them from): where have I been (1) evasive in answering a direct question ... and (2) avoided answering a difficult or an uncomfortable question (whatever they may be) ... and (3) refused to really listen to anybody else? RESPONDENT: His interactions with his ex-wife seem be of even lower standard and resemble a typical emotional argument between two former partners (if anything, Irene seems to be the more rational and unemotional of the two). RICHARD: As my previous companion did not respond to any of my e-mails I will copy-paste the following (from her last e-mail to Vineeto before unsubscribing) for your edification:
As blaming another for feeling livid – synonyms: furious, enraged, up in arms, beside yourself, incensed – and repulsed (disgusted, revolted, nauseated, sickened) is hardly the stuff of rationality there is no substance to what you have to say. RESPONDENT: In my view, all of this points to a significant presence of malice and a probability of a very big ego. Of course, I cannot prove this conclusion, but in Richard’s own words ‘If it looks like a duck; if it waddles like a duck; if it quacks like a duck ... it is a duck’. RICHARD: If you could provide an example of where I have indeed had ‘a typical emotional argument’ it might throw some light upon what your conclusion is based upon. RESPONDENT: – This behaviour (in point above) seems to be at odds with my observations in PCE. In PCE there is no need to argue with people, to win at all cost, to prove that one is the best, etc. One feels so good, at ease, benevolent, fulfilled (as in nothing is missing) and secure that it seems to me inconceivable to be involved in endless arguments with people with a strong desire to win (and probably prove how smart one is) and prove one’s point of view (again and again and again). RICHARD: As this is the second occasion wherein you have described your peak experience as affective – as in your ‘feels’ phrasing just above (and your ‘enormous feeling’ phrasing further above) – it is pertinent to point out, at this stage, that if there be any feelings whatsoever in such an experience one thing is for sure ... it ain’t a PCE. I cannot put it any more plainly than that.
RESPONDENT: My observation is that if Richard (who claims to live in Actual Freedom) and Devika/Irene (who claimed to have lived in Virtual Freedom) could not really make a go of it, than there are no observable facts to show that two people of the opposite gender who practice/live actualism can indeed live in peace, harmony and equity. RICHARD: As I did ‘really make a go of it’ – and still do, of course, in my current association – your observation makes no sense at all. RESPONDENT: Richard, in this case I am not questioning your side/experience of marriage. RICHARD: If so I would suggest you phrase your words differently as what you wrote above certainly conveys the impression that you are (the conjunctive ‘and’ in your sentence can be clearly seen). RESPONDENT: You have stated your experience clearly. What I am observing at (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listafirene.htm) is that Irene/Devika claims that she was not happy as evidenced by her comments e.g. [Irene]: I can tell you that the reason [being ‘teacherish’ and ‘like a missionary’] was that it was actually not satisfying enough for me to have all that pleasure and delight for the two of us at the cost of all other people we came in contact with who felt constantly attacked’ [endquote]. RICHARD: In which case what you were saying would now look something like this:
Yet my previous companion, as detailed in ‘Richard’s Journal’, did ‘really make a go of it’ for five years (for the first six years she was living with an enlightened being) and it was not until she fell under the influence of love that she could no longer stay on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition ... which is one of the reasons why I warn of the only danger on the way (that one may inadvertently enter into an enlightened state of being instead). I kid you not. * RESPONDENT: (...) Nevertheless, observable facts are that for two people who claim to be free of malice, their exchanges on this mailing list certainly did not ‘exude happiness and harmlessness’ to put it mildly and politely. One can only imagine what it must have been like in real life. RICHARD: If, as you claim at the end of this e-mail, all this is being written as a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is happening it would not only be impossible to ‘imagine’ what the day-to-day marriage was like it would not be necessary ... it is startlingly obvious in a PCE that it can only ever be perfect. RESPONDENT: Most of the email was written outside of a PCE. RICHARD: Okay ... which parts of the e-mail were not written outside of a peak experience? RESPONDENT: In fact when in PCE, it seemed pointless/silly to send this email. RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that most of the e-mail was written before the peak experience? RESPONDENT: The email was sent outside of PCE and any imagination would happen outside PCE (and of course, would be mot like erroneous) as in a PCE imagination does not seem to work (even when I tried it as an experiment). RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the point I was making: here in this actual world the day-to-day marriage could only ever be perfect (no matter how my previous companion, whilst in a state of Matriarchal/ Matrilineal Love/ Compassion, may have retrospectively described how she had experienced me). * RESPONDENT: ... the web site abounds with contradictions. RICHARD: And just what ‘contradictions’ would they be? RESPONDENT: Your acrimonious exchanges with people who question your views. RICHARD: And just what ‘acrimonious’ (synonyms: bitter, spiteful, rancorous, hostile) exchanges would they be? * RESPONDENT: As Richard chooses to remain anonymous, it is impossible to observe his behaviour in every day life and make any conclusions about it. RICHARD: Whereas those who have observed can (and that includes accredited psychiatrists/ psychologists). RESPONDENT: So far, I have not seen any of this information. Is it on the web site? RICHARD: Yes ... for instance:
And for another instance:
There are many more instances ... but maybe that will do for now. RESPONDENT: Besides, you know that many ‘enlightened masters’ have had psychiatrists/ psychologists as their disciples. RICHARD: As I am not an enlightened master, nor have any disciples (let alone psychiatrists/psychologists), this can only be a gratuitous comment. RESPONDENT: In addition to that psychiatrists/ psychologists do not live with you 24 hours a day ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... are you suggesting that makes any psychiatrist’s/psychologist’s official diagnoses invalid (else why mention it)? RESPONDENT: ... [In addition to that psychiatrists/ psychologists do not live with you 24 hours a day] as Irene/Devika did for 11 years. And so, the one person who has observed you 24 hours a day for 11 years claims that you are not actually free. RICHARD: My previous companion lived with me for five years (for the first six years she was living with an enlightened being) and my current companion has lived with me for nigh-on eight years ... I suppose there is no prize for guessing which companion’s description you would take as being the accurate one? Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: Richard’s interactions with people on the mailing list do not seem to be consistent with his claim that he lives in actual freedom and that he is happy and harmless 24 hours a day. RICHARD: And just how should the interactions on a mailing list of a person actually free from the human condition be, then (according to you)? RESPONDENT: I do not claim to have an answer as I do not live in actual or virtual freedom. RICHARD: In which case how can you say that my interactions do not seem to be consistent with being actually free from the human condition? * RESPONDENT: Many people have noticed Richard’s argumentative attitude, one-upmanship, determination to win arguments at all cost, claims that he is the best thing since sliced bread, claims that he is the only free person in the world, evasiveness in answering direct questions, nit picking with precise definition of words to avoid answering difficult or uncomfortable questions, refusing to really listen to anybody else’s observations or points of view etc., etc. RICHARD: In response to the last three items on your list (the first four are already answered in the section you have taken them from): where have I been (1) evasive in answering a direct question ... and (2) avoided answering a difficult or an uncomfortable question (whatever they may be) ... and (3) refused to really listen to anybody else? RESPONDENT: Well, I will give you a simple example in this very exchange. Further down this discussion you wrote [quote] ‘As this is the second occasion wherein you have described your peak experience as affective – as in your ‘feels’ phrasing just above (and your ‘enormous feeling’ phrasing further above) – it is pertinent to point out, at this stage, that if there be any feelings whatsoever in such an experience one thing is for sure ... it ain’t a PCE’ [endquote]. You know that other people do not live in actual freedom. RICHARD: What I know is what my co-respondent types out and sends ... and the following is how you began your previous e-mail:
RESPONDENT: You also know that other people when outside of PCE do not express themselves in exactly the same way that you do. RICHARD: Nor necessarily whilst having a pure consciousness experience (PCE) either ... and I have been with more than a few persons having such an experience. For instance:
Now, I have never used such an expression – ‘there is no room for love here’ – yet I knew perfectly well what was being conveyed. RESPONDENT: Your language has evolved over the years and become very precise and novices to your web site are not totally familiar with all the exact definitions or words and experience, which words are affective or, for that matter even what ‘affective’ means. RICHARD: Maybe this will be of assistance:
Apart from that: the words in question are ‘feels’ – as in your ‘one feels so good, at ease, benevolent, fulfilled (as in nothing is missing) and secure’ phrasing – and ‘feeling’ (as in your ‘there is an enormous feeling of well being’ phrasing) ... and I am yet to come across someone who does not know what those words mean. RESPONDENT: So instead of answering a question genuinely ... RICHARD: And just what question would that be? The only one in the entire paragraph which I responded
to the first three sentences of was of the ‘rhetorical question’ variety RESPONDENT: ... [So instead of answering a question genuinely] and help the person see what is wrong with their thinking, you nit-pick at the word ‘feel’ and go off on a tangent. RICHARD: If I may point out? It was you who said that your experiences were [quote] ‘or perhaps excellence experiences’ [endquote] ... and not me. RESPONDENT: Does one have to substitute a word ‘feel’ for ‘experience’ or another word that meets your approval before one can engage in an open discussion with you? RICHARD: It is not a matter of substitution at all ... it is a matter of what the experiences really were. RESPONDENT: This attitude does seem rather silly and I have seen countless examples of this sort of thing on the web site. RICHARD: And just what ‘countless’ examples of this sort of thing would they be? RESPONDENT: I mean, does a normal person have to fully absorb your terminology and use precise wording and carry a dictionary in their pocket before they can have a meaningful discussion with your? RICHARD: As I am yet to come across someone who does not know what the words ‘feels’ and ‘feeling’ mean then ... no. RESPONDENT: Quite frankly, when I started reading your web site, there were quite a few words that I did not understand and in fact encountered here for the first time in my life (and I have a university degree). RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at my query: where have I been (1) evasive in answering a direct question ... and (2) avoided answering a difficult or an uncomfortable question (whatever they may be) ... and (3) refused to really listen to anybody else? * RESPONDENT: His interactions with his ex-wife seem be of even lower standard and resemble a typical emotional argument between two former partners (if anything, Irene seems to be the more rational and unemotional of the two). RICHARD: As my previous companion did not respond to any of my e-mails I will copy-paste the following (from her last e-mail to Vineeto before unsubscribing) for your edification:
As blaming another for feeling livid – synonyms: furious, enraged, up in arms, beside yourself, incensed – and repulsed (disgusted, revolted, nauseated, sickened) is hardly the stuff of rationality there is no substance to what you have to say. RESPONDENT: As you can appreciate, I have not read all pages on your web site. I was referring to your exchange detailed at (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listafirene.htm). In that exchange she did not appear very emotional or irrational. RICHARD: Speaking personally I have always found that it pays to be well-informed before commencing a critique. RESPONDENT: As for her outburst you quoted above, so much for her living in virtual freedom (at least that is what I understood to be the case/claim). RICHARD: Allow me to copy-paste something from my previous e-mail to you:
Whilst I can understand that you have not read all the pages on The Actual Freedom Trust web site it does seem rather odd that you have not at least read what I wrote in the very e-mail you are responding to. * RESPONDENT: In my view, all of this points to a significant presence of malice and a probability of a very big ego. Of course, I cannot prove this conclusion, but in Richard’s own words ‘If it looks like a duck; if it waddles like a duck; if it quacks like a duck ... it is a duck’. RICHARD: If you could provide an example of where I have indeed had ‘a typical emotional argument’ it might throw some light upon what your conclusion is based upon. RESPONDENT: – This behaviour (in point above) seems to be at odds with my observations in PCE. In PCE there is no need to argue with people, to win at all cost, to prove that one is the best, etc. One feels so good, at ease, benevolent, fulfilled (as in nothing is missing) and secure that it seems to me inconceivable to be involved in endless arguments with people with a strong desire to win (and probably prove how smart one is) and prove one’s point of view (again and again and again). RICHARD: As this is the second occasion wherein you have described your peak experience as affective – as in your ‘feels’ phrasing just above (and your ‘enormous feeling’ phrasing further above) – it is pertinent to point out, at this stage, that if there be any feelings whatsoever in such an experience one thing is for sure ... it ain’t a PCE. I cannot put it any more plainly than that. RESPONDENT: As I have pointed out above, instead of answering my direct question (which relates to an observation from a PCE) you proceed to nit-pick with definitions and language and going off on a tangent. RICHARD: And, as I have pointed out above, just what ‘direct question’ would that be? RESPONDENT: How constructive is that? RICHARD: If you do not see how constructive it is to ascertain just what the nature of the experiences you are basing your conclusion on – which you said were ‘or perhaps excellence experiences’ (and thus certainly affective in nature) – then nothing I can add at this stage will make any difference. RESPONDENT: Do you disagree with my observation that in PCE there is no need to argue with people, to win at all cost, to prove that one is the best, etc., or are you simply avoiding the question by seeking to discredit the questioner? RICHARD: Again ... there was no ‘the question’ to answer (let alone avoid). RESPONDENT: Is this how an actually free person interacts with other people in their everyday life? RICHARD: No ... that is what you make of it. RESPONDENT: If it is, of course, a long term relationship cannot be sustained with ‘normal’ or even ‘virtually free’ people. Richard, isn’t there a more sensible way to interact with ‘normal’ people who are not actually free? RICHARD: Yes ... the way I actually do it.
RESPONDENT: My observation is that if Richard (who claims to live in Actual Freedom) and Devika/Irene (who claimed to have lived in Virtual Freedom) could not really make a go of it, than there are no observable facts to show that two people of the opposite gender who practice/ live actualism can indeed live in peace, harmony and equity. RICHARD: As I did ‘really make a go of it’ – and still do, of course, in my current association – your observation makes no sense at all. (...) RESPONDENT: As it has now become clear to me that you are not interested in open exchanges, listening to anybody’s point of view, answering any questions or commenting on any observations, I will discontinue this pointless discussion. It seems you are only interested in showing to your followers how cleverly you can manipulate words and win arguments at all cost. Only the followers who have already invested years in living by your beliefs could possibly see this sort of dishonesty and delusion for any type of freedom at all – other than freedom of speech. If you truly believe that this sort of stupidity will win over rational people and help spread your teachings like a chain letter than you are truly insane. Yes, I know ... you are not a teacher ... you do not have any beliefs ... you seem to be an Actually Malicious Asshole. Have a nice deluded life! RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
Just for starters: it is impossible to ever be bored in actuality ... as is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). For instance:
And:
And:
And:
And:
As for interest/ motivation: for a person actually free from the human condition there is an actual intimacy with every thing and every body (as is also evident in a PCE) and it is the concomitant fellowship regard which makes possible both The Actual Freedom Trust website and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list. Viz.:
Put simply: it is impossible to ever be self-centred here in this actual world.
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 |
(Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 77, 22 October 2004).
