|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 78
RESPONDENT: I am definitely trying to practice actualism, but I have not received one answer to any of my questions I have posed to you. You know I don’t expect you to be some sort of guru or anything, just would like some info. Earlier you asked ‘where have I ever been evasive in answering direct questions to me?’ and it seems to me that my direct questions have been evaded. RICHARD: I have just now gone back through all twelve of the e-mails you have written to this mailing list and found the following three addressed specifically to me:
And:
And:
If all it takes is to not respond to each and every e-mail each and any person addresses to me in order to qualify as being evasive (synonyms: elusive, slippery, shifty, cagey, hard to pin down, equivocal, ambiguous, vague) in answering a direct question then all I can do is tug my forelock and say ‘guilty as charged, milord’ as there are an untold number of e-mails I have not responded to. You asked what I thought of you still doing Vipassana Bhavana – aka ‘Insight Meditation’ – in the way Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west (as in your ‘I still sit now’ phrasing), and whether I saw any conflict with that and actualism, plus what I thought of your proposal that it is accelerating the process of you trying your damnedest to be the body and every sensation that is a part of it. First of all, in regards to your query, here is what Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) had to say:
Thus where you say you can ‘really experience the sensations’ whilst still sitting now (doing insight meditation the way Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west) then what you are experiencing – a stream of energy known as kalāpas – is impermanence or decay, and its corollary, suffering itself ... neither of which has anything to do with who you really are as you who are trying your damnedest to be the body, and every sensation that is a part of it (aka the kalāpas), are an illusion. And I say this, not only out of my own experience, but also because of what the very goal of Vipassana Bhavana makes crystal clear:
Hence where you ask what is wrong with sitting by yourself, and thoroughly enjoying the changing sensations that show up in the body, you are not only committing the cardinal error of trying to identify with that which is impermanence or decay (which, according to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, is ‘dukkha’) but you who are trying to so identify are not who you really are anyway (the perfected saint who, at the termination of your life, will pass into an after-death peace). As to how all this conflicts with actualism: both who you currently are (an illusion) and who you really are (a delusion) can never be the flesh and blood body ... both the thinker (the ego) and the feeler (being itself) are forever locked-out of actuality. In regards to your professor defining beauty as complexity harmonised and, if harmony is not a fact or is subjective, then how peace is not the same: all I can say is that I have never said that harmony is not actual/is subjective ... it is beauty itself – the very feeling of beauty – which has no existence in actuality. When I speak of living in peace and harmony I am referring to living in accord, amity, fellowship, and so on (and not as in blending, balance, symmetry, and so forth).
RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘body’. RICHARD: As I can only presume that by ‘SC ‘body’’ you are referring me to my ‘Selected Correspondence’ topic labelled ‘Body’ I checked through both pages and cannot find ‘Vipassana’ mentioned at all: if you could provide the text where Richard ‘perhaps’ does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought. And the reason why I suggest this is also because of this (in a recent post):
As you not provide the text, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is ‘not at all’ what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to. RESPONDENT: From what I have been taught, the teaching of Vipassana is to go beyond both body AND consciousness, or mind. RICHARD: Indeed ... here is but one instance (among many) where Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes it abundantly clear that full release is beyond both body and consciousness:
RESPONDENT: (...) Are you sure actualism is 180 degrees opposite? RICHARD: Ha ... as I am this flesh and blood body only, and as this flesh and blood body being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, being sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is what consciousness is (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition), I am most assuredly not disenchanted with the body/disenchanted with consciousness ... let alone fully released from same (and thus) discerning there is nothing further for this world. RESPONDENT: Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks. RICHARD: As the only occasion I am cognisant of, wherein you have read anything of what I have written
about the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west, is the e-mail I wrote to you
on Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST Especially so as you specifically say that you [quote] ‘do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition’ [endquote].
RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘body’. RICHARD: As I can only presume that by ‘SC ‘body’’ you are referring me to my ‘Selected Questions’ topic labelled ‘Body’ I checked through both pages and cannot find ‘Vipassana’ mentioned at all: if you could provide the text where Richard ‘perhaps’ does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought. And the reason why I suggest this is also because of this (in a recent post):
As you not provide the text, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is ‘not at all’ what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to. RESPONDENT: (...) Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks. RICHARD: As the only occasion I am cognisant of, wherein you have read anything of what I have written
about the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west, is the e-mail I wrote to you
on Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST RESPONDENT: Ok – RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you saying ‘Ok’ (as in an assent or acquiescence in response to a question or statement) to my assumption that it is Mr. Ba Khin – Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master – whom you are characterising as being a quack? RESPONDENT: Actually I was referring to your general description of Vipassana and the SC body from Vineeto. RICHARD: If you could provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to where you think Richard [quote] ‘perhaps’ [endquote] does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought. Furthermore, as you do not provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is [quote] ‘not at all’ [endquote] what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to. RESPONDENT: I just figured you guys agree on most of the things you say about actualism. RICHARD: Indeed we do ... however, as the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west is not, and never will be, actualism there is no reason to suppose that such concordance would extend to each and every detail of one of the multitudinous sub-sects of the multiplicity of sects which subsist in the religious denomination known as ‘Buddhism’. Speaking personally, I always leave sectarian disputes to the sectarians to deal with.
RESPONDENT: Richard – you may also want to look at this and explain how you can still assert the 180 degree different-ness of actualism and what you call spirituality. Sure, you don’t have to know everything about all the different sects and such, but you better know enough to be able to assert how what you say and what others say is actually 180 deg. opposite.
No God in Vipassana., this becomes clear after practice. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
Just as a matter of interest ... were you ever to ‘come out of misery’ (as also expressed in the ‘freedom from all suffering’ phrasing below) just what is your plan for informing this mailing list of your success? And here is why I ask:
www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl9510.html). Here is some more on that ‘something’ referred to in the first quote which is beyond mind and matter:
RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘body’. RICHARD: As I can only presume that by ‘SC ‘body’’ you are referring me to my ‘Selected Correspondence’ topic labelled ‘Body’ I checked through both pages and cannot find ‘Vipassana’ mentioned at all: if you could provide the text where Richard ‘perhaps’ does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought. And the reason why I suggest this is also because of this (in a recent post): [Respondent]: ‘(...) I myself do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition, but the [Vipassana] technique works and it is not at all what Richard or Vineeto describes it to be. THAT is why I say they do not understand the technique’. [endquote]. As you not provide the text, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is ‘not at all’ what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to. RESPONDENT: (...) Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks. RICHARD: As the only occasion I am cognisant of, wherein you have read anything of what I have written about the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west, is the e-mail I wrote to you on Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST – wherein I quoted from what Mr. Ba Khin had to say – I can only assume that you are characterising him (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) as being a quack. Especially so as you specifically say that you [quote] ‘do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Ok – RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you saying ‘Ok’ (as in an assent or acquiescence in response to a question or statement) to my assumption that it is Mr. Ba Khin – Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master – whom you are characterising as being a quack? RESPONDENT: Actually I was referring to your general description of Vipassana and the SC body from Vineeto. RICHARD: If you could provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to where you think Richard [quote] ‘perhaps’ [endquote] does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought. Furthermore, as you do not provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is [quote] ‘not at all’ [endquote] what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to. RESPONDENT: I just figured you guys agree on most of the things you say about actualism. RICHARD: Indeed we do ... however, as the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west is not, and never will be, actualism there is no reason to suppose that such concordance would extend to each and every detail of one of the multitudinous sub-sects of the multiplicity of sects which subsist in the religious denomination known as ‘Buddhism’. Speaking personally, I always leave sectarian disputes to the sectarians to deal with. RESPONDENT: You’re right, Richard, on pretty much all counts there. RICHARD: So as to save spelling it out in full a third time around here is an itemised summary of what has transpired so far:
Not all that surprisingly I am reminded of what you wrote two weeks ago:
RESPONDENT: If you refuse to defend Vineeto’s understanding of Vipassana your responses are not flawed one bit. RICHARD: This is what I was referring to when I said what I did in regards sectarian disputes (from the same e-mail I responded to at the top of this page):
There is no way you are going to inveigle me into a dispute about the errancy/ inerrancy of Mr. Satya Goenka’s certified teachers’ understanding of Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded vis-à-vis the errancy/ inerrancy of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s certified teachers’ understanding of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s understanding of Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded – nor into any dispute about the errancy/ inerrancy of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s certified teachers’ understanding of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded for that matter – let alone into defending Vineeto’s understanding of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s certified teachers’ understanding of either Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded or Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s understanding of Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded. No way at all.
RESPONDENT: You say that trust is antithetical to the AF method. Yet you say in ‘The Highly Esteemed Compassion Perpetuates Sorrow’ that: [quote] ‘I have the greatest admiration for ‘Richard the identity’: He was willing to self-immolate so that I could be here. He never knew me, but was ***utterly confident*** that the universe knew what it was doing.’ [emphasis added]. So you needed confidence? I have posted the definition of trust below for evidence that you have stated that you had to trust in the universe ... [quote] ‘trust \Trust\, v. i. 1. To have trust; to be credulous; to be won to confidence; to confide. 2. To be confident, as of something future; to hope. 3. To sell or deliver anything in reliance upon a promise of payment; to give credit. To trust in, To trust on, to place confidence in,; to rely on; to depend. ‘Trust in the Lord, and do good.’ –Ps. xxxvii. 3. ‘A priest ... on whom we trust.’ –Chaucer. To trust to or unto, to depend on; to have confidence in; to rely on. (Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.). [Addendum: Never mind – ignore the above question, Richard, I have already understood the answer there. :)] RESPONDENT No. 68: No. 78, would you mind sharing what ‘I have already understood the answer there’? Richard, I am still interested in your response. RICHARD: Why? I clearly use the word ‘confident’ yet your co-respondent sees fit to look-up the word ‘trust’ in a dictionary – and then posts that definition as being [quote] ‘the evidence’ [endquote] I have stated I had to trust in the universe – as if I had, in fact, said the identity who was inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago was *utterly trustful* that the universe knew what it was doing. Not having access to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary I can only provide what the Merriam-Webster has to say about the word I actually used:
Just by-the-by I see that a couple of other dictionaries also say the ‘trustful’ meaning is obsolete:
Be that as it may ... this is the essence of what to be ‘characterised by assurance’ means to the Merriam-Webster’s compilers:
Here is what certainty (aka ‘an easy freedom from uncertainty’ just above) means to them:
Anyway, dictionary definitions
I do not see how I can be more clear than that. RESPONDENT: I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF ... RICHARD: I have no difficulty whatsoever in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition – nor spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakening for that matter – and there is nothing in the above exchange, nor at the link provided, which could possibly be construed as such as I clearly delineate just what I mean by my usage of the word in question, provide various explanations of diverse dictionary definitions of that word, include a relevant passage from another conversation in the same section whence you obtained the quote, and provide a link to even more discussion/ explanation of that word. RESPONDENT: ... [I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF] as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections. RICHARD: I see ... you read the word ‘confident’ and feel that it means ‘trust’, then, even though there is nothing in the passage from which you obtained the quote of mine (at the top of this page) to indicate or even imply that it does? Viz.:
I have highlighted the sentences you quoted ... if you could explain just how it is that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words, to describe an actual freedom from the human condition, as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Everyone I talk to considers joy and delight to be emotional experiences. RICHARD: So? None of the people I was talking to in the above conversation considered being confident to be an emotional experience called trust – not one of them – as seeing the fact renders all trust (and faith, hope, belief, and certitude, for that matter) null and void. Seeing the fact means there is only confidence ... the assurance of the surety that certainty provides of its own accord.
RESPONDENT: (...) I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF ... RICHARD: I have no difficulty whatsoever in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition – nor spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment for that matter – and there is nothing in the above exchange [now snipped], nor at the link provided [now snipped], which could possibly be construed as such as I clearly delineate just what I mean by my usage of the word in question, provide various explanations of diverse dictionary definitions of that word, include a relevant passage [now snipped] from another conversation in the same section whence you obtained the quote [now snipped], and provide a link to even more discussion/explanation of that word [now snipped]. RESPONDENT: ... [I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF] as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections. RICHARD: I see ... you read the word ‘confident’ and feel that it means ‘trust’, then, even though there is nothing in the passage from which you obtained the quote of mine (at the top of this page) to indicate or even imply that it does? Viz.: Q: ‘... mostly, people don’t want to be here. There is a basic resentment against being a body and being here. R: ‘Which brings us back to the belief that life is inherently bad. In 1980, when I was looking at the stars one night, I realised that I could no longer believe that this gigantic happening called the universe could possibly be ‘set-up’ so that I would be perpetually miserable in it. Or any of us humans. It is simply too enormous for it all to be some sick joke, some divine punishment or some random accident ... what nonsense! I realised the vast perfection of everything happening all at once. From that moment on I could no longer go on believing it all to be bad. Not that I then believed it to be good ... it is no use whatsoever to be swapping one belief for another; going from a negative belief to a positive belief still leaves you living in the land of belief. Seeing the fact is what is important. The fact is that this universe is already perfect. It is only ‘me’ who is seeing it wrongly. ‘I’, as an identity, a self, should not be here. ‘I’ live in mortal danger of being found out for the usurper that ‘I’ am ... so ‘I’ am ready and willing to believe in ‘Whatever’ to appease ‘my’ unease. ‘I’ avoid looking at the fact, for such a ‘seeing’ will lead to ‘my’ inevitable demise. ‘I’ will spin fantasies of an after-life to ensure my immortality ... anything to deny death. *I have the greatest admiration for ‘Richard the identity’: He was willing to self-immolate so that I could be here. He never knew me, but was utterly confident that the universe knew what it was doing*. He was happy to disappear so that all this could eventuate. He was prepared to go all the way without reservation ... the ‘boots and all’ approach, he called it. What are you saving yourself for? Reach out. Extend yourself. All one gets by waiting is yet more waiting. Patience may be a virtue, but procrastination is an abomination. Be wary of virtues ... they are designed to perpetuate the self. [emphasis added]. I have highlighted the sentences you quoted ... if you could explain just how it is that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words, to describe an actual freedom from the human condition, as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Everyone I talk to considers joy and delight to be emotional experiences. RICHARD: So? None of the people I were talking to in the above conversation considered being confident to be an emotional experience called trust – not one of them – as seeing the fact renders all trust (and faith, hope, belief, and certitude, for that matter) null and void. Seeing the fact means there is only confidence ... the assurance of the surety that certainty provides of its own accord. RESPONDENT: Did you read my response to No. 68 explaining ‘I have already understood the answer there’? RICHARD: Yes ... here it is in its entirety:
RESPONDENT: If you did then you would know that I no longer ‘feel’ that you meant trust when you said confidence ... RICHARD: How can I possibly know that from your (above) response? Moreover I do not, basically or otherwise, describe trust there as ‘a relying on something’ and neither do I say there that to have confidence or surety ‘implies a past record of consistent action’ in regards to seeing the fact, in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), that this universe is already always perfect and that it is ‘I’/‘me’ who is standing in the way of that perfection being apparent. At this stage I would suggest you re-read what I actually said (re-posted in full further above) before
further engendering even more complexification of what is really a remarkably simple issue ... to wit: that seeing the fact
renders all trust (and faith, hope, belief, and certitude Which means there is only confidence ... the assurance of the surety that certainty provides of its own accord. RESPONDENT: ... [If you did then you would know that I no longer ‘feel’ that you meant trust when you said confidence] as this cleared up for me moments after erroneously posting my original message. RICHARD: I am not responding to your original message – my response (further above) was in response to your response to my response (now snipped) to another co-respondent upon them informing me that they were still interested in my response to your original message – and, as you said in the context of the subject to hand that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition (as words have been created by feeling beings and most words have emotional connections), not being a mind-reader I had every reason to assume you were referring to my response to that co-respondent’s request. May I ask? What were you referring to, then, and why did you refer to it under the same title and in the same context, anyway? In other words, if you could provide the text wherein it is obvious that I do indeed, as you say, have difficulty in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition (as words have been created by feeling beings and most words have emotional connections) there would be something of substance to discuss ... and thus clarify. Plus it would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of emails.
RESPONDENT: ... [I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF] as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections. RICHARD: I see ... you read the word ‘confident’ and feel that it means ‘trust’, then, even though there is nothing in the passage from which you obtained the quote of mine at the top of this page [now snipped] to indicate or even imply that it does? Viz.: [snip passage]. I have highlighted the sentences you quoted ... if you could explain just how it is that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words, to describe an actual freedom from the human condition, as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: ... [Did you read my response to No. 68 explaining ‘I have already understood the answer there’? If you did then you would know that I no longer ‘feel’ that you meant trust when you said confidence] as this cleared up for me moments after erroneously posting my original message. RICHARD: I am not responding to your original message – my response [now snipped] was in response to your response to my response (now snipped) to another co-respondent upon them informing me that they were still interested in my response to your original message – and, as you said in the context of the subject to hand that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition (as words have been created by feeling beings and most words have emotional connections), not being a mind-reader I had every reason to assume you were referring to my response to that co-respondent’s request. May I ask? What were you referring to, then, and why did you refer to it under the same title and in the same context, anyway? In other words, if you could provide the text wherein it is obvious that I do indeed, as you say, have difficulty in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition (as words have been created by feeling beings and most words have emotional connections) there would be something of substance to discuss ... and thus clarify. RESPONDENT: What I was initially referring to was the fact that when I looked up confidence in the dictionary (Webster’s unabridged revised ed.) I found a synonym for trust. RICHARD: If you could copy-paste that dictionary’s definition – the ‘Webster’s unabridged revised ed.’ dictionary’s definition – for the word ‘confident’ (as that is the word I used in that audio-taped conversation) in full it may throw some light upon the matter as this is the quote you provided for the word ‘trust’ from that same source:
And the reason I ask is because this is what I found on the internet (at ‘dictionary.com’):
Apart from the three illustrative sentences (‘More to know could not be more to trust. – Shak.’ and ‘Her widening streets on new foundations trust. – Dryden’ and ‘They trusted unto the liers in wait. – Judges xx. 36.’) it is identical in every respect, including the typography, to the quote you provided ... and upon clicking on the link-word ‘Source’ the following explanation appears:
Could it be possible you were using a 1913 edition of the Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary – albeit re-presented as being copyrighted © 1996, 1998 by MICRA, Inc. – to provide [quote] ‘the evidence’ [endquote] I have stated I had to trust in the universe? I not only have the full version of the latest Merriam-Webster’s dictionary on a CD but there is an on-line version of the 10th edition freely available ... and the synonyms for the word ‘confident’ are as follows:
In short: the word ‘trust’, as a synonym for the word ‘confident’, is nowhere to be seen. RESPONDENT: I was alluding to the fact that using the word confidence spread confusion because of the definition connecting it to trust. RICHARD: I see ... just because upon your looking-up of the word ‘confident’ in a dictionary, and finding one of the synonyms for it to be ‘trust’, I am the one that, as a fact, is spreading confusion, eh? RESPONDENT: As you have already cleared up this matter there is NOTHING of substance to discuss ... RICHARD: If I may point out? There was nothing of substance to discuss in the first place ... other than why there is such a readiness on your part to find a flaw and/or a contradiction and/or an affective component and/or a whatever is prejudicial to what is being presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site (so much so that you dig yourself deeper and deeper into a quagmire of your own making). Viz.:
Never mind that you later negated it ... because when I responded to another this was your (unsolicited) observation:
As I have no difficulty whatsoever in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition –
nor spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment for that matter – and as neither of the words ‘joy’ or ‘delight’ appear
anywhere in the text in question this can only be a distraction away from the subject to hand ... as in a diversionary ploy, for
instance, just as is your continued insistence I attend to another co-respondent’s much-ado-about-nothing allegations Perhaps this might be of assistance:
Would it not have been a lot more conducive to a sensible discussion to have enquired, rather than have made an allegation, as to what I was meaning to convey by my usage of the word ‘confident’ in that audio-taped conversation (given that you apparently could not suss out its meaning via its context and both where I was coming from and what I was wanting to establish)? Just curious.
CORRESPONDENT No. 78 (Part Two) 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 |
