Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

With Correspondent No. 90

August 03 2005

RESPONDENT: I find it interesting which questions and points you don’t choose to answer.

RICHARD: Whereas all I did was respond to your very first question only ... and here is your (uninformative) reply:

• [Respondent]: ‘Hm. Still doesn’t answer my question, at least to my (quite possibly imperfect and misguided) satisfaction. Far too cryptic’. [endquote].

If you cannot comprehend my response to your very first question – a response which is pivotal to the entire issue – there is no point in proceeding further.

RESPONDENT: It would seem to be all my best and most important ones. But again, I might be wrong.

RICHARD: You might indeed be wrong (because the following sequence is your very next one).

RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘... furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye would look’. [endquote]. What did these psychic footprints ‘look’ like?

RICHARD: They looked more or less like the footsteps to be found in the metaphorical term ‘follow in another’s footsteps’.

RESPONDENT: Completely abstract then?

RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about that figurative expression:

• ‘follow in a person’s footsteps, walk in a person’s footsteps: (fig.) follow a person’s example, take the same course of action as a person’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Here is what ‘figurative’ means to the Oxford Dons:

• ‘figurative: based on or using figures or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal’. (Oxford Dictionary).

And here is what the word ‘metaphor’ refers to:

• ‘metaphor: a figure of speech in which a name or descriptive word or phrase is transferred to an object or action different from, but analogous to, that to which it is literally applicable’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Here is what the word ‘analogy’ can mean:

• ‘analogy: figure of speech involving a comparison; a simile, a metaphor’. (Oxford Dictionary).

And, lastly, the word ‘simile’:

• ‘simile: figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another of a different kind, as an illustration’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: When I use the term ‘follow in another’s footsteps’ I mean that an abstract assessment of what I am doing is similar in many details to an abstract assessment of what someone else has done before me and possibly passed on to me.

RICHARD: Here are some more dictionary definitions:

• ‘follow in somebody’s footsteps: to take the same course in life or work as another person in the past’. (Encarta Dictionary).
• ‘followed in his father’s footsteps: a way of life, conduct, or action’. (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary).
• ‘follow in sb’s footsteps: to do the same thing as someone else did previously’. (Cambridge Dictionary).
• ‘follow in (someone’s) footsteps: (idiom) to carry on the behaviour, work, or tradition of’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

Here is what the word ‘idiom’ means in that context:

• ‘idiom: a speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, as in ‘keep tabs on’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

August 04 2005

RESPONDENT: ... I do feel that if you cannot give me a good answer to these [matters] then perhaps there is a reason to doubt you.

RICHARD: As I have been doing nothing else but giving a good answer to [quote] ‘these matters’ [endquote] and as the same or similar goodly answer has been provided before in response to many and various others’ same or similar question – more than a few of which exchanges have been collected together at the link you were advised to access before your first response to my reply to your initial query – you may as well activate your feeling-fed doubt forthwith.

RESPONDENT: ‘Good answers’ for you I presume. Often you have satisfied my doubts (to me: ‘good’), sometimes you haven’t (to me: ‘not good’). (...) I have read your answers to others’ questions. I do not understand those answers. I ask for clarification.

RICHARD: Okay ... what good (for me) answer in particular is it that is not good (to you) which you would have me clarify?

(...)

RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...’. [endquote]. It is your ‘thus’ which I do not grasp.

RICHARD: It is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key ... I will draw your attention to the following:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘Anyone can follow in the footsteps of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, if they so desire, and thus ascertain for themselves that only one person has gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (*previously considered to be only possible after physical death*). [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90a, 15 July 2005).

For example:

• ‘There are two kinds of nirvana. One is achieved by the Buddha while still alive, but he remains alive only until the last and most tenuous remains of karma have been expended. When these disappear, the Buddha dies and then enters the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

For another example (from Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master):

• [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. (www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel231.html).

Or, in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s own words, even:

• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; (...) neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. (Udana 8.1; PTS: viii.1; Nibbana Sutta).

Do you see ‘the end of suffering’ (editorial note) was indeed previously considered to be only possible after physical death ... in a realm that had nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system)?

RESPONDENT: How does entering the Great Beyond equal knowing that nobody has ever been there before?

RICHARD: Because physical death is the end, finish ... kaput (there is no after-life in actuality). Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Then the condition I went on to experience had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism) and so on.
It seemed so extreme that the physical body must surely die for the attainment of it.
To put it into a physical analogy, it was as if I were to gather up my meagre belongings, eradicate all marks of my stay on the island, and paddle away over the horizon, all the while not knowing whence I go ... and vanish without a trace, never to be seen again. As no one on the mainland knew where I was, no one would know where I had gone. In fact, I would become as extinct as the dodo and with no skeletal remains. *The autological self by whatever name would cease to ‘be’, there would be no ‘spirit’, no ‘presence’, no ‘being’ at all*. This was more than death of the ego, which is a major event by any definition; this was total annihilation. No ego, no soul – no self, no Self – no more Heavenly Rapture, Love Agapé, Divine Bliss and so on. Only oblivion. It was not at all attractive, not at all alluring, not at all desirable ... yet I knew I was going to do it, sooner or later, because it was the ultimate condition and herein lay the secret to the ‘Mystery of Life’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Articles, A Brief Personal History).

RESPONDENT: This doesn’t answer my question I don’t think. How does entering the Great Beyond equal knowing that nobody has ever been there before?

RICHARD: Because there is no after-life (physical death is the end, finish ... kaput).

RESPONDENT: What you say above is that ‘death is the end’ ...

RICHARD: What I say above is that *physical* death is the end.

RESPONDENT: ... and that your condition was that.

RICHARD: No, I did not say that (this flesh and blood body is quite obviously still alive).

RESPONDENT: As you haven’t died yet I can’t see how you can be sure that this was so ...

RICHARD: That which was previously considered to survive physical death has no existence in actuality.

RESPONDENT: ...but that aside, you don’t explain how this condition revealed the fact that nobody had ever been there before.

RICHARD: If identity in toto does not become extinct before physical death it will at physical death.

RESPONDENT: Hm. Still doesn’t answer my question, at least to my (quite possibly imperfect and misguided) satisfaction. Far too cryptic.

RICHARD: If you cannot comprehend my response to your very first question – a response which is pivotal to the entire issue – there is no point in proceeding further.

RESPONDENT: Indeed. A shame though.

RICHARD: You give up far too easily ... why not have another go at comprehending my response to your very first question instead?

RESPONDENT: In fact I do comprehend the answer to my question. There is no afterlife. It all ends with the body.

If your answer is in the affirmative then there is every possibility it will all fall into place.

RESPONDENT: What I don’t comprehend is how entering the great beyond informs you of whether anyone, alive or dead, having left a record or not, has ever been actually free from the human condition.

Which is why I said it is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key to grasping my ‘thus’ in the quote you provided as being an answer in particular which you would have me clarify.

August 04 2005

RESPONDENT: ... I find it interesting which questions and points you don’t choose to answer.

RICHARD: Whereas all I did was respond to your very first question only ...

RESPONDENT: Okay. I mean more generally though, I find myself wondering why you choose the questions and points you do over those you don’t.

RICHARD: You have wondered about that before:

• [Respondent]: ‘... I wonder why you have these matters to answer over my PCE questions?
• [Richard]: ‘For no other reason than it being the very thing you asked me to do. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Richard, thank you for your copious and thorough responses to my queries. They are slowly being filtered into my data banks. Please let me know when you’ve dealt with everything I asked (I think there’s still PCE’s and the problem of pain to go). I will then write back with the succintest possible set of questions, five or six paragraphs I’m hoping. *Before that, one quick question*: How do you KNOW that a tribesman of Papua New Guinea twelve thousand years ago didn’t become actually free? [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90b, 22 July 2005).
• [Respondent]: ‘Crikey! So I did! (Thursday 21/07/2005 6:24 PM AEST).

You do realise, do you not, that the sooner it is you comprehend how I know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history the sooner it is I can attend to your outstanding queries ... those which predate your ‘before that’ one quick question?

You may find the following helpful in regards coming to such a realisation:

• [Richard]: ‘How you conduct your correspondence is entirely up to you, of course, and all I can do is point out that what you choose to write is what determines the response you receive (...)’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 56c, 14 January 2005).

August 04 2005

RESPONDENT: ... I do feel that if you cannot give me a good answer to these [matters] then perhaps there is a reason to doubt you.

RICHARD: Okay ... what good (for me) answer in particular is it that is not good (to you) which you would have me clarify?

(...)

RESPONDENT: You say you ‘traversed territory which no enlightened being has ever navigated’.

RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to the words I wrote immediately following the above quote [now snipped]? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘I was truly on my own ... no one had ventured into this terrain before. In other words I traversed territory which no enlightened being has ever navigated – virgin terrain somewhat akin to the ‘white-out’ experienced in a featureless landscape of snow and ice – until that ‘Great Beyond’ which has been proposed heretofore to only be possible at physical death became an actuality whilst the flesh and blood body was still alive. I am, of course, referring to not only that which has been described as ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ (only as an actuality and not a fantasy) ...’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Can you explain, in greater depth, how you knew that no enlightened (or unenlightened) being had ever been there?

RICHARD: To keep with the metaphor: not only were there were no footprints there were no markers at all indicating the passage of another ... no blazes, no droppings, no trampled undergrowth, no abandoned campsites, no discarded equipment, no parched skeletons, and so on, and so forth. It truly was virgin territory.

RESPONDENT: I do not understand what your metaphor refers to.

RICHARD: It refers to:

1. No one having ventured into that terrain (the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself) before.
2. To traversing territory (the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself) which no enlightened being has ever navigated.
3. To virgin terrain (the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself) somewhat akin to the ‘white-out’ experienced in a featureless landscape of snow and ice.

RESPONDENT: Did you enter some kind of mystic state where residues were left of former experiences?

RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body during that period (1985-1992) was already in ‘some kind of mystical state’ – popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment – and was exploring the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself (an apotheosised field of consciousness wherein metaphysical knowledge is directly attainable).

RESPONDENT: Did you become one with a kind of psychic field that you saw was unbreached?

RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body during that period already had access to that which you refer to as ‘a kind of psychic field’ (popularly known as the ‘Akashic Records’ or the ‘Aetheric Library’) ... just all fully enlightened/ awakened beings do.

RESPONDENT: What?

RICHARD: A transcendental state of being wherein ratiocination in general, and illation in particular, is not required to obtain such knowledge.

August 04 2005

RESPONDENT: ... I do feel that if you cannot give me a good answer to these [matters] then perhaps there is a reason to doubt you.

RICHARD: Okay ... what good (for me) answer in particular is it that is not good (to you) which you would have me clarify?

(...)

RESPONDENT: I do not understand what your metaphor refers to.

RICHARD: It refers to: 1. No one having ventured into that terrain (the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself) before. 2. To traversing territory (the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself) which no enlightened being has ever navigated. 3. To virgin terrain (the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself) somewhat akin to the ‘white-out’ experienced in a featureless landscape of snow and ice.

RESPONDENT: Did you enter some kind of mystic state where residues were left of former experiences?

RESPONDENT: Did you become one with a kind of psychic field that you saw was unbreached?

RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body during that period already had access to that which you refer to as ‘a kind of psychic field’ (popularly known as the ‘Akashic Records’ or the ‘Aetheric Library’) ... just all fully enlightened/ awakened beings do.

RESPONDENT: What?

RICHARD: A transcendental state of being wherein ratiocination in general, and illation in particular, is not required to obtain such knowledge.

RESPONDENT: Okay. I’ll just have to take your word for that.

RICHARD: Not at all – it is scattered all throughout the voluminous religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical literature that metaphysical knowledge is directly attainable in the transcendental state of being popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment – and you have written elsewhere that at the age of 20 you embarked upon 10 years of spirituality/ mysticism (that you even created and published a mystic magazine into which you poured considerable time, energy and money) so surely that is not news to you?

August 04 2005

RESPONDENT: I’ve got the horrible feeling you might be right, that I might just be refining the art of asking a pointless question. Nevertheless I would appreciate several examples of the modus operandi in action on this mailing list ...

RICHARD: Just for starters:

• [Respondent]: ‘If the universe is experiencing itself through this flesh and blood body ...
• [Richard]: ‘If I may interject? The universe experiences itself as this flesh and blood body (and the distinction is not trivial).
• [Respondent]: ‘... and if actual pleasure comes from just being that experience without possession or identity, doesn’t it follow that the end of the flesh and blood body leaves behind something which continues in some way to experience itself (in other forms)?
• [Richard]: ‘No.
• [Respondent]: ‘*But why?* [emphasis added].
*
• [Respondent]: ‘And if that, is it not possible to say that in some way ‘I’ continue after the flesh and blood body dies?
• [Richard]: ‘No.
• [Respondent]: ‘*But why?* [emphasis added].
*
• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t mean ‘I’ as a psychic or spiritual entity, a ‘realised state’, rather ‘the universe experiencing itself’ continues; ‘the experience of this’ that is actually known remains.
• [Richard]: ‘No.
• [Respondent]: ‘*But why?* [emphasis added].
*
• [Respondent]: ‘Please don’t just say ‘no’. Tell me how no.
• [Richard]: ‘I never did just say ‘no’ in that initial exchange ... I went on to immediately tell you (now sequentially further below) how the way you mean ‘I’ cannot possibly be in some way said to continue after the flesh and blood body dies. I will put it all back in its original sequence for your convenience: ... [snip all but the last sentence of the re-presented sequence] ... [Richard]: ‘No ... all I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms’. [endquote].
Do you now see that I have already told you how no? (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90a, Tuesday 12/07/2005 9:38 AM AEST).

Just so there is no misunderstanding: you intercalated those three highlighted ‘but-whys’ the second-time around ... they were not in the initial exchange.

August 04 2005

RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that the sooner it is you comprehend how I know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history the sooner it is I can attend to your outstanding queries ... those which predate your ‘before that’ one quick question?

RESPONDENT: Nevertheless, why do I need to comprehend this before you can attend to my other queries?

RICHARD: Because of this:

• [Respondent to Co-Respondent]: ‘... I still don’t understand the questions of taste and death (although I find Richard’s answers on those two generally quite excellent). (Thursday 14/07/2005 7:48 AM AEST).

A computer search, through the 10 e-mails you had specifically addressed to me on this mailing list up until then, for all the occasions you had typed in the question mark symbol showed that you had asked 325 questions in total.

In view of the fact you had said to another, that despite my replies, you still did not understand the questions of taste and death a conservative estimate put it that around 300 questions were still awaiting a satisfactory answer ... and given that about 6 weeks had elapsed in the process of (presumably) answering the 25-odd other questions to your satisfaction my guess then was that the 300 or so outstanding questions would take another 72 or so weeks to clear up.

There is no way I am going to spend the next 18 months providing answer after answer to the ever-increasing number of questions you have the seemingly endless capacity to generate out of those answers ... unless or until you can comprehend just one thing – specifically the response of mine which is pivotal to the entire issue – there is no point in proceeding further.

And as that is the very response of mine you have chosen not to respond to so far, this time around, then this may very well be the end of these exchanges.

August 04 2005

RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that the sooner it is you comprehend how I know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/human history the sooner it is I can attend to your outstanding queries ... those which predate your ‘before that’ one quick question?

RESPONDENT: Nevertheless, why do I need to comprehend this before you can attend to my other queries?

RICHARD: Because of this:

• [Respondent to Co-Respondent]: ‘... I still don’t understand the questions of taste and death (although I find Richard’s answers on those two generally quite excellent). (Thursday 14/07/2005 7:48 AM AEST).

And as that is the very response of mine you have chosen not to respond to so far, this time around, then this may very well be the end of these exchanges.

RESPONDENT: This does not tell me why clearing up this response is pivotal, why it must come first. It just restates that it does come first. But let me check. Again. Perhaps I do comprehend how you know that you are the only person to be free from the human condition. 1. You got yourself enlightened, and had access to extraordinary information which revealed that nobody had every gone beyond that. 2. You became actually free, rejecting the enlightened state (and presumably the 50/50 psychic knowledge that came with it – rather spoiling using that enlightened state as a basis for knowledge, but anyway ...) and then read books and spoke to people and determined none of them are or have been actually free. Is that it?

RICHARD: Neither of those have anything to do with the response of mine which is pivotal to the entire issue ... here is the very first quote you provided as being an answer in particular which you would have me clarify (lest you activate your feeling-fed reason to doubt me):

• [Richard]: ‘In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...’. [endquote]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 46, 6 August 2003).

And here is the latest question and answer awaiting your response:

• [Respondent]: ‘What I don’t comprehend is how entering the great beyond informs you of whether anyone, alive or dead, having left a record or not, has ever been actually free from the human condition.
• [Richard]: ‘Because no-one has been able to enter into the ‘Great Beyond’ before – into ‘That’ which was previously considered to be only attainable at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ (which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ in Hinduism or ‘Parinirvana’ in Buddhism and so on) – as physical death is the end, finish ... kaput.
Which is why I said it is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key to grasping my ‘thus’ in the quote you provided as being an answer in particular which you would have me clarify’. [endquote]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90b, 4 August 2005).

Is it terror and/or fear and/or despair which prevents you from an engaged discussion ... and which persuades you to keep on side-tracking away from that response of mine which is pivotal to the entire issue?

August 06 2005

RESPONDENT: ... I do feel that if you cannot give me a good answer to these [matters] then perhaps there is a reason to doubt you.

RICHARD: Okay ... what good (for me) answer in particular is it that is not good (to you) which you would have me clarify?

(...)

RICHARD: It is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key ... I will draw your attention to the following: [Richard to Respondent]: ‘Anyone can follow in the footsteps of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, if they so desire, and thus ascertain for themselves that only one person has gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (*previously considered to be only possible after physical death*). [emphasis added]. For example: [quote] ‘There are two kinds of nirvana. One is achieved by the Buddha while still alive, but he remains alive only until the last and most tenuous remains of karma have been expended. When these disappear, the Buddha dies and then enters the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica). For another example (from Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master): [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. [endquote]. Or, in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s own words, even: [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; (...) neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. [endquote]. Do you see ‘the end of suffering’ (editorial note) was indeed previously considered to be only possible after physical death ... in a realm that had nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system)?

RESPONDENT: How does entering the Great Beyond equal knowing that nobody has ever been there before?

RICHARD: Because physical death is the end, finish ... kaput (there is no after-life in actuality). Viz.: [Richard]: ‘Then the condition I went on to experience had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism) and so on. It seemed so extreme that the physical body must surely die for the attainment of it. To put it into a physical analogy, it was as if I were to gather up my meagre belongings, eradicate all marks of my stay on the island, and paddle away over the horizon, all the while not knowing whence I go ... and vanish without a trace, never to be seen again. As no one on the mainland knew where I was, no one would know where I had gone. In fact, I would become as extinct as the dodo and with no skeletal remains. *The autological self by whatever name would cease to ‘be’, there would be no ‘spirit’, no ‘presence’, no ‘being’ at all*. This was more than death of the ego, which is a major event by any definition; this was total annihilation. No ego, no soul – no self, no Self – no more Heavenly Rapture, Love Agapé, Divine Bliss and so on. Only oblivion. It was not at all attractive, not at all alluring, not at all desirable ... yet I knew I was going to do it, sooner or later, because it was the ultimate condition and herein lay the secret to the ‘Mystery of Life’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: This doesn’t answer my question I don’t think. How does entering the Great Beyond equal knowing that nobody has ever been there before?

RICHARD: Because there is no after-life (physical death is the end, finish ... kaput).

RESPONDENT: What you say above is that ‘death is the end’ ...

RICHARD: What I say above is that *physical* death is the end.

RESPONDENT: ... and that your condition was that.

RICHARD: No, I did not say that (this flesh and blood body is quite obviously still alive).

RESPONDENT: As you haven’t died yet I can’t see how you can be sure that this was so ...

RICHARD: That which was previously considered to survive physical death has no existence in actuality.

RESPONDENT: ...but that aside, you don’t explain how this condition revealed the fact that nobody had ever been there before.

RICHARD: If identity in toto does not become extinct before physical death it will at physical death.

RESPONDENT: Hm. Still doesn’t answer my question, at least to my (quite possibly imperfect and misguided) satisfaction. Far too cryptic.

RICHARD: If you cannot comprehend my response to your very first question – a response which is pivotal to the entire issue – there is no point in proceeding further.

RESPONDENT: Indeed. A shame though.

RICHARD: You give up far too easily ... why not have another go at comprehending my response to your very first question instead?

RESPONDENT: In fact I do comprehend the answer to my question. There is no afterlife. It all ends with the body.

RICHARD: Good ... now, with that bit of comprehension held firmly in mind, try re-reading the sequence further above until you come to the question mark I placed at the end of my sentence starting with ‘Do you see ...’. If your answer is in the affirmative then there is every possibility it will all fall into place.

RICHARD: Because no-one has been able to enter into the ‘Great Beyond’ before – into ‘That’ which was previously considered to be only attainable at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ (which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ in Hinduism or ‘Parinirvana’ in Buddhism and so on) – as physical death is the end, finish ... kaput. Which is why I said it is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key to grasping my ‘thus’ in the quote you provided as being an answer in particular which you would have me clarify.

RESPONDENT: This seems to me to be this; Me: How does entering the great beyond equal knowing that nobody had been there before. Richard; Entering into the great beyond equals knowing that nobody had been there before because nobody had been there before.

RICHARD: I have re-inserted the sequence, which came before the latest question and answer awaiting your response, for your convenience ... were you to have actually re-read that sequence further above, with that bit of comprehension [quote] ‘There is no afterlife. It all ends with the body’ [endquote] held firmly in mind, until you came to the question mark I placed at the end of my sentence starting with ‘Do you see ...’ then there would have been every possibility it could have all fallen into place.

You wrote the following further on in this e-mail of yours I am currently responding to:

• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t know what you mean by an engaged discussion ...’. [endquote].

Just for starters: an engaged discussion means actually reading what your co-respondent writes ... and especially when they suggest a re-read.

RESPONDENT: What am I missing?

RICHARD: An interest in actually comprehending my response to your very first question, a response which is pivotal to the entire issue, perhaps? For instance:

• [Respondent to Co-Respondent ]: ‘... to me this matter is fairly superficial. I just tossed it off’. (Thursday 14/07/2005 7:48 AM AEST).

Needless is it to add that when that ... um ... that tosser gravely informed me a mere six days later (Wednesday 20/07/2005 4:04 AM AEST) that they did feel that, if I cannot give them a good answer to these [matters], then perhaps there was a reason to doubt me I did look askance at their averment of having read all of my collected-together responses to the same or similar question at the link they were advised to access (let alone having not understood them)?

RESPONDENT: So you were still alive when you entered what had previously been thought of as unattainable before death. How does that reveal that nobody had been there before?

RICHARD: Perhaps if it were to be put sequentially:

1. In order for that which had previously been considered as unattainable before death (a dimension, by whatever name, where there is no suffering) to become apparent, whilst the flesh and blood body is still alive, ‘Being’ itself ceases.
2. That ‘Being’ is what was previously considered to be that which ‘quits the body’, at the physical death of an Enlightened Being/ Awakened One, and which attains to that dimension, by whatever name, where there is no suffering.
3. As there is no such ‘Being’ in actuality it is patently obvious that physical death is the end, finish. Kaput.
4. Thus no Enlightened Being/ Awakened One has ever ‘quit the body’ at physical death and attained to that dimension, by whatever name, where there is no suffering – indeed there is no after-life – as all what has ever happened is that they were interred/ were cremated just like anybody else.
5. Ergo, an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history.

August 07 2005

RESPONDENT: I’ll be away from the computer for a week or so. All answers to any questions will be read with interest on my return, particularly those of the past couple of weeks.

RICHARD: As you cannot even locate your own e-mail I will wait until your return before responding ... besides which I have other matters awaiting my attention, anyway.

August 16 2005

RESPONDENT: ... I do feel that if you cannot give me a good answer to these [matters] then perhaps there is a reason to doubt you.

RICHARD: Okay ... what good (for me) answer in particular is it that is not good (to you) which you would have me clarify?

(...)

RICHARD: It is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key ... I will draw your attention to the following:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘Anyone can follow in the footsteps of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, if they so desire, and thus ascertain for themselves that only one person has gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (*previously considered to be only possible after physical death*). [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90a, Friday 15/07/2005 9:12 AM AEST).

For example:

• ‘There are two kinds of nirvana. One is achieved by the Buddha while still alive, but he remains alive only until the last and most tenuous remains of karma have been expended. When these disappear, the Buddha dies and then enters the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

For another example (from Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master):

• [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. (www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel231.html).

Or, in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s own words, even:

• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; (...) neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. (Udana 8.1; PTS: viii.1; Nibbana Sutta).

Do you see ‘the end of suffering’ (editorial note) was indeed previously considered to be only possible after physical death ... in a realm that had nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system)?

RESPONDENT: (...) I see that you are saying that ‘the end of suffering was previously considered to be only possible after physical death’.

RICHARD: So that you do not have to take my word for it I provided three quotes ... therefore, do you also see that Mr. Frank Reynolds (Professor of Buddhist Studies and History of Religions, University of Chicago), in his Encyclopaedia Britannica article, is saying that the awakened one enters ‘the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’ after physical death?

Furthermore, do you also see that Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master) is saying that the awakened one reaches ‘the end of suffering’ after physical death?

Moreover, do you also see that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan himself is saying that the end of ‘dukkha’ is in a realm [sphere] that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever?

RESPONDENT: I’m not sure that is true. I’ve found many teachers who claim that the end of suffering is possible now ...

• [Questioner]: ‘When I was five years old, it was so easy. I remember thinking about what would happen when I’m dead and I found myself in this space. Then I wanted to go back to my grandparents, and I came out of the space. There was no fear.
• [Mr. Tony Parsons]: ‘When this is a living thing, *fear can still arise*, though, because in the end there is no separate island here. Living in oneness there is an at-one-ness with everything, and in everything there can be fear as well.’. [emphasis added]. (‘All There Is’; Tony Parsons; published 2003; ISBN: 0-9533032-2-5).

If the continued arousal of emotions in general, and fear in particular, after awakening constitutes an end of suffering in your book then there is no way you are going to comprehend just what it is that is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

RESPONDENT: ... (although perhaps a vaster and better version is available at death).

RICHARD: I will wait, then, until you provide the (suitably referenced) quotes, from those many teachers you found, in which they incontrovertibly, irrefutably, incontestably and unambiguously say that [quote] ‘perhaps’ [endquote] a vaster and better ‘the end of suffering’ is available at physical death before proceeding any further.

August 17 2005

RESPONDENT: ... I do feel that if you cannot give me a good answer to these [matters] then perhaps there is a reason to doubt you.

RICHARD: Okay ... what good (for me) answer in particular is it that is not good (to you) which you would have me clarify?

(...)

RICHARD: It is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key ... I will draw your attention to the following:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘Anyone can follow in the footsteps of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, if they so desire, and thus ascertain for themselves that only one person has gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment (*previously considered to be only possible after physical death*). [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90a, Friday 15/07/2005 9:12 AM AEST).

For example:

• ‘There are two kinds of nirvana. One is achieved by the Buddha while still alive, but he remains alive only until the last and most tenuous remains of karma have been expended. When these disappear, the Buddha dies and then enters the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

For another example (from Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master):

• [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. (www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel231.html).

Or, in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s own words, even:

• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; (...) neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. (Udana 8.1; PTS: viii.1; Nibbana Sutta).

RESPONDENT: I see that you are saying that ‘the end of suffering was previously considered to be only possible after physical death’.

Furthermore, do you also see that Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master) is saying that the awakened one reaches ‘the end of suffering’ after physical death?

Moreover, do you also see that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan himself is saying that the end of ‘dukkha’ is in a realm [sphere] that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever?

RESPONDENT: The Buddhism you quote is, I think, one strand of one strand of mysticism. Many other Buddhist interpreters would, as far as I know, claim that liberation is possible before death.

RICHARD: Of course (mystical) liberation is possible before physical death ... the subject in question, however, is ‘the end of suffering’: do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Frank Reynolds (Professor of Buddhist Studies and History of Religions, University of Chicago), in his Encyclopaedia Britannica article, is saying that the awakened one enters ‘the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’ after physical death?

Furthermore do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master) is saying that the awakened one reaches ‘the end of suffering’ after physical death?

Moreover do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan himself is saying that the end of ‘dukkha’ is in a realm [sphere] that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever?

RESPONDENT: But I don’t know that much about Buddhism.

RICHARD: As you have written elsewhere that, at the age of 20 you embarked upon 10 years of spirituality/mysticism, and that you even created and published a mystic magazine called ‘The Laughing Monkey’, into which you poured considerable time, energy and money, there is no need to all-of-a-sudden become coy.

RESPONDENT: I do know that many other teachers claim that enlightenment is fully possible in this lifetime.

RICHARD: Of course (mystical) enlightenment is fully possible in this lifetime ... the subject in question, however, is ‘the end of suffering’: do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Frank Reynolds (Professor of Buddhist Studies and History of Religions, University of Chicago), in his Encyclopaedia Britannica article, is saying that the awakened one enters ‘the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’ after physical death?

Furthermore do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master) is saying that the awakened one reaches ‘the end of suffering’ after physical death?

Moreover do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan himself is saying that the end of ‘dukkha’ is in a realm [sphere] that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever?

RESPONDENT: I’m not sure that [the end of suffering being previously considered to be only possible after physical death] is true. I’ve found many teachers who claim that the end of suffering is possible now ...

RICHARD: I have already provided four referenced quotes (on Tuesday 14/06/2005 1:19 PM AEST) from one of the teachers you mentioned who clearly said [quote] ‘emotions arise in this body/mind’ [endquote] in the third one ... here is another, even more explicit, one: [Questioner]: ‘When I was five years old, it was so easy. I remember thinking about what would happen when I’m dead and I found myself in this space. Then I wanted to go back to my grandparents, and I came out of the space. There was no fear. [Mr. Tony Parsons]: ‘When this is a living thing, *fear can still arise*, though, because in the end there is no separate island here. Living in oneness there is an at-one-ness with everything, and in everything there can be fear as well’. [emphasis added]. If the continued arousal of emotions in general, and fear in particular, after awakening constitutes an ‘end of suffering’ in your book then there is no way you are going to comprehend just what it is that is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

RESPONDENT: (...) in your Tony Parsons quote, there is the idea that here and now there is a ‘oneness’ and a union that surpasseth understanding, and all of that.

RICHARD: Never mind the [quote] ‘idea’ [endquote] you postulate as being in Mr. Tony Parson’s words above ... do you see that one of the many teachers you found explicitly reports that fear can still arise after awakening (despite your assertion they claim that ‘the end of suffering’ is possible now)?

August 18 2005

RESPONDENT: ... I do feel that if you cannot give me a good answer to these [matters] then perhaps there is a reason to doubt you.

RICHARD: Okay ... what good (for me) answer in particular is it that is not good (to you) which you would have me clarify?

(...)

RICHARD: It is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key ... I will draw your attention to the following:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘Anyone can follow in the footsteps of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, if they so desire, and thus ascertain for themselves that only one person has gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (*previously considered to be only possible after physical death*). [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90a, Friday 15/07/2005 9:12 AM AEST).

For example:

• ‘There are two kinds of nirvana. One is achieved by the Buddha while still alive, but he remains alive only until the last and most tenuous remains of karma have been expended. When these disappear, the Buddha dies and then enters the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

For another example (from Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master):

• [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. (www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel231.html).

Or, in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s own words, even:

• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; (...) neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. (Udana 8.1; PTS: viii.1; Nibbana Sutta).

RESPONDENT: I see that you are saying that ‘the end of suffering was previously considered to be only possible after physical death’.

Furthermore, do you also see that Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited master) is saying that the awakened one reaches ‘the end of suffering’ after physical death?