|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 94
RESPONDENT: Richard, I have been reading some of the materials on AF site and getting the digest. RICHARD: Okay ... the e-mail address for posting to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list is as follows: actualfreedom@topica.com RESPONDENT: Many questions arise. If my reading of your personal timeline is correct, you started using THE METHOD on yourself after the ‘turning’ event. RICHARD: The identity inhabiting the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail all those years ago first put the method ‘he’ devised into practice on the 1st of January 1981; the turning-over event, in the base of the brain/nape of the neck (aka the brain-stem), occurred on the 6th of September 1981 ... a little over eight months later. RESPONDENT: It occurs to me that ‘you’ had a distinct advantage as the ‘power’ of the instincts were no longer in full force. RICHARD: No, the instinctual passions were still extant in their entirety during that period. RESPONDENT: In addition, what you call PCE’s were a more routine experience. RICHARD: There was nothing routine about the pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) which the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body during that period gained the knack of inducing on an almost daily basis. RESPONDENT: A basis or foundational experience that was so real and delightful that it wasn’t like fishing in the dark, as most of us have to do regarding approaching ‘the NOW’. RICHARD: As everyone this flesh and blood body has discussed the matter with at length (once it took three hours of intensive discussion) could – without exception – recall at least one PCE (if not more) somewhere in their life it is a case of a lack of recall, not a lacking of experience, which would keep one in the dark in regards approaching that direct experience of actuality again at this particular moment in time at this specific place in space. * RESPONDENT: I have every reason to believe that you experience life just as you report. And the loss of the ‘entity’ within is crucial to the maintenance of this condition. RICHARD: The condition which this flesh and blood body enjoys requires no maintaining whatsoever ... the extinction of identity in toto/the entire affective faculty ensures irrevocable permanence. RESPONDENT: One could say that the self/SELF disappeared or became so ‘unconscious’ as to be effectively gone. RICHARD: Whereas this flesh and blood body could not say that. RESPONDENT: ‘You’ do still seem to maintain qualities that I might describe as ‘self’. RICHARD: As what this flesh and blood body might seem to be maintaining, and what is actually happening, are two entirely different things it may very well pay to focus on the latter. RESPONDENT: It is as if the final remnant of self is identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’. RICHARD: You may find the following informative:
And:
RESPONDENT: Claims that your method can essentially save mankind from itself (peace on earth) do have a grandiose quality. RICHARD: Hmm ... just what way then, other than a sincere and dedicated current-time attentiveness, of enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth into being apparent would not have such a quality (according to you)? RESPONDENT: My take on it is that people that have become free from the entity within are not any help to others, excepting that their actions do not create the same kind of dynamic (karma) that the rest of us do. RICHARD: As those people whom you are referring to are not free of identity in toto then it is not at all surprising they are no help to others in enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent. RESPONDENT: Their passing through is without the ripples in the fabric of life that cause distress and upset. RICHARD: Au contraire ... anybody not free of identity in toto is bound to cause distress and upset. RESPONDENT: The only dynamic may be that some people recognize the salubrity of the condition which you find yourself and want it for themselves. RICHARD: Not if they too equate ‘dynamic’ with that religio-spiritual/mystico-metaphysical concept of ‘karma’. RESPONDENT: The irony of course is that if they were to come into the same condition, there would be no ‘self-satisfaction’ in it. RICHARD: You may find the following illustrative:
* RESPONDENT: I have been aware of the ‘entity-less’ or ‘no-self’ condition as a possibility for about 20 years. RICHARD: The following may throw considerable light on the hoary topic of what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan meant by the word ‘anatta’ (often translated as ‘no-self’):
RESPONDENT: Not as a condition of this body/mind, but as a theoretical condition of a human that has dissolved or passed through the ego condition and the unity condition to the freedom of living directly without any sense of ‘beingness’. RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition did not come about until 1992 – which is currently just under 13 years ago – you could not have been aware of it for about 20 years. RESPONDENT: What interests me most about this ‘condition’ is how life is actually experienced. In your case, you have expressed some hints about the bodily functioning. You say that you have no libido, yet you can engage in sex. The obvious question arises: Do you become ‘aroused’ without any mental component (i.e. do you find yourself with an erection when a partner expresses some desire to engage in sex) or what? RICHARD: Here in this actual world it is impossible to ever be hedonic as the affective pleasure/pain
centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate You may find the following self-explanatory:
And:
RESPONDENT: Do the sensations of sexual congress have a different quality than previously in the entity state? RICHARD: As sensations are physical they are no different than when an identity inhabited this flesh and blood body all those years ago ... the experience of same, being direct, is vastly different. RESPONDENT: Would the idea of masturbation ever arise? RICHARD: Having lived with a female companion since 1992 there has been no occasion where, being but a substitute for the real thing, it would ... there is (presumably) no reason why it would not, though, were the situation to be different. RESPONDENT: Do you experience hunger? RICHARD: No (all appetitive desires are null and void). RESPONDENT: When you eat do you have preferences in food? RICHARD: If there be a choice ... yes. RESPONDENT: When it is time to go to sleep do you ‘feel’ sleepy? RICHARD: No ... sleepiness as an actuality indicates that it be time for sleep. RESPONDENT: Or do you experience sleeping as a restful but ‘awake’ state (i.e. awareness never sleeps)? RICHARD: No ... to sleep is to be unconscious. RESPONDENT: Do you dream? RICHARD: No (there is only unconsciousness). RESPONDENT: Do sights and smells have an intensity greater than in the self state? RICHARD: As sights and smells are physical they are no different than when an identity inhabited this flesh and blood body all those years ago ... the experience of same, being direct, is vastly different. RESPONDENT: Do certain smells ever ‘remind’ you of a past experience? RICHARD: Yes ... this flesh and blood body has a lifetime of physical memories. RESPONDENT: Do you ever experience any revulsion with either taste, smell or other sensory experience (i.e. does dog shit stink)? RICHARD: No ... revulsion/repugnance (disgust) disappeared right along with desire (allurement/ enticement). * RESPONDENT: I noticed some discussion about how the eyes ‘see’ regarding comments other persons who also state they are ‘entity-less’ report how they ‘see’. RICHARD: Those other persons are not sans identity in toto/the entire affective faculty. RESPONDENT: You state that the eyes are seeing in 3-D because they are meant to. The logic of that seems unassailable, yet ... RICHARD: It has nothing to do with logic ... it is a physical fact that stereoscopic vision has everything to do with two side-by-side eyes x-distance apart being able to converge on the same thing simultaneously – in contrast to those animals with eyes on either side of their head being unable to converge – which provides for depth of field vision. RESPONDENT: ... [yet] I know that I have had numerous experiences of having a range of dimensionality in my sight. I especially remember one instance when it seemed that the ‘entity’ looking out of my eyes was located further back within my head to an extreme from the norm. The effect of this was that everything looked ‘ultra dimensional’ (and was a pleasure to experience). The ‘entity’ was experienced almost as a ‘friendly alien’ looking through ‘my’ eyes. In other experiences of low happiness, everything had a lack of depth and a quality of meaninglessness. RICHARD: What has that to do with what this flesh and blood body only – a body sans identity in toto – has to report (such as to warrant a conjunctive ‘yet’)? RESPONDENT: You state that the ‘proper’ condition of seeing should have the point of reference outside the body. I can only imagine that an even more ‘flattening’ effect would occur. RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body states no such thing – a computer search for <point of reference> returned nothing of that nature – then whatever it is you imagine is beside the point. RESPONDENT: If the eyes are ‘like a camera’, the distance to the focal point (the internal one – not the focus of attention) is critical to resolution of the image, and the apparent dimensionality of it. What gives? RICHARD: As your query does not relate to something this flesh and blood body has reported it cannot be answered. * RESPONDENT: It is my opinion that the self-awareness of humans coupled with the larger brain is the cause of both the horrors of human life (your ‘human condition’) and the creative inventions that make life for many of us more comfortable and safer. RICHARD: As it is an indubitable fact that sentient creatures are born with instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – your opinion regarding the cause of the human condition is neither worth the time taken to type it out nor the bandwidth used to send it. RESPONDENT: If your ideal of everyone becoming ‘free of the human condition’ were to come to pass, human culture as we know it would collapse (including all the ‘good’). RICHARD: Are you somehow saying that global peace-on-earth would not be beneficial to humankind? RESPONDENT: Even your own salubrious condition rests on your own personal journey through the human condition. RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition does not rest upon a journey through the human condition ... what it rests on (if that be the right phraseology) is the total absence of the human condition. RESPONDENT: The skills you learned as an ego-entity and the emotional kindness learned in the unity state are the basis on which the body responds with skill and unconscious perfection. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does not respond in the way it does because of what the identity in parasitical residence all those years ago learned. RESPONDENT: ‘YOU’ have learned to drive the car (i.e. body/mind) with total skill. RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago never learned to direct its host body with [quote] ‘total skill’ [endquote] ... far from it, in fact. RESPONDENT: To the extent that no effort is required and all arises just as needed. RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago never learned to direct its host body to the extent that no effort was required on ‘his’ part (let alone to the point that all arose just as needed). RESPONDENT: The driver is no where to be seen, yet the ‘car’ drives. RICHARD: On the contrary ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago was everywhere to be found (everything in those years was nothing but ‘him’ and ‘his’ reality). RESPONDENT: If a teenager were to find themselves ‘driverless’ imagine the consequences. RICHARD: As the consequences for such a teenager would be peace-on-earth, in that lifetime as that flesh and blood body, imagination cannot even begin to grasp the ramifications and implications of such salubrity. * RESPONDENT: I find it highly ironic that you describe the ‘actual’ world you inhabit as ‘a fairy-tale-like wonderland’ and on the other hand stress ‘facts’ as the only reality. RICHARD: The use of the suffix ‘-like’, in phrases such as ‘a fairytale-like wonderland’ and ‘a fairytale-like paradise’ and ‘a fairytale-like ambience’ and ‘a fairytale-like quality’ and so on, indicates that it is expressive prose ... and not a literal description of actuality. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Are you using ‘fairy tale’ in a strictly ‘mood/feeling’ descriptive way? RICHARD: No (there are no moods or feelings in actuality). RESPONDENT: Or are you implying that the ‘actual’ world has aspects (and possibly creatures) that cannot be seen with an entity blocking the view? RICHARD: Nothing of this actual world can be seen by an identity ... any and all identities are, by their very nature, forever locked-out of the pristine purity and peerless perfection of actuality. RESPONDENT: Inquiring minds want to know. RICHARD: In which case you can inform them that it is nothing more mysterious than a literary device to convey the inconceivable/ unimaginable and incomprehensible/ unbelievable quality of life as it actually is.
(...) RESPONDENT: If I had come upon your site 25 years ago I would have walked away with no interest. RICHARD: In which case I suggest you do the same now.
RESPONDENT: If I had come upon your site 25 years ago I would have walked away with no interest. RICHARD: In which case I suggest you do the same now. RESPONDENT: This is an equivocal statement. Do you mean: 1. Please leave AF, you are 86’d. 2. If you had reservations about this type of enquiry 25 years ago then you probably still do. 3. You are a pain in the ass with your challenging of my claims. 4. I’ve got better things to do with my time than talk to you. RICHARD: No, not at all ... all I mean is that you will not find what is of your interest – the
intelligence you presuppose moves this flesh and blood body
RESPONDENT: If I had come upon your site 25 years ago I would have walked away with no interest. RICHARD: In which case I suggest you do the same now. RESPONDENT: This is an equivocal statement. Do you mean: 1. Please leave AF, you are 86’d. 2. If you had reservations about this type of enquiry 25 years ago then you probably still do. 3. You are a pain in the ass with your challenging of my claims. 4. I’ve got better things to do with my time than talk to you. RICHARD: No, not at all ... all I mean is that you will not find what is of your interest – the intelligence you presuppose moves this flesh and blood body – on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: Yee gads, I think you think that my remark about ‘the intelligence that moves your flesh and blood body’; is subtly hinting at a euphemism for GOD. And that I won’t find any GOD at AF. I am beginning to think the real case is I may not find any intelligence at AF. I’ll try and make this snappy. [snip remainder of e-mail]. RICHARD: I have snipped the remainder of your e-mail because, despite reading it through carefully three times, I was unable to find your explanation of what you think your remark about the intelligence you presupposed moves this flesh and blood body is subtly hinting at (rather than just your ‘yee gads’ reaction as to what you think I might be thinking it does) ... could it be that snappiness is not conducive to a focussed response after all? Here is your remark in the sequence it occurred:
Needless is it to add that this is a second opportunity for you to find out whether what you are beginning to think to be the real case (that you may not find *any* intelligence at an actual freedom from the human condition) is a thought worth thinking ... or not?
RICHARD: ... you will not find what is of your interest – the intelligence you presuppose moves this flesh and blood body – on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: Yee gads, I think you think that my remark about ‘the intelligence that moves your flesh and blood body’; is subtly hinting at a euphemism for GOD. And that I won’t find any GOD at AF. I am beginning to think the real case is I may not find any intelligence at AF. I’ll try and make this snappy. [snip remainder of e-mail]. RICHARD: I have snipped the remainder of your e-mail because, despite reading it through carefully three times, I was unable to find your explanation of what you think your remark about the intelligence you presupposed moves this flesh and blood body is subtly hinting at (rather than just your ‘yee gads’ reaction as to what you think I might be thinking it does) ... could it be that snappiness is not conducive to a focussed response after all? RESPONDENT: Making it snappy is shorthand for not wasting bandwidth on long discussions. RICHARD: As I already knew what snappy refers to – ‘(of language etc.) to the point, cleverly concise’ (Oxford Dictionary) – my query was in regards to the marked absence, in the response you tried to make snappy, of your explanation of what you meant by your remark about the intelligence you presupposed moves this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Lets try and parse this again – My remark about the intelligence that moves your F&B body was strictly as a response to your response that your body remained after the ‘removal’ of the entity. It was meant to convey that intelligence continued unabated. RICHARD: Here is the exchange in question:
Here is an example of that exchange as parsed by you:
As you parse me pointing out that I could not say what you could say (that the self/Self became so ‘unconscious’ as to be effectively gone) into meaning this flesh and blood body [quote] ‘remained after the ‘removal’ of the entity’ [endquote] and parse your own response, that *nor* could the intelligence which moves same say what you could say (that the self/Self became so ‘unconscious’ as to be effectively gone), into conveying that [quote] ‘intelligence continued unabated’ [endquote], it becomes abundantly clear why you cannot comprehend that there is nothing – absolutely nothing – of what Ms. Bernadette Roberts has to report to be found on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. Put simply: such lack of comprehension can only lie in the way you [quote] ‘parse’ [endquote] what others write. What I would suggest, then, is reading what she has to say without parsing it ... the following is just one example (out of the unreferenced quotes you provided three days ago) of where she differs fundamentally from what is to be found on The Actual Freedom Trust web site:
Here is what a dictionary has to say about ‘root’:
She also has this to say about that affective system (the one which has a sense of selfhood as its root):
And this is what she goes on to say (about that experience of life and being that is the root experience of the feeling self which that affective system has as its root):
The following is what she then goes on to say (about the deepest experience of that feeling centre which is the seat or origin of the centre of consciousness – the experience of life and being itself – which is the root experience of the feeling self/a sense of selfhood which that affective system has as its root):
If you can find anywhere on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that [quote] ‘will’ [endquote] is the primary cause of all the ills of humankind (all the needless suffering and savagery) I will publicly acknowledge that you are correct in saying that ‘upon seeing your site I immediately recognized the same process [as when I read BR for the first time] being discussed’ and that, furthermore, I have been grossly in error. Just as a matter of related interest ... are you familiar with the phrase ‘Not my will, O Lord, but Thine’?
RESPONDENT: ‘Stillness’ – is it a lack of noise or lack of movement or what? RICHARD: It is a lack of movement. Viz.:
And:
RESPONDENT: I interpret your rejection in toto of anything she [Ms. Bernadette Roberts] has to say as a focus on the cause of the death of the self/affective system as the essential issue. RICHARD: You are, of course, free to interpret anything I report/describe/explain anyway you wish ... it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and only you get to reap the rewards, or pay the consequences, for any action or inaction you may or may not have eventuate. Howsoever, when you choose to write to me and inform me of your interpretations I would be doing my fellow human being no favour were I not to set the record straight. I noticed that you wrote the following:
Then this:
And this:
Has it not occurred to you that, as I lived that/was that (night and day for nigh-on eleven years) which Ms. Bernadette Roberts has written her accounts of, I intimately know the difference between what she (and the others of similar ilk you referred to previously) speaks of and an actual freedom from the human condition? Further to the point, do you take me to be some kind of idiot ... a dim-witted numskull who needs to have it pointed out that the freedom he has lived since then (night and day for these last thirteen years) and reports/ describes/ explains in explicit detail is the same freedom these others speak of? This has nothing to do with having strings attached (as in rigid interpretations/ beliefs) let alone developing an open mind/a real tolerance: as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) there is no deity/are no deities in actuality ... whatever interpretations/ beliefs one may have held about such are rendered null and void in an instant. It is all so impeccable here ... nothing ‘dirty’ can get in (so to speak).
(...) RICHARD: This [what Richard reports/ describes/ explains in explicit detail] has nothing to do with having strings attached (as in rigid interpretations/ beliefs) let alone developing an open mind/a real tolerance: as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) there is no deity/are no deities in actuality ... whatever interpretations/beliefs one may have held about such are rendered null and void in an instant. RESPONDENT: I would agree that there are no deities in actuality. There is the eternal stillness. The only absolute. Richard just chooses to not speak of it as the divine. He dances around it with euphemisms. And probably rightly so. To put a limit on the ‘limitless’ is unthinkable. RICHARD: By my count it took 11 e-mails for you to unambiguously lay your cards on the table – your second e-mail (wherein you referred to the intelligence which you presuppose moves this flesh and blood body) was arguably a trifle ambiguous – but even so it is never too late to engage in a genuine dialogue. Unless, of course, you really meant it when you hypothesised about walking away from The Actual Freedom Trust web site with no interest (had it not been for a at-first-glance similarity between what Ms. Bernadette Roberts, and the others of similar ilk you referred to previously, speaks of and an actual freedom from the human condition)? It is your call.
RESPONDENT: ‘Stillness’ – is it a lack of noise or lack of movement or what? RICHARD: It is a lack of movement [of time itself]. RESPONDENT: From your description of stillness as a lack of movement I am making the assumption that it is the ‘eye’ that is the organ of perception that apprehends this stillness. Does that mean that a blind person is forever locked out of knowing/ seeing this ‘stillness’? RICHARD: All identities are forever locked out of actuality ... not just those inhabiting a blind (physically sightless) body. RESPONDENT: You also seem to be saying that this stillness somehow has the qualities of eternity and timelessness. RICHARD: I am not saying that the lack of movement of time itself (aka durationless time/ eternal time/ beginningless and endless time) – as contrasted to time as a measure of the sequence of events (as in past/ present/ future) – has the quality of timelessness. RESPONDENT: It [this stillness] ‘is’ the eternal now. RICHARD: No ... the stillness of time itself is not the [quote] ‘eternal now’ [endquote] of religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical lore. RESPONDENT: The only moment there ever is. RICHARD: This moment is the only moment there ever is. RESPONDENT: It is infinite. RICHARD: It is space which is infinite ... time is eternal (and matter is perdurable). RESPONDENT: And I suppose it has other unique qualities that this relative mind (me) cannot imagine. RICHARD: The stillness of time itself is absolute. RESPONDENT: Therefore I am jumping to the conclusion that the stillness is not another object of consciousness like a bird or a plane. RICHARD: The stillness of time itself is ascertained apperceptively (unmediated perception). RESPONDENT: And that the stillness is an essential aspect of the world you inhabit. RICHARD: The stillness of time itself, being a property of that arena (so to speak) in which events occur, is an essential property of this actual world ... the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. RESPONDENT: Correct me if I am wrong, but do you claim that you (Richard) are the first person, and possibly the only person to have ‘seen’ the stillness? RICHARD: No ... the stillness of time itself has been experienced by countless peoples during pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s). RESPONDENT: That this ineffable state of purity and perfection is yours alone. RICHARD: The pristine purity and peerless perfection of this actual world is neither ineffable nor mine ... it is readily describable and each and every body already lives in it. RESPONDENT: That the universe waited all this time to reveal itself? RICHARD: The purity and perfection of the infinitude Have you never noticed it is never not this moment?
RICHARD: This [what Richard reports/ describes/ explains in explicit detail] has nothing to do with having strings attached (as in rigid interpretations/beliefs) let alone developing an open mind/a real tolerance: as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) there is no deity/are no deities in actuality ... whatever interpretations/ beliefs one may have held about such are rendered null and void in an instant. RESPONDENT: I would agree that there are no deities in actuality. There is the eternal stillness. The only absolute. Richard just chooses to not speak of it as the divine. He dances around it with euphemisms. And probably rightly so. To put a limit on the ‘limitless’ is unthinkable. RICHARD: By my count it took 11 e-mails for you to unambiguously lay your cards on the table – your second e-mail (wherein you referred to the intelligence which you presuppose moves this flesh and blood body) was arguably a trifle ambiguous – but even so it is never too late to engage in a genuine dialogue. RESPONDENT: I have never heard anyone say ‘my goodness, this chocolate cake tastes like god’. But I have heard people say ‘my goodness, this chocolate cake tastes divine’. RICHARD: Have you ever heard anyone say it tastes like ‘the divine’ (aka ‘the eternal stillness’/‘the only absolute’/‘the limitless’), though? Or, for that matter, that the chocolate cake tastes like ‘all that is’ RESPONDENT: All the superlatives that you use for the paradisaical state you find yourself experiencing – perfect, peerless, pristine, ad nauseam – are adjectives that are also exchangeable in most peoples vocabularies for divine. RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:
When I refer to the pristine purity and peerless perfection of this actual world For example:
And even more explicitly:
I will say it again for emphasis ... it is never too late to engage in a genuine dialogue.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I have been following your explication of why you know without a shadow of a doubt why you are the only person to have experienced what you call actual freedom. It isn’t just the circularity of the argument that grates. RICHARD: As it is not a circular argument the grating you are experiencing is self-inflicted. RESPONDENT: ‘I know because I know’. RICHARD: As that is not what I am saying it is obvious you have not been following my explication of how I know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/human history after all. In a nutshell, then:
How you can get [quote] ‘I know because I know’ [endquote] out of that defies sensibility. RESPONDENT: You use ancient texts that speak of what can only be experienced beyond death. You experienced these things in a living breathing body, therefore you are the only one. Doesn’t it occur to you that any information about that which is beyond death is suspect? RICHARD: Any information about that which is beyond physical death is not just suspect ... it is spurious. RESPONDENT: After all if bodily death is the end period, there is hardly any way a dead person can relate the ‘truth’ to the living. If the ‘new’ state was accurately known, then it had to have been gleaned in this world of sensibility. RICHARD: What the ancient texts speak of (and the modern texts for that matter) was gleaned in the world of delusion. RESPONDENT: Maybe just maybe the death spoken of was the death of the Self. RICHARD: So as to forestall quibbling over the hoary topic of ‘Self’ shall we cut to the chase and refer to that which (supposedly) does not die at bodily death as [quote] ‘the divine’ [endquote]? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Meaning that the old spiritual texts reveal that the transformation was known in antiquity. RICHARD: There was no [quote] ‘transformation’ [endquote] ... what is it about the word ‘extinction’ that you do not comprehend? RESPONDENT: I am quite sure that when you were making the transition you were traversing the ‘unknown’. RICHARD: There was no [quote] ‘transition’ [endquote] ... what is it about the word ‘extinction’ that you do not comprehend? RESPONDENT: That is, the unknown-to-the-self. Alone in the wilderness it would be very easy to think that no one had been here before. Especially if you misunderstood the original texts to be speaking of a literal after-death state. RICHARD: There has been no misunderstanding of any texts, period. RESPONDENT: Another sad situation with you is that you link ‘acknowledgement of your singularity’ as necessary to use the methodology you have developed. RICHARD: What is linked (to use your phrasing) as necessary to the use of the actualism method is the comprehension that identity in toto is what is standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent. RESPONDENT: Questioning your ‘priority’ of discovery is tantamount to rejecting ‘peace on earth’. RICHARD: It matters not one jot who discovered an actual freedom from the human condition – somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any area of human endeavour as a matter of course – as what does matter is the discovery that, in order for the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent, identity in toto becomes extinct. RESPONDENT: Why can’t your techniques stand alone as methods to help diminish suffering? RICHARD: The approach the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago devised – a course of action which has become known as the actualism method – was never intended to merely [quote] ‘diminish’ [endquote] suffering but to bring it to an end once and for all ... here on earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: New people coming to this site will continue to challenge your claim of ‘first and only’. RICHARD: Some of the people coming to The Actual Freedom Trust web site for the first time will (presumably) continue to challenge all manner of things ... it is oft-times difficult to accommodate something new to human experience/human history into a pre-existing mind-set. RESPONDENT: There are good reasons for this. RICHARD: The main reason goes by the (misnamed) term ‘cognitive dissonance’. RESPONDENT: Why continue to waste bandwidth on a losing battle? RICHARD: It is neither a battle nor a waste of bandwidth ... it is such fun to sit here at the keyboard and share my experience with my fellow human being no matter where they are coming from or what their agenda may be. RESPONDENT: If you had the precious pearl of great price I think someone other than a few neurotic people like me would have ‘discovered’ you. RICHARD: I do not have [quote] ‘the precious pearl of great price’ [endquote] ... an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/human history. RESPONDENT: By making your ‘specialness’ primary, you actually force most people to reject the whole AF thing. And maybe they are wise to do so. The methodology may be corrupted by your sense of specialness. RICHARD: Has it never occurred to you it is somewhat difficult to report having discovered something entirely new to human experience/human history without also reporting that it is entirely new to human experience/human history? RESPONDENT: I actually think that you have somehow managed to get yourself into a state of unsuffering and continuous ‘happiness’. Nice. But not an unknown state. To the common person, yes. To those adventurers into the unknown long gone and contemporary ones who report similar things as you do, no. RICHARD: No one, either living or dead prior to 1992, has ever been actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Maybe you will evolve to a point where you will destroy all you have written about the desirable state you promulgate now, just as you did with the ‘enlightened state’ material. It might be embarrassing to discover that you actually are on the cusp of the unknown, never having actually destroyed the Self, but settled for identification with a subtle archetype. Wherein comes the inflationary self-presentation of Richard. Saviours and teachers of mankind are prima facia evidence of an archetypical identification. You think that statements to the effect that ‘your intention is to become a regular guy’ is proof of actually becoming a regular guy. It is factual that you made the statement. Not factual that it is true. Or maybe you are still intending to become a regular guy, just hasn’t happened yet. RICHARD: I will juxtapose the essence of your two statements:
RESPONDENT: Unless you really consider the possibilities stated above, your claims and methodology will become minor footnotes in the literature of the quest for human freedom from suffering. RICHARD: Ha ... unless you really consider the actualities reported/described/explained above your stated possibilities will remain being yet more re-hashes of the many and various objections to being happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: Possibly even as an example of ‘where you can go wrong’. You don’t need to respond to this. RICHARD: I never need to respond to any e-mail. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: This is as much for others reading this as you. RICHARD: Hmm ... is that a subtle archetype
CORRESPONDENT No. 94 (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 |
