|

Others ~ Selected
Correspondence
Spiritualism

I can’t believe it, I’m actually discovering now, how the spiritual
enlightenment is such a delusion. Such a fantasy. The Truth. And it’s the ultimate truth of the human reality. Oh man.
Damn! I have just saw a movie that my spiritual enlightened guru have advised me to see (Vanilla Sky) saying (the
spiritual teacher) how the movie helps to see the concept of awakening from the dream of mundane living to the greater
reality, The Truth, (to fall into the truth of my self) and I see that it’s such an ego trip. And the most fascinating
and uncomfortable for now thing for me is that spiritual enlightenment is the ultimate truth of the human condition, and
it shapes all the other believe systems and values.
Damn. And this genuinely enlightened guy talks about how after one have
awakened to the real truth, everything is cool, life is just a dream, he can as well swing in his hammock to the rest of
his life, he is the Self, live is a dream, he is enjoying that now he sees it’s a dream and others still don’t, and
since he is not this body anyway, he just can wait until time finishes him. And I thought it’s the ultimate life can
be!
And just a few months ago I’ve read his writings with such an enthusiasm!
The excitement was that I’m heading to the final truth and I’ll find the truth after all and will be saved! Now I’m
starting to see that it is such a self centred trip that is empowered by the instincts of wanting power and self glory,
(to such an un-fun place) and those instincts (the drive behind the direction to self - who am the real I) aren’t even
questioned!
Part of me can’t believe just how far away actualism and spiritual
enlightenment are. The distance is actuality, this sensible life, this infinite universe vs. imagination. I see how
heading toward actuality is such a turn away from the human reality and from the spiritual reality. The actuality is
just here and the awakened self just sees the hierarchy of reality which persons like him give status quo to and stand
on the top of this whole direction.
What an ego tripper I was, heading to a world that is more and more inner,
accepting the physical universe and everything as a hologram, as some infinite equation, which in the final truth I am.
But big part of me is still automatically heading there, but now the instinctual drive starting to be more noticed. Self
sucks me in from being here now to an imaginable (real) source.
It’s seem like a very scary thing to give up all reality completely. No 104, 2.9.2006

So, are you a Christian? Do you agree with what you have offered as the ‘Christian
view?’
What I am and what I agree to is completely
irrelevant for the fact that the actualist’s claims regards ‘the entity as soul’ are based on mis-information and
are mis-information themselves.
Just so there is no room for misunderstanding – would you state clearly
exactly what the ‘mis-information’ is that you are referring to?
Exactly what are the actualist claims regarding ‘the entity as soul?’
that you are saying are incorrect?
They might be talking about something when they talk
about the ‘entity’, but they have incorrectly equated it with the notions ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’; the ‘entity’
correlates with ‘Satan’ [‘adversary’] as understood in orthodox theology and none other.
Here’s a definition from dictionary.com...
en·ti·ty
1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and
corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
2. The fact of existence; being.
3. The existence of something considered apart from its properties.
Certainly nothing there about Satan or ‘adversary.’
Do you think it would matter one bit what meanings that orthodox theology
would correlate with the word ‘entity.’ In my experience, Richard pretty much sticks with dictionary usage.
My understanding of the word ‘entity’ is that it is basically a synonym
for ‘being’ or ‘presence.’ It is the being or ‘essence’ of a person.
This all proves once again that R has no clue
whatsoever about true religion and true metaphysics How does it do that? Also, notice that in order to claim there is
such a thing as ‘true religion’ and ‘true metaphysics’ – that such things must exist in contrast to ‘false’
religion and ‘false’ metaphysics.
Since you are claiming there is ‘true religion’ and ‘true metaphysics’
– it is relevant what you believe, since what you believe determines your view of what is true or false.
...and all his confused attributions about the ‘entity’
are strongly biased by his former mystical inclinations;
How so?
...equally, their followers understanding about
spirituality, religion and metaphysics is more than questionable, which shows in many unqualified comments; most likely
due to their long-time exposure to Bhagwan’s maddening syncretism.
It might be helpful to name specific people rather than painting all ‘followers’
with the same brush. I can only guess here that you are really referring solely to Peter and Vineeto – otherwise, you
are hoping to use this explanation as a sleight of hand to stand in for other ‘followers’ as well.
[copied from the URL]: ‘In the
real world, the human psyche or entity that dwells within the physical body is defined as being permanent and real and,
as such, deemed to be actual. This entity as soul, spirit or mind is a non-corporeal entity that is ‘inside’ the
physical flesh and blood body, looking out through the eyes, hearing through the ears, smelling through the nose, etc.’
Here again to contrast these wrong attributions of the ‘entity’ as ‘soul’
or ‘spirit’ [and also certainly not as ‘mind’]:
Again, would you state clearly why these attributions are wrong?
‘According to the Christian view the human person
is not a soul temporarily enclosed in a body, ...’
*
Or – do you side with the ‘perennialists’ – like Rene Guenon? or
both?
I’m curious why you would quote both the ‘Christian view’ as well as
from people like Guenon, Coomaraswamy, and Schuon at the same time, unless you see them as being in harmony.
Being that you are attempting to reduce actualism to a spiritual framework
I am not attempting anything here.
You most certainly are ‘attempting’ something here.
Regardless whether you succeed or fail – one must make an attempt in order
to demonstrate something.
Perhaps you mean that you are not ‘merely’ attempting?
I demonstrated how actualism is neither metaphysics,
philosophy, religion, science, but a body of dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions, immunised by an improper
application of certain metaphysical principles; like for example the identity of subject (report) and object (reported),
or the consubstantiality of body, perception apparatus, and universe, overlayed with attributions properly belonging to
the Absolute.
Being that you are reading actualism as a belief system, it is no surprise
that you think you have demonstrated that it is a ‘body of dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions...’
In brief: actualism is not a belief system. And since dogma requires belief
– it cannot be a body of dogmatic assertions either.
*
– do you care to lay your cards on the table as to what you actually
believe?
What I believe or not believe is totally irrelevant.
If only that were the case, huh? But you see – you are claiming that there
is such a thing as ‘true religion’ and ‘true metaphysics’ – so you cannot get off the hook so easily. In order
for you to claim there is ‘true religion’ and ‘true metaphysics’ – you would be required to fess up to what
you actually believe – in order to support those claims. Otherwise your claims rest on ... zilch. No 37 to No 81, 25.9.2005

I also showed that the only one who could uncover
such an ‘Absolute in disguise’ is someone who is entity-free; but such a person [like BR for example] will not be
acknowledged as an ‘authority’ by R for the very reason that s/he wouldn’t make the same dogmatic assertions about
sense perceptions, hence, so prescribes the perverse logic [based on the immunising fallacy: report = reported], s/he
cannot be entity-free and must be in ASC!
You say that you ‘showed that the only one who could uncover such an ‘Absolute
in disguise’ is someone who is entity-free’ but you are claiming to have uncovered it yourself. So, either you
are contradicting yourself, or you are ‘entity-free.’
Which is it? No 37 to No 81, 25.9.2005a

Yes, they have the same source in the old brain. What I am saying is that it
has to be unravelled. I can’t just see that one connection and disappear all of it. I might have thought that when I
was spiritual but it goes deeper than that.
Yes that is the crux of the matter for me I suppose.
I don’t see this as a spiritual versus actual problem. I use to be a big J. Krishnamurti reader. I was an atheist and
a naturalist long before I ever read him and afterwards this did not change. I tried to read between the lines. It
seemed to me that what the man was speaking of was a real state, only a brain state or change what have you and nothing
spiritual about it. In simply watching all of my thoughts and emotions non-judgmentally I found myself by necessity
going into the thought and or emotion to discover its cause. That is why I see actualism as just a rewording of the old.
Yes, this is the crux of the matter to see the difference between spiritual
and actual. I also use to think that K was not spiritual but now I see that he is spiritual to the core. By experiencing
the actual world one can see that there is nothing spiritual about it. The spiritual is all in ones psyche in the form
of beliefs and feelings which do not exist in the actual world. No 16 to No 87,
6+8.9.2005

I was involved in what you would can the ‘initiatic’ tradition for around
8 years.
1) Many (if not all) of the Orthodox Christian initiates (Gregory of Nyssa,
Gregory Palamas, Symeon the New Theologian, Theophan the Recluse, Clement of Alexandria, and all the Church
fathers and mothers) believed in ‘actual’ demonic and angelic beings. I’m not sure who is providing you with
misleading counter information. Hint: I do know some ‘perenialist’ writers will distort things to fit their ‘vision’.
2) Regardless of your or anyone’s ‘opinion’, at the end of the day
there is this: The initiate tradition advocates disassociative practices like personal prayer, liturgical prayer,
contemplation on ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, sitting in silence for prolonged periods, fasting, and asceticism in
general. Actualism advocates none of this. It brings non-spiritual attentiveness to one’s moment by moment
experience of life. The ‘closest’ actualism comes to any of that is sitting down with a feeling and fully feeling it
and then investigating it, but even that is fundamentally different than the above.
If after carefully reading all the initiates lives, one can ‘think’
that even one of them had extinguished their ego/soul or social identity/instinctual self, and live in the actual world
of the senses only, then one did not read the very clear account in their own words that shows without any doubt
that they do not live in the actual world.
Living in caves, monasteries, or being a priest involved in the liturgy (i.e.
almost all of the ‘initiates’ were monks, hermits, or priests-think about it, No 81), is not a path to the
actual. I’ll end with this: actualism is farther away from the ‘initiatic’ tradition than Christianity is from
Satanism. Think about it. If you fully understand these paths, then my statement is obvious.
Good luck in breaking free from the bondage of your spiritual ‘learning’
and conditioning.
*
I was involved in what you would can the ‘initiatic’ tradition for around
8 years.
Hi, I would appreciate if you could elaborate your
experiences a little bit.
Here is part of my first few posts to this list:
‘Oddly enough I stumbled upon it with the Google search ‘Buddhism and
watchfulness’ or close to it. So, it was not really something I was looking for but I have been intrigued and
challenged by my reading. Just to let you know where I’m coming from (and how hard it will be for me to ‘go all the
way’) I’m a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian – i.e. I have a morning and evening prayer rule before my altar
of Icons, pray before eating, travelling, undertaking work, have two spiritual reading times where I read the Lives of
the Saints, The Scriptures, and the writings of the Saints, and practice times of stillness throughout the day in
general. I practice the ‘Fourth Way’ as a natural complement to Eastern Christianity. There is my bias.
However, in the end what seems to be most important is to be at peace and
harmless to my fellow man.
Those were the reasons I became Orthodox in the first place after studying
and practicing Protestant Fundamentalism (Nazarene), New Ageism, Judaism, Islam, (Eastern Orthodoxy), Hinduism,
Buddhism, Taoism, and back to Orthodoxy (all this is in chronological order). I think that my investigation and practice
of Eastern religion and my discovery that they were certainly inferior to Orthodoxy and far as happy and harmless goes
will be a stumbling block in my communication with Peter and Richard because they only experienced the indeed sick
religion of Western Christianity and found it obviously less healthy than Eastern Religion.
But I have read enough of the site to give a real jumping into this for 6-12
months to see where it goes. I stopped going to Church (even though the chanting in Church is my favourite part of my
week), praying (though it gives me peace), and meditating for now. I have many questions of course but this is a long
message and if anyone has a response I’ll hold off in writing more.’
*
1) Many (if not all) of the Orthodox Christian initiates (Gregory of Nyssa,
Gregory Palamas, Symeon the New Theologian, Theophan the Recluse, Clement of Alexandria, and all the Church
fathers and mothers) believed in ‘actual’ demonic and angelic beings.
Yes. I noticed this as well. I have the Philokalia
at hand ,-)))
Oh, the Philokalia ... hey he ... All five volumes? I tortured my poor mind
with going through all five ... whew! Or was it four? Well it felt like five!
Accordingly to Rene Guenon, …
Father Seraphim Rose, Orthodox Monk, was enamoured with Guenon, and he became
Orthodox, so be attentive. Personally, I would not recommend trusting a ‘traditionalist’ who works outside of
the existing traditions. Such a person is bound to be a walking bag of contradiction.
…though, there is a difference between ‘metaphysics’
and ‘religion’ between ‘exoteric’ and ‘esoteric’ teaching.
So he says ... I’ve had contact with Praxis Press, founded by Robin
Amos Amis, author of A Different Christianity and quite frankly the Orthodox Tradition, which is both
esoteric and exoteric, does not really have that sharp of a distinction.
And in metaphysics (esoteric teachings) the angels
and demons symbolise mental states.
Well, there is no evidence in the Christian tradition that the writers
of the ‘esoteric’ texts dis not believe in real angels and demons. Its clear they do.
In religion (exoteric teaching) it is completely
different.
I think this is a ploy by Rene and others to ‘update’ the tradition to
not make it look so silly to moderns.
*
I’m not sure who is providing you with misleading counter information.
Hint: I do know some ‘perenialist’ writers will distort things to fit their ‘vision.’
I assume you allude to Frithjof Schuon.
Yes I was.
I have most of my information from Rene Guenon and
Ananda Coomaraswamy and some others like Mircea Tamas.
Guenon will not be helpful in becoming virtually, let alone actually free.
*
2) Regardless of your or anyone’s ‘opinion’, at the end of the day
there is this: The initiate tradition advocates disassociative practices like personal prayer, liturgical prayer,
contemplation on ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, sitting in silence for prolonged periods, fasting, and asceticism in
general.
This is indeed something I cannot reconcile.
Good, it is all a big waste of time.
I have never done these practises.
You’re only missing some weird experiences and temporary highs and that’s
the ‘good’ part.
The AF method is the first time that I actually
practise anything.
That’s amazing to me, but I find that interesting.
Before that I read and tried to gain an intellectual
understanding about ‘spiritual realisation’ …
Which leads nowhere, as I’ve been there too.
… and the different traditions: Hinduism &
Vedanta, Buddhism, Zen, Taoism, Christianity & Gnosis, Islam & Sufism, Judaism & Kabbala. I did Jungian
dream analyses with some success.
I’ve experimented and read about these too.
Had also some visions and OOBEs.
No OOBE’s for me, but I think some are neurologically predisposed to such
things.
I studied a lot of symbolism and metaphorical
geometry etc.
I was getting into this right before I stumbled upon actualism.
*
Actualism advocates none of this. It brings nonspiritual attentiveness
to one’s moment-by-moment experience of life. The ‘closest’ actualism comes to any of that is sitting down with a
feeling and fully feeling it and then investigating it, but even that is fundamentally different than the above.
I understand.
Ok
*
If after carefully reading all the initiates lives, one can ‘think’
that even one of them had extinguished their ego/soul or social identity/instinctual self, and live in the actual world
of the senses only, then one did not read the very clear account in their own words that shows without any doubt
that they do not live in the actual world.
Living in caves, monasteries, or being a priest involved in the liturgy (i.e.
almost all of the ‘initiates’ were monks, hermits, or priests-think about it, No 81), is not a path to the
actual.
I tend to agree.
If you find an exception, do tell. :)
What made me wondering was, for example, that Ibn
Arabi (by some called the Greatest of all Masters in the Sufi tradition) said:
‘Spiritual men attach importance only to a higher degree of knowledge of
God. That is all they seek. Their thoughts take no account of what happens in the phenomenal world. Test the truth of
what we say.’ (Seal of the Saints, Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn Arabi,
Michael Chodkiewicz)
Ibn Arabi was also the writer of some 500 (!) books.
In one of these he made the following statements:
This treatise informed me of what passed between myself and myself and what
my being contemplated of my existence. (...) He made me know myself through myself and caused me to appear to myself, so
that I became enamoured of only myself. Between my distance and my proximity I have become mad with love for myself, and
I address myself alone. (...) He returned me by me to me from me, and only my qualities subsisted in me. (...) I am my
beloved and my lover; I am my knight and my maiden. (...) Why defend my station? It matters little to me, what do I
care? For I am in love with none other than myself, and my very separation is my union. Do not blame me for my passion.
I am inconsolable over Him who has fled me.
This indeed sounds like Love/Agape, Self-Aggrandisement, and Narcissism!
Bada bing, No 81.
*
I’ll end with this: actualism is farther away from the ‘initiatic’
tradition than Christianity is from Satanism. Think about it. If you fully understand these paths, then my statement is
obvious. Good luck in breaking free from the bondage of your spiritual ‘learning’ and conditioning.
Thank you very much!
You seem to have much enthusiasm and to be well read, your explorations into
actualism will be interesting I think.
Maybe you can help me.
Whatever you gain from actualism will be the fruits of your own labours.
Perhaps I will write something that will be used by you, perhaps not.
What were your key revelations? You said you were
involved in initiatic traditions for 8 years? How did you break free? What couldn’t you reconcile? What make you
change?
From studying History, Psychology, Philosophy, cognitive science,
evolutionary psychology, behavioural genetics, the spiritual view seemed weaker and weaker. Unfortunately they have no
real answers for living one’s life better … actualism does ... the rest is ‘history’. The next big turning point
was when I realized that Love/Compassion were part of the problem, not the answer (i.e. they are pathetic and
narcissistic).
I stopped all ‘my’ practices, got rid of all my spiritual books,
and started anew. Burning that bridge decisively was important for me, such was my total dependency, attachment,
commitment to the spiritual path. Needless to say, I’m very pleased to be fully on my own now, attempting to
live in peace and harmony and increasingly becoming free, beholden to no one or thing.
I’m just beginning, and yet I’d could never have imagined living like
this. What a thrilling adventure!
I clearly see how the denial mechanism works in me.
For example, a year ago (at the same time I started reading the AF webpage) I had the urge to end my intellectual search
and associate myself to an initiatic tradition.
As an aside, I found the ‘Fourth Way’ to be the most sensible
non-actualist way around (well besides engaging in emotional integration methods, like emo-clear), but obviously I left
it for actualism.
Hence I decided to visit a notable Sufi ‘Sheikh’
(the equivalent of a ‘guru’ in the Islamic tradition) and asked him for the requirements of an initiation. He showed
me his prayer room full of pictures with saints, masters, avatars, and holy men of different traditions.
Sufi, Orthodox monk ... sounds similar ...
In the hallway he had a large portrait of the (de
facto dictatorial) leader of one of the eastern European countries of which he was a great admirer. By coincidence, his
daughter was visiting him the same day. To make it short: She would finally start crying in front of my wife and saying
he was abusing her as a child (while he was absent and gone for the toilet) and she was at her wit’s end (basically at
the brink of a nerve-breakdown). She was recently divorcing from her second husband and single-parent. Her child had
really bad manners and was suffering from hyperactivity. At one time the wife of the Sufi master screamed at the child:
‘I think you are insane.’ My wife and I left shaken, actually shocked. We couldn’t believe it. This family was
more disturbed than the average family,
Not that uncommon in obsessively spiritual families.
… but still he was a ‘Sheikh’!!! I couldn’t
reconcile what I saw [fact] and what I had thought [belief] about the life and qualities of a ‘spiritual master’.
As the modern ‘masters’ lives are so different than the lives of the ‘saints’
in the books, it makes one wonder how honest the books are ...
In Sufism the Sheikh (guru) has not to be
enlightened and he certainly was not. At some time I thought I seem to know more about ‘spiritual realisation’
(intellectually not experientially) than he did.
You may well have, I know I ‘knew’ a lot more than some of my ‘spiritual
fathers’ who were monks and priests. They had experienced more though.
And even my wife noticed that he couldn’t give
definite answers to quite simple questions. I must not say that this was my first and last attempt to make contact with
a master of the initiatic traditions.
I have friend who has been to Mount Athos, and I nearly went myself. I know a
monk who is indeed a ‘living saint’, and all that is heady (and hearty) stuff. Yet, I also know that his compassion
leads him to experience useless sorrow, and his love leaves aggression alive in him (if only to hate sin.
Though I have seen him ‘sharp’ with some of his nuns ... it seemed like he was irritated – i.e. hence angry – to
me).
But denial kicked in and I bought for more than USD
2000 books on Sufism …
I’ve likely spent thousands on spiritual material as well and I ended up
just giving it all away to a spiritual friend of mine, who has since severed our fellowship.
… and most of it is ‘alienating’ to say the
least.
I spent so many years, ignoring the ‘dark side’ of spiritualism. I see it
clearly now ... and seeing is the END of believing.’ No 66 to No 81, 3.4.2005

Some thoughts on what it means to be ‘spiritual.’
On the one hand, being ‘spiritual’ can mean believing in a god, truth (by
whatever name), the afterlife, etc. i.e. – belief in the supernatural.
On the other hand, being ‘spiritual’ can refer to an attitude or outlook
on life which values such things as family, community and community service, a feeling of unity with the universe and
all peoples and beings.
It is this second sense of the word ‘spiritual’ that everyone inevitably
shares to some extent. As a feeling being ‘I’ cannot help but attempt to unite my ‘self’ with other ‘selves’
for security and fortification. It is ‘my’ very nature to do so.
I used to attend a Unitarian Universalist church some years ago where ‘spiritual
beliefs’ were de-emphasized and the ‘spiritual outlook’ was the focus. In other words, what Unitarian
Universalists have done is to strip away ‘spiritual’ beliefs from the ‘spiritual’ outlook everyone shares to
some extent and attempt to use this commonality to be ‘tolerant’ of the various diverging spiritual beliefs, so that
everyone lives under the same roof relatively peacefully – as long as it is agreed that shared spirituality and values
are what is really important, as opposed to the particular beliefs people have (Agnosticism and Doubt are Virtues). This
way, the unity amongst peoples can be felt, and the atrocities and indulgences of various religions and philosophies and
teachings can be ignored, as long as the essential ‘spirituality’ is sanctified.
Not too long ago, I attended a single Humanist meeting. I was surprised to
find out that on the one hand, spiritual beliefs were shunned as primitive belief, yet ‘spirituality’ (as in
community, connection with all beings, etc) was quite important. So, even in a room where I presume were mostly
atheists, spirituality was accepted and sacrosanct.
As I see it, this is the reason why it is an important insight that virtually
everyone is ‘spiritual’ at least in their desire to connect with others, the truth, the universe, or whatever. It is
the ‘real’ existence of the psychic web which makes the feeling of unity possible and the search for this unity in
whatever form the essence of the ‘spiritual.’ No 37

Good to see you are still hanging around the list. We went through a dry
spell there for a while huh?
After looking at the site http://www.theabsolute.net
and seeing Otto Weininger extolled as a ‘genius’ – I am beginning to see more clearly the parallels between what
it is to be a ‘guru’ and a ‘genius’.
I had to think of other ‘geniuses’, like Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant,
Einstein, Freud, Wittgenstein, Sartre, etc. Being a ‘genius’ is a kind of cult.
The guru uses their spiritual insight to discern Truth intuitively as
revealed by the Divine, whereas the genius uses their heroic mind to intuitively/rationally discern the truth as
revealed by Reason. Both are taking a very similar approach ...
I’m not sure I understand this. In what sense are
they taking a ‘very similar’ approach?
What I mean is that they are both using an intuitive/revelatory method only
their purported ‘source’ that they ‘tap in to’ is different. The guru tunes him/herself into the Divine Source,
whereas the genius tunes (normally himself instead of herself) to Reason, such as the laws of the universe, laws of
morality, platonic forms, karma, psychological insight, etc.
Briefly, it could be said that both the guru and genius are ‘seers’ or
‘prophetic voices’ that tap into an ‘extraordinary’ source of wisdom.
*
... except that generally the guru uses Divine Inspiration, and the genius
uses Reason with capital ‘R’ to tune into the Truth.
You mention this ‘except’ as if it were a
superficial detail that distinguishes two very similar things. If that’s the case, could you spell out the underlying
similarity? (I could take a few guesses, but I’m more interested in hearing it directly from you).
Is the above explanation sufficient?
Possibly even more clearly...
They both tune into a higher authority that is above and beyond what the
normal person is supposed to be able to know, in order discern the secrets of the universe – ‘except’ for the fact
that one source of authority is the ‘Divine’ and the other ‘Reason.’ Of course, there is often an overlap.
Keep in mind that I am using the word ‘genius’ in the sense it is often
used in the real world – namely, to describe men of history that occupy exalted regions of the mind and who are
supposed to be heroes of sorts.
There is another usage of the word ‘genius’ that just means a really
intelligent person – that’s not what I’m referring to. When I referred to the ‘cult of the genius’ – I’m
talking about the hero worship that often goes along with ‘the classics,’ ‘great philosophers’ and the general
tendency to idolize ‘great thinkers’. No 37 to No 60

You will likely get other responses, but I thought I’d take a crack at your
questions.
Hello Friends, Could I please address some questions to
actualists?
1. Why is actualism termed as ‘180 degrees opposite
to spirituality’ when spirituality also at least tries to extinguish the ego-self? I can understand that it gets stuck
at the level of the psychic-Self but to stop short is not to go in the opposite direction.
A good place on the actual freedom website to find out why actualism is ‘180
degrees opposite to spirituality’ is here –
And a illustrative diagram. The bottom line on the actualism vs spirituality is that
the spiritual solution of enlightenment is an institutionalized delusion born out of an illusion. In enlightenment, the
‘self’ vanishes, only the reveal the ‘Self’ – or a spiritual union. In actualism, both the ‘self’ and any
trace of a ‘Self’ vanishes, and the experience is actual, not imaginary.
Another way of understanding it is that the spiritual solutions advocate
dissociation and transcendence – while actualism advocates immediate involvement in this actual world with not a trace
of transcendence.
2. Isn’t the extinguishing of the ego-self in
spiritual practices and the resultant feeling of love, harmony and one-ness with the universe a more benevolent attitude
than that of hatred, ill-will and animosity? If the animal instincts of fear, agression, nurture and desire exist at the
deeper level, then why is it that only ‘love agape’, silence and peace remain as the predominant/only states after a
long period of meditation (as personally experienced by me)?
Richard is better qualified to answer this question than I am. As I
understand it, fear, aggression, and the rest of the instinctual passions are still there in the background – only
sublimated and transcended – otherwise, what’s the need for love or compassion, as love needs sorrow in order to
exist at all.
I have met many serious meditators and they seem, on
average, to be better human beings (as far as malice and sorrow is concerned). They are usually considerate, polite,
tolerant, compassionate and intelligent. If they have merely reverted (or become nearer) to their psychic Selves, then
why aren’t all four of the stated instincts stronger, since now the social conditioning/constrictions have been
removed?
Do you know of any ‘serious meditators,’ gurus, teachers, spiritualists,
etc that do not have a Dark Side? I’ve never encountered one. Da Free John, UG Krishnamurti, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Meher
Baba – that is only to mention a few with obvious dark sides. And so many others that have been involved in scams,
chicanery, and deceptions.
3. Why does actualism proclaim that spirituality
disregards one’s genetic/animal conditioning? Most religions in the eastern tradition do emphasize that one is born
with certain tendencies and more are acquired during life. These are termed as samskaras (latent tendencies) in Buddhism
and Hinduism. In fact, the major samskaras (in Hinduism) of lust, anger, greed, attachment and ego are considered to
linger on birth after birth. I am not debating transmigration here, but only positing that spirituality does not
consider that one is born innocent, as stated on the actualism website. I can provide references from major spiritual
texts to back my claim.
Is there a single tradition that puts the blame on our genetic evolutionary
history, rather than on some notion of karma or original sin?
I would be curious to see the text you state is on the actualism website that
claims that spirituality claims that one is born innocent? I would appreciate if you would provide that text so we can
look at it more closely.
4. Why is Actualism considered to be for ‘peace-on-earth’
and spirituality against it?
Spiritualism may generally want ‘peace-on-earth,’ but as I see it, the
question is whether they have delivered such. Remember, the phrase is not only ‘peace’ – but ‘peace-on-earth.’
Which means actual, pragmatic, functional, factual, peace – while one is on this very planet, in this lifetime.
Spiritualists often see this world as illusory, or fallen, with ‘peace’ residing in some transcendent world – so
their rendition of ‘peace-on-earth’ is actually something like ‘imaginary peace somewhere else other than this
planet earth.’
If you wonder why I say ‘imaginary peace’ – think about whether you
know of any enlightened person without a dark side.
Both in spiritualism and actualism, those who have had
the peak experience of enlightenment and PCE (respectively) find that there is nothing wrong in the world, nothing to be
done, everything is perfect as is.
It is not the case that there is ‘nothing to be done.’ In both
spiritualism and actualism there is much being done – if you haven’t noticed. According to Richard, someone in
actual freedom, doesn’t ‘desire’ or ‘need’ anything to be done – since the actual world is already perfect
– but that by no means entails that there is ‘nothing to be done.’
If that were the case, I don’t think you would have ever arrived at this
website.
In both cases, perfection is found to be already
existing. Suffering is seen to be an individual malady born of ignorance of one’s true nature (which is pure sensate
for an actualist, pure being for a spiritualist).
The question is ‘where’ and ‘what’ is the ‘perfection?’ For the
spiritualist, ‘where’ is somewhere else other than this planet – and ‘what’ is an imaginary God, or Being, or
the Transcendent. Also, actualism does not see ‘suffering [as being] an indiviudal malady born of ignorance of one’s
true nature,’ rather it is recognized as the inborn (genetic) human condition, developed through evolution by natural
selection.
In what way is a spiritualist against peace-on-earth
here-and-now vis-a-vis an actualist? Is the sole criticism against spiritualism’s claims of enlightenment as
perfection that of the concept of Parinirvana or Mahasamadhi (which would mean real perfection occurs only after bodily
death).
That is not the ‘sole criticism,’ but to posit a ‘real perfection’
after bodily death is obviously not only not perfect, but it’s also not even remotely ‘peace-on-earth.’
In fact I have met many meditators who consider Nirvana
or Moksha occuring in this very life as the final attainment. Maybe parinirvana or mahasamadhi is a concept invented by
devout/misguided disciples and not by the great teachers themselves.
If Nirvana or Moksha is the final attainment, why hasn’t it delivered peace
on earth after thousands of years? Why are there dark sides to so many of the enlightened? Why are so many who claim to
have arrived not only not peaceful, but deceptive and harmful? Why are there so few people who have actually become
enlightened? No 37 to No 71

As I understand it, fear, aggression, and the rest of the instinctual
passions are still there in the background – only sublimated and transcended – otherwise, what’s the need for love
or compassion, as love needs sorrow in order to exist at all.
No 71: 1. One’s own
sorrow can have finished and still the perception of all-round sorrow can bring about this love/compassion. Is there any
logical reason why the extinguishing of one’s own sorrow should mean one stops perceiving other’s sorrow.
‘Perceiving’ other’s sorrow as in understanding it is different than
‘feeling’ other’s sorrow – and love/compassion is not only understanding another’s sorrow, but feeling it as
well. I am personally not interested in ‘logical’ reasons, since ‘logical’ reasoning about these things is to
take an arm-chair approach – what I am interested in is experiential understanding, and experientially –
love/compassion involves feeling sorrow – if you doubt it, look at it in yourself.
Your statement that love and sorrow are related does
find mention in Krishnamurti’s teachings:
I think the two are related – sorrow and love. And
to understand what love is, one has to feel the immensity of sorrow. (1962, 7th Public
Talk, Saanen)
OK, but actualism is concerned with understanding the connection between
love/compassion and sorrow experientially, for yourself – not by taking Krishnamurti’s word for it. What good is
somebody else’s teaching, if one doesn’t understand it experientially?
It doesn’t matter one bit what Krishnamurti had to say, except to
demonstrate that he still felt sorrow. Actualism is about completely ridding oneself from sorrow and malice.
*
Do you know of any ‘serious meditators,’ gurus, teachers, spiritualists,
etc that do not have a Dark Side? I’ve never encountered one. Da Free John, UG Krishnamurti, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Meher
Baba – that is only to mention a few with obvious dark sides. And so many others that have been involved in scams,
chicanery, and deceptions.
1. Yes. If by dark side you mean ‘scams, chicanery
and deceptions’ …
No, I don’t mean by ‘dark side’ – ‘scams, chicanery and deceptions.’
That is only part of what I meant by the words ‘dark side.’ A dark side includes any feeling of sorrow, malice,
aggression, etc. – expressed or unexpressed.
… and the like I don’t think Ramana Maharishi
had a dark side. I don’t think the Buddha had a dark side. I don’t think I personally am involved in scams,
chicanery, deception etc. And many of my friends are like this as well. I/They may be misguided in our pursuit of
clarity and happiness but we are open to the possibility of our being on the wrong track and do not try to tell others
that ours is the absolute unique real path to happiness nor do we exploit others in any way.
I will leave it up to you to speculate about Ramana Maharshi and the Buddha,
etc. not having a dark side. Remember, by dark side I mean that person feels sorrow and malice, and Love/Compassion is a
sure sign that they feel sorrow and malice.
*
Is there a single tradition that puts the blame on our genetic evolutionary
history, rather than on some notion of karma or original sin?
For one, Krishnamurti does not blame Karma.
The obvious fact is that – with our greed, jealousy,
possessiveness, fear, with our sentimentality, our fleeting pleasures, our purr of self-satisfaction – we are animals,
highly evolved animals. If you watch an animal you will see it has the same conflicts that we have. The anthropoid apes
are jealous and have their matrimonial difficulties. They unite in groups – first the family, then the tribe, and all
that business – just as we do; and someone was saying the other day that these apes could sit in the United Nations
quite as well as any human being! It is an obvious fact that our character, our devotion, our courage, our fear, our
wars, our so-called peace, our struggles, all spring from this animal background. You don’t have to dispute this with
me. The biologists, the anthropologists are saying it is so – if you want authorities. (1964, 6th
public talk, Saanen)
By watching the animal – its violence, its devotion,
its pleasures – I learn, because I am part of the animal; my whole background is derived from the higher apes and all
the rest of it. At least that is what the scientists say. Or the others will say, no, you are straight from God. Have I
got to watch the animal to learn about myself? Have I got to watch you to learn about myself? (From
1969, 2nd public dialogue in Brockwood Park)
Well, I asked whether there was a ‘single tradition’ that puts blame on
our (genetic) evolutionary history. Krishnamurti is not a ‘tradition.’ He is an individual who lived in the last
century. Krishnamurti may (note: ‘may’) have hit the nail on the head in this passage (as far as where our
instinctual passions come from), but the result – his ‘solution’ was certainly not to get rid of those inborn
instinctual passions, rather to transcend them.
But this must be kept in mind that the concept of
genetics is a very recent concept, born of modern scientific research. In the time of the Buddha (say), since they had
no microscopes and such, maybe they called this repository of our animal background Karma. I am only guessing, mind you.
Yes, I understand it is only a guess. I personally don’t see the value of
such speculation though, since ‘in the time of the Buddha’ – nobody had any idea about our evolutionary history
and how it works.
This is probably a good point to add – it’s not so much just the concept
of genetics that is important – rather it is the understanding that our instinctual identity evolved by a blind
process of natural selection.
I personally know many Advaita Vedantians who claim
that the concept of Karma (as in result of deeds in your past life) is a clever device knowingly invented by some
spiritualists in the past to scare people from doing socially reprehensible things. When I asked them what was then the
basis of my inborn instincts, they said it is due to my ancestory (in other words, genetic history).
‘Ancestory’ doesn’t necessarily imply ‘genetic history.’ It is much
more common to blame ‘conditioning’ than ‘genetic history.’ When I hear the word ‘ancestory’ as the culprit,
coming from a spiritualist, it normally means ‘conditioning,’ which is nothing but social conditioning.
Just because some illiterate spiritualist does not
know of the word ‘genetics’ does not mean he does not have an understanding that we are born with certain traits
which we have gotten from the animal realm.
Correct, but an ‘animal realm’ is a far cry from understanding the blind
process of natural selection and evolutionary history.
It is another matter that most of them consider this
evolution to be not through genes but through the transmigration of the soul from an animal body to a human body. This
is decidedly superstitious.
Glad you agree.
*
I would be curious to see the text you state is on the actualism website that
claims that spirituality claims that one is born innocent? I would appreciate if you would provide that text so we can
look at it more closely.
From http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/gurus.htm
and http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/spiritualsolutions3.htm
At the core of the Eastern religious view of the world is the concept that all humans are born ‘innocent
and have only been conditioned with ‘evil thoughts’ since birth. It is further believed that it is possible for a
chosen few to regain this mythical ‘natural’ innocence, in this lifetime on earth, hence the search to find one’s
‘original face’ or Divine Self.
That quotation (I am told) was written by Peter – so you might want to ask
him about that – whether he would still agree with that statement. I’m sure there are some Eastern religious views
that would agree with the ‘blank slate’ theory, but I also am aware of quite different ideas, like Meher Baba’s
‘sanskaras,’ for example.
Good thing about actualism is that there is no dogma. If Peter was wrong,
then so be it. Of course, he may want to explain what he meant by ‘the core of the Eastern religious view.’ There
should be no problem admitting a mistake, if and when an error is made.
A point to be made about that passage though is that there is a fact in what
Peter was saying. I would say it this way: At the core of the Eastern religious view of the world is the concept that
all humans originated from the Divine, the One, Brahman, Tao, Original Nature, or whatever you want to call it – which
doesn’t necessarily mean that they were born ‘innocent’ in this life, rather that each person has a ‘fallen’
nature which occurred either as a result of conditioning, or as an inevitable consequence of being born into this world.
So, the ‘core’ Peter is referring to is a fact, maybe somewhat sloppily stated, yet I think it is fair to say that
the main idea/belief is that one has fallen from the Divine, and enlightenment/union/ or whatever is the way back Home.
From http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/peter/selected-correspondence/corr-religion2.htm
Do realize that this is no little thing to agree to
because it is completely at odds with all of the spiritual teachings that have it that we are born innocent beings and
only corrupted by conditioning or that we are all blank slate souls who have to suffer the trails of being trapped in a
corporeal body in an alien physical world?
I am surprised that you stopped your quotation at that point. If you would
have continued reading, you would have found:
No 59: It’s true to say that the genetic
coding is supplied complete to each individual.
Peter: Oh, good. Can we agree then that the instinctual survival
mechanism – that which gives rise to the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire in human beings
– ‘is supplied complete’ to each and every member of the human species?
Do realize that this is no little thing to agree to because it is
completely at odds with all of the spiritual teachings that have it that we are born innocent beings and only corrupted
by conditioning or that we are all blank slate souls who have to suffer the trails of being trapped in a corporeal body
in an alien physical world?
No 49: I don’t see spiritualists as all
saying children are born as blank slates. I’ve had people from two different Christian sects (Jehova’s Witness and
Mormon) – those who go about knocking on doors looking for converts – tell me that children are born with original
sin, and they each offered as an example the obvious anger displayed by infants who are not getting their way. They
offer religious salvation solutions for this sin.
Peter: Yeah, point taken. It was a bit sloppy of
me. I forgot about the fire-and-brimstone ‘repent ye sinners and ye shall be saved’, which really means ‘ye better
join our group … or else …’. Peter, List AF, No 49, 22.11.2003
So, you see that Peter immediately admitted that his original rendition was
‘a bit sloppy’ thus, incorrect. It might be better to say that many spiritual teachings hold that we ‘originated’
as innocent beings, rather than ‘born’ as innocent beings. If it is put this way, then even the doctrine of original
sin allows for a time where the human being was innocent, prior to the fairy tale Fall in the Garden of Eden.
*
If you wonder why I say ‘imaginary peace’ – think about whether you
know of any enlightened person without sorrow and malice. Also, what use is it to have a ‘peace’ based upon an
illusion?
Nanak, Buddha, Ramana Maharishi. JK too, except for
the one instance in his life when he tried to hide a personal matter from public knowledge (his affair with Rosalind
Rajgopal).
Again, I will leave you to speculate, but the fact that you bring up an ‘except’
case for JK tells me he was not rid of sorrow and malice.
*
Why are there so few people who have actually become enlightened?
Same can be said about actualism.
Again, to compare the ‘fruits’ of spiritual enlightenment and actualism
is to compare apples and oranges. The same could be asked about actualism, but there is a ready answer – it hasn’t
had the thousands of years that spiritualism has had – rather, it is brand new to human history.
Let me rephrase my question – why, out of the millions or billions of
spiritual people who have sought enlightenment in some thousands of years, have so few actually become enlightened?
To ask a similar question of actualism, one would need to ask, why, out of
the (unspecified) relatively small number of people who are aware of and have actually given actualism a try, has only 1
become actually free, and only a handful virtually free?
Maybe you will see now that an actualist has a much easier time with that
question?
Even one enlightened being in a million is a great
success as compared to actualism, which has only one till date.
That is like saying that the book of Genesis story is a great success
compared to Darwin’s theory of evolution, merely because more people have believed it to be true.
When Darwin came up with the theory of evolution (before publishing), only a
handful (if that) of people saw it to be a factual account – nevertheless, the more successful theory is not the one
that millions have given credence to – rather it is the one that only a handful (if that) of people had discovered at
the time.
In other words, it is the fact that determines ‘success’.
In evolutionary theory, it is posited that when a
certain evolutionary mutation has to occur, it occurs sporadically in many individuals of that species in the same era.
I.e. if the time for actualism has come, then we can ‘hope’ to see some more folks totally free from the human
condition. But whether this is only a hope based on illusion or an actual anticipation based on facts, only time will
tell.
Hoping for actualism to spread is a waste of time. ‘I’ am the only one
that can change ‘myself.’ Nobody else can save ‘me’ – it is up to each ‘me’ whether or not actualism
spreads in the years to come. It is each person’s choice how they want to live. No
37 to No 71

I took a peak at the link you provided (http://64.225.88.61/kdocs.htm)
and while I hardly have the time or the inclination to read it all, I did ‘enjoy’ skimming through it, although not
for the same reasons I used to enjoy reading K writings. Of course, what you provided was ‘early’ Krishnamurti, and
I see it is not long after his completion of the ‘process’ (about 6 years in fact), that mystical opening of the
Third Eye and kundalini energy described in the Mary Lutyens book ‘Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening’
(1975).
The reason I ‘enjoyed’ reading some of it was that it took me no time at
all to locate passages which leave their unmistakable spiritual imprint and place Krishnamurti undeniably in the
mystical/spiritual camp, despite his avid denials in later years. Take for instance this passage, off of page 12:
Krishnamurti: The point is that, at the root of both
wanting and giving, there is a going outwards away from yourself, and this is what you have to resist. But, if you do,
what is left? When you are not giving or wanting something, what are you? You are Being, the only positive thing in man.
Being is fearless and does not depend on anything outside itself: hence, it
does not cast a shadow. It knows no separation and it is immortal. And so, when you as an individual enter into that
pure Being, you become the delight of life’s expression, because you have been through everything. Such Being is life’s
fulfillment. That is what everyone is seeking: to be himself: no to depend on external things for his wanting or giving.
When you are such Being, you are as the sunshine in which all things grow and in which there is nothing that is either
evil or good, bad or indifferent.
So do not seek to understand this Being through any one particular channel.
It is far above all these petty creations of illusion. Seek it by casting out all fear, for when that is done life will
show you what it means you to be. (http://64.225.88.61/kdocs.htm) pg 12
While the excerpt is off of page 12, one would not have to look that far to
find those silly capitalized words, ie. Truth, Being, Beauty, etc. I still cannot believe that I once eagerly lapped up
this nonsense. When I first approached the Actual Freedom writings, I thought that Richard was being too strident in
blaming all the enlightened beings down through history for all the wars, misery, torture, rapes, etc. I thought this
was certainly going too far, and that there must still be something ‘good’ in these spiritual teachings, or in the
teachers themselves. After a little while longer, it became evident to me that I was still hanging onto the tattered
threads of my spiritual beliefs and that I still did not want to abandon my spiritual teachers. But I no longer think
thusly.
One of the things I enjoy nowadays is being able to see clearly the lie of
Enlightenment. I enjoy having the discernment to see that Krishnamurti, while his readings are interesting, belongs in
the same camp with all the snake-charmers, charlatans, preachers, God-men, and God-women down through history. To my
mind, he is not different from some back-country evangelical preacher preaching to his congregation in a tidewater
chapel. I do indeed enjoy having the intelligence nowadays to question the validity of what he is talking about. It is
satisfying to be able to see through his sermons.
I think if you are a spiritualist yourself (and there are some indications
that that is so), you will no doubt enjoy reading K, but for quite different reasons. Gary
to No 44

I hear many people around me talk about the importance,
indeed, the primacy of having relationships in one’s life. The longer I practice actualism, the less and less
important ‘relationships’ seem to be to me. This sometimes causes the reflection that I am indeed an outcast and I
sometimes experience anxiety to realize that I am no longer part of any particular group, nor do I want to be. However,
the anxiety is only occasional, and at other times there is this enormous sense of freedom and ease, a freedom that can
only come when one is free from the obligations of being a member of a particular group, a family, a profession, a
community, etc, etc. There is a tremendous comfort for me in just being alone, just sitting in my chair, for instance,
doing nothing in particular.
A few thoughts come to mind from my own
experience. One of things I noticed when I started to abandon my spiritual beliefs was that I felt myself an outsider
but I also observed that if I stopped calling my friends, they also stopped calling me. I came to realize that
relationships take effort to maintain and sustain and if either party stops putting in the required effort, then
relationships invariable collapse.
The other aspect that I started to
become aware of was that my relationships within my spiritual group were invariably based on beliefs-in-common and when
I stopped believing, a large component of the emotional glue that held the relationship together also disappeared. But
as actualism started to produce results, I found I was more and more content to enjoy my own company, which in turn
meant I was less and less likely to seek the company of others in order to fill an emotional void or provide a relief
from boredom.
Yes, I found that to be so also. When I quit the Quakers and,
awhile afterward, quit AA, it was at first disconcerting, as there was nothing to replace it and there were fears that I
was in for some sort of extreme reaction. Since people at AA are pretty much brainwashed into believing that they will
relapse and return to drinking if ever they stray from the fold, there were the usual fears of ending up drunk or using
drugs again. I have to say, however, that nothing along this line has materialized, and I think I am even doing much
better since I stopped herding into the rooms of AA for my ‘spiritual’ fix.
Once my spiritual beliefs collapsed, it was a natural step to
quit frequenting a program that is so outspokenly spiritual. Nowadays while there is occasionally that cognizance of an
emotional void needing filling or feelings of boredom, I recognize these as opportunities to delve into in order to pump
as much information as I can about ‘me’, rather than as negative emotional states that I either need to flee from or
seek the emotional solace of others in order to soothe. What happens is that in fairly short order, the feelings
dissipate and I can return to the fascinating business of being here: a really outstanding, second-to-none happening.
*
The other issue with work is that I no
longer seek meaning, kudos and identity from my work as I had been taught to both expect and/or demand. I am not special
in what I do when I work for money – anyone can do my job and many do so, equally as well. My time spent working is
what it is – selling my time and expertise to someone else in return for money to pay for food, shelter, clothes and
the like. By eliminating all the beliefs and values around the issue of work a good deal of my social identity fell away
– and those I work for, and with, are better off for it.
The ‘will I be able to work’ issue
also occurred to me when I thought about the consequences of becoming free from Humanity. But I eventually came to
realize that this was a belief I had, based on my observation of those who had ‘made it’ to the top in the spiritual
world and who then become incapable of functioning and working in the world and end up having to rely on the financial
and emotional support of their followers or disciples for their sustenance.
Need I point out that being able to
more happily, sensibly and efficiently function in the world is further evidence that actualism is the antithesis of
spiritualism.
I find myself rarely ever thinking about or talking with
anyone about ‘spiritual’ issues.
That all seems so far away from me now. I know that most of
the people I work with are spiritually inclined if not outright religious believers. Talk of reading the Bible, or going
to church, crop up in conversations from time to time. I’ve never had anyone ‘put me on the spot’ and question me
about religion. I know that some of the children I work with as clients believe in God or pray or what-have-you. Other
children are entirely turned off to the thought of there being any God whatsoever and they remind me of myself in my
younger years. First there was the entire rejection of the whole edifice of religious belief and practice with a kind of
nihilistic atheism, albeit with a deep resentment of the idea of God or anything associated with religion. In later
years, as I approached my late 30s and 40s, there was the spiritual quest, perhaps brought on by the Zeitgeist of
Eastern spirituality. Now there is a fascination and a wholesale obsession with experiencing the present moment
apperceptively, without any intervening beliefs or feelings to clutter things up. I know what it is like to experience
the very best possible and that is now my constant benchmark, you might say. Gary to
Peter

The love of the Master (in my case the Christian Jesus) replaced the missing
love of the wife who was long gone, the father’s love, the family, etc. It seemed so stimulating to think that I was
loved by Jesus and even known by him personally, that I had a direct line to the love of God, to put it plainly. It was
so self-evidently self-aggrandizing, I can see that now, but I could not see it then. But yes, there is the underlying
feeling of separation that fuels this search for Love. Now, I must say, I do not feel that way. I know there is a
wonderful actual world there, and even if I am not intensely experiencing it at the moment, ‘I’ am getting in the
way and only need let go of the controls and get out of the way to have the actual world rise to my sight.
It is fascinating to read your ‘It was so
self-evidently self-aggrandizing’ – such a simple statement about a simple fact. Everyone else I am corresponding
with at present is frantically defending Love, Beauty, Supreme Intelligence, Compassion, the Unknown, universal
Consciousness and whatever other names they have invented for their God. To acknowledge the fact that god is a mere
figment of passionate imagination is more than most will bear.
No, I am not into defending these ideals and I will not. It was hard for me,
looking back at it in retrospect, to admit of my former hero’s (Krishnamurti’s) debauches with his friend’s wife.
At the time, I did not see the relevance of inquiring into what he did or didn’t do. But I am looking at that
differently now. I think the critical thing is to be harmless. What an enormous hypocrisy to say things out of one side
of your mouth while practising something differently in your personal life. I will not be disingenuous.
The more of my metaphysical beliefs I questioned, the
more I was amazed and embarrassed how gullible I had been. There was hardly any New Dark Age (NDA) superstition that I
did not credit as being somehow true. So that ‘house of cards’ has definitely ‘collapsed’. Now I want to know
the facts and when I hear some reporter or scientist voice an opinion or theory, I am suss about his or her
philosophical bent and underlying affective investment – just because something is being printed or reported doesn’t
make it a fact. But slowly I am learning the art of extracting facts from opinions, distinguishing feelings from factual
information, making sense of the world in a completely opposite way to before.
I too had been interested in all of the New Age gobbledygook. The more
bizarre the better. I am still on quite a few New Age type of mailing lists and get catalogues and such in the mail. I
throw them in the trash. Gary to Vineeto

The same process of investigation applies for other
affective feelings. Unless you feel sorrow you cannot investigate it. Once you have sufficiently dug around in one
particular feeling and know all there is to know, you don’t go down the same sad and dull alley again and again, just
out of habit or fashion. The cunning entity of the ‘self’ will want to hang on to emotions and feelings even if they
have been fully understood, because feeling and emotions is the very substance of the ‘self’. But with sufficient
experience one has the choice to deliberately avoid the pitfalls, or, as Richard says, ‘nip the feeling in the bud’.
But first, the feelings have to come ‘off the shelf’, be dusted off, be stripped of their moral and ethical taboos
and rules and be thoroughly and experientially explored.
It is an utterly intriguing hobby to examine the Human
Condition inside one’s own skull!
I was using the word ‘avoid’ in the sense of this ‘nipping the feeling
in the bud’ that you and Richard are talking about, not so much in the sense of avoiding the Glory and Glitz of
Enlightenment. I can see now that ‘nipping the feeling in the bud’ is nowhere near the same as suppressing a
feeling. For instance, one can nip the feeling of anger in the bud by recognizing a situation as one in which anger has
been habitually experienced or expressed. Given that one has experientially investigated into anger and aggression and
understood how anger, in any and all forms, blocks the path to freedom, one has a definite choice as to what to do and
experience in a given situation.
This is not at all the same thing that spiritual seekers do as in ‘turning
the other cheek’ when angry or offended, which is really just a supercilious and hypocritical suppression of one’s
feeling state. The actualist experientially investigates feelings and emotions as they come up, whereas the spiritualist
is intent upon following spiritual or moral precepts as a way of controlling the wayward instincts. The actualist is
concerned to bring about the always existing peace-on-earth in himself/herself and for others through eradication and
extirpation of the rudimentary animal instincts with their corresponding sense of ‘being’, whereas the spiritualist
merely substitutes ‘Being’ for ‘being’ in a self-aggrandizing grab for the Glory of Enlightenment. No wonder
spiritual people remain so violent and arrogant.
At least that has been my experience. Had I not been able to see for myself
the deception underneath the hype of religious and spiritual life, I would not be here. Had I not been able to observe
and experience in myself the violence, the arrogance, the passion underlying religious life, I would not be here. I have
seen for myself, first hand as it were, what has fuelled the religious wars that have occurred down through the ages.
When I first encountered Richard’s writings on the Krishnamurti listening-l
list, it was an eye-opening experience. Here was a man talking about war, rape, child abuse, suicide, murder and
proposing a practical solution, not just mouthing the usual mystical and spiritual fluff. It got my attention but I
could not comprehend at first what he was talking about. The interest lay dormant in my mind for a good long while. I
could see and experience in myself firsthand the violence of the list, and participated myself in various ‘wars’ on
the list. One could see the web of alliances, feel the quickness of anger when one’s cherished opinions and beliefs
were assailed by others. I could not at the time, however, connect the violence of the list with its avowed purpose –
I could not understand how a mailing list set up under the auspices of studying Krishnamurti’s teachings could be so
violent and chaotic. I think I understand it better and I have refused to be a part of it. Gary to Vineeto

To ‘reject the notion’ that there is a God is the
beginning of questioning your belief.
However, when you persist questioning and explore
further, common sense will facilitate seeing that a physical universe that is eternal and infinite has no outside to it.
So where is God then? Where would the ‘creator and ruler of the world’ sit? He would have to sit outside of his
creation, don’t you think? As there exists no such place for his chair above or outside of an infinite universe, the
only place where God can exist is in human passionate imagination. And human passionate imagination ceases to exist the
moment I ask myself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ and bring my awareness to whatever feeling
or imagination is happening. Bingo. Poof.
Yes, it seems to be working that way. Rejecting God and all the other
spiritual and religious stuff that I have been fed and fed myself has indeed been the real start for me of this whole
thing. Had I known before I really approached Actual Freedom that I would give up my spiritual and religious beliefs, I
doubt seriously that I would have persisted in the venture. But the time was right and the ‘handwriting was on the
wall’ so to speak.
I have rejected all of that now and I am better off for it. The house of
cards did not collapse, as I feared. Nothing really happened at all. There were no thunderbolts and divine punishments
to be endured. I am better off without believing in God because now I can think for myself and, what’s more, these
fears that were the basis for my fervent belief can be examined ‘out in the open’ without the pacifier of prayer and
religious ritual.
Now I can really see the seduction of the belief in an afterlife, the belief
in a Heavenly Father or Mother or Whatever. It is all an enormous illusion. How blind I have been! I remember thinking
something similar when I adopted the belief in a Metaphysical Realm.
Now, it is completely in the opposite direction.
But you are right – you are in deep trouble when you
irrevocably stop believing in God, when the belief resolves in the light of facts. A part of your social identity flies
out the window and because of this, some instinctual fear is activated and causes yet another storm in the teacup.
For me, the end of God was at the same time the end of
hope, trust, faith and postponement, the end of debilitating waiting and cowardly pondering, the end of humbling myself
in the face of an almighty invisible power, the end of a stupefying fear of God’s judgement of my right and wrong
deeds. The end of my belief in God also freed me of the belief in and loyalty for His representatives, my former master
and all the moral authorities that I had followed and/or rebelled against. The end of my belief in God and an afterlife
marked the beginning of standing on my own two feet with dignity and relying on my intelligence and common sense to find
out what is silly and sensible. Ah, what serendipity.
It is the much touted ‘Fear of God’ that makes a person a righteous,
religious soul. I have no fear of God now, and hence, I think there is that ‘indifference to hierarchy’ mentioned in
the actualism writings. With the core fear of death and fear of God faced directly, I am getting over my fears of the
authority of others as well as questioning my own authority. The whole warp and weave of the structure of the ‘self’
is coming unravelled, and I am finding that the atavistic fears are subsiding, to be replaced with a deep sense of
freedom and peace. Perhaps I will face renewed onslaughts of the atavistic fears, as the psyche is still intact but
withering away, or so I think. A question in my mind at this point is whether I have the guts and intestinal fortitude
to stick it out to the end of ‘me’, in other words putting the same effort into ending ‘me’ that I have invested
in maintaining this social identity, or whether I will settle for a second rate life. Gary
to Vineeto

Richard, about Landmark – I don’t think I suggested that actualism be ‘fit
into the weekend workshop/group therapy transaction genre’ format, but even so, Landmark’s format for their
technology is really a continual conversation that reviews how the participants use the technology presented in the
initial course (the Forum) in their day to day life and what it is producing. This is done in weekly 3-hr. seminars,
with other long-weekend courses along the way to present more technology. Participants are therefore in a continual ‘inquiry’
into their way of being, while the initial course (the Forum) does it’s best to have participants (through dialoguing
with a Forum leader)
experience their own philosophical contexts, their epistemology, their
ontology, etc., to the point of transcending their ‘survival mechanisms’ (what they call Mind) and realizing ‘satisfaction’
(Self), wherein ‘the moment is sufficient unto itself’. Obviously they really mean wherein the Feeling is sufficient
unto itself – but whose quibbling? ME! That’s the reason I want to talk to a Forum leader about AF; they think
transformation is the height of consciousness and as such are ripping off ignorant people. From what’s in the book,
Werner Erhard’s transforming experience is a jumbled up ASC. He says part of it was the realization he knew nothing,
because all the knowledge he had amassed up till then was skewed toward survival, success, making it. Then in the next
instant he realized he knew everything, and not from having learned it, but from his experience (does he mean his
feeling?)
He ‘saw that everything was going to be all right, that it was all right,
that it had always been all right, that it always would be all right and I didn’t think this – I KNEW it. It was so
stupidly, blindingly simple I simply could not believe it...I was no longer even concerned with achieving ... I WAS
satisfied...’ (because he felt good?) ...’I was concerned only with the truth... experience is not who I am, it is
simply evidence that I am here, who I am is the source of my experience ...’ (his feelings?) ...’All identities are
false...’ (only feelings matter?) O.K., it was a flat-out ASC. The part that threw me for so long was the ‘everything
all right’ part but now that I read it with both eyes I can see his ‘I KNEW it’ is really via his feeling.
That organization has processed about one million people now, since 1972. And
before getting restructured when Werner left it was a one hundred forty million plus dollar a year company, not 50
million like now. So I just think they should know that they are not the height of consciousness and that something else
actually is. I probably will not be able to get a Forum leader to speak with me because they are so busy and I am
nobody. My idea is to mail your The Third Alternative to a Forum Leader in the San Francisco Area Centre and ask them to
read it. I can’t see how it could not shake them up if they read it with both eyes, on account of them being so into
Being. Then, I’m hoping they will be willing to discuss it with you online. No 50 to
Richard

Recently, I have not read spiritual books (maybe just one in half a year). I
would over indulge, ‘feed’ on them in the past. They made me feel good. I was on a path to the goal of enlightenment
and most importantly, immortality. I don’t try to meditate nor I follow any gurus any more.
*
Also, I think that there is nobody in heavens stuffing our physical bodies
with some recycled immortal souls. Therefore my brain or this personal entity manufactured by the brain based on the
social blueprint has arisen at random, by chance only, depending on which sperm participated in the beginning of the
life. My personality was determined by the physical features of this brain. No 7

This was not the spiritual Truth I was reading, but the
facts of how to become free of the Human Condition. My life-long longing for peace on earth meant I could not turn away
– this was an opportunity to be seized with both hands. I needed to find out not only for myself, but for the many
others I knew who longed for peace on earth, whether this worked or not.
If one person could become free from the Human Condition, maybe, just maybe,
I can too. I have had to determine for myself if what Richard is talking about is indeed the genuine article, no small
task for one living in the Human Condition. Not having met him, nor the rest of you, I can only determine this through
the written words in the books, the writings, and on this list. In a recent post I expressed my doubts about it all, and
also the fear that the words seemingly inspired. One other sense that I had, which I have from time to time, is that the
whole thing is an elaborate hoax. At one time, I (early on I think) I even imagined Richard laughing his ass off at me,
a damn fool, buying his pitch. This is, I think, an indication that one is approaching the Actual Freedom writings on
the basis of trust and faith , rather than simply whether they make sense or not. At this later point, it
is difficult for me to understand the state of mind of those who think that Richard is forcing them to adopt his ‘viewpoint’
(which it is not), because it has never been my experience that he is forcing anyone to do anything. If one wishes to
remain miserable, sorrowful, and malicious, then that is the end of the matter. But for those who are vitally interested
in an Actual Freedom from the Human Condition, he, and the others on this list for that matter too, are more than
accommodating in his/their writings. One cannot approach Actual Freedom on the basis of faith and trust, but that is
probably exactly what spiritual seekers will do, imagining this to be some kind of cult or new religion. Since the
spiritual search is all about faith and trust, with spiritual seekers eagerly lapping up the most absurd notions spoon
fed to them by the God-men and God women, it is not surprising that spiritual seekers will impose their background of belief
on Actual Freedom, turning it into some kind of religion, or turn Richard into some kind of Guru. Gary to Peter

As a child I was able to see the folly of following
One-God religions, if only for the fact that the quandary of which God was the True God and which Gods were false Gods
has produced almost continuous religious wars and conflicts. Then I got sucked into following a Godman’s promise of
joining a community or Sangha that would bring peace on earth. When the experiment failed, as was inevitable, I began to
see that the famed spiritual path was nothing other than olde-time religion.
That quite simple realization, i.e. an acknowledgement
of fact that shattered the belief I previously held to be a truth, was sufficient to begin the process of extracting
myself from the spiritual world and its blatantly ‘self’-centred beliefs and truths.
Realizations still seem important to me. One of the realizations I had
recently, after all the business of quitting my job, was that spiritual values, or spiritual-type thinking still has a
hold on me. I still have within me, probably from hundreds of thousands of years of conditioning, the tendency to think
of myself as a flawed ‘sinner’, which results in considerable ‘self’-castigation and ‘self’-loathing. I
thought I saw this rather clearly in operation when I was filled with ‘self’-recriminations and ‘self’-criticism
after leaving the job. I measure myself to an impossible standard of perfection, and naturally do not measure up and
then berate myself most strenuously. I literally flagellate myself. It is, I think, a hangover from my spiritual days.
It is form of behaviour which characterizes spiritual believers who blame themselves when they do not measure up to the
impossible standards of their chosen spiritual teachings. I observed myself doing the same thing with actualism. Turning
it into some kind of Almighty system that I had to measure myself against and then berating myself because I didn’t
measure up. It is something that was quite literally operating in my own psyche and not something that I have picked up
from actualism. This is, I think an important insight, and I have caught myself up to the same shenanigans from time to
time since then and I am quicker on the uptake this time. So, I think I am still extricating myself from the spiritual
world, even though I do not hold any blatant spiritual beliefs, I do still have spiritual-like thinking and behaviour
which causes me to berate myself mercilessly. I’m about sick of it and want something better for myself. Gary to Peter

Whenever someone dared to share the reality of their
own lives they would be reminded by other group members that they are not in fact human beings but that who they really
are is Divine spirits. Whenever someone began to despair of the human condition they were reminded that peace on earth
is ultimately impossible and one’s only hope is to seek solace in the hope of an other-worldly paradise.
And what you mention here: ‘ to seek solace in the hope of an
other-worldly paradise ’, in other words, the despisal of life on earth, the despisal of being a human being, the
hatred of this flesh-and-blood body and other flesh-and-blood bodies and even this physical universe has been a spur to
violence and mayhem for countless hundreds of thousands of years. Thus, we have the priest blessing the battleship, the
minister exhorting the troops massed for battle, and the dying words of millions ‘I am going to a better place than
this’. If these examples seem too extreme, one need only consider that the logical outcome of the view that ‘peace
on earth is ultimately impossible’ is the very destruction of life on earth. But spiritual people and spiritual
leaders are more cunning than that, and they will make a great show of being concerned about peace – thus, spiritual
people will have ‘prayer-ins’ for peace, involve themselves in peace movements, lobbying against defence
expenditures, marches for peace, etc. All these collective activities make people feel that they are doing something to
bring about peace on earth, but the upshot of it all is that the root cause of war and violence has not been uncovered
and addressed – the Human Condition. Not to mention the fact of the violence inherent in these so-called ‘peaceful’
activities.
What an utter blind fool I had been, but then again ...
once you are hooked into the spiritual world – it’s very tough to get out of.
I can well relate to your period of discipleship and the bizarreness of your
complete immersion in the spiritual community. While perhaps I did not go to some of the extremes that you did, I can
easily relate to the emotion of devotion, and unquestioning obedience of the Master, and the complete suspension of
intelligent and critical thinking that goes along with being a religious and spiritual follower. And one can well see,
given the reverence with which spiritual figures are treated, how Jonestowns and Wacos are possible, no...not only
possible, but almost inevitable. The descent into madness begins, I think, when one ties their fate with another – the
spiritual leader- one develops a love for, an admiration of the one leading the spiritual community, and the die is cast
when Cupid strikes his arrow into the heart because this type of love and veneration is lethal...witness the many object
lessons that the long and bloody history of religion have to show us. To tie one’s fate to any other human being is to
be deluded...and peace on earth can scarcely come to one so deluded. It may seem like I am bashing spirituality, but it
is like a breath of fresh air to be free from all the ridiculous beliefs and practices which characterize the spiritual
world. I still, at times, cannot believe my own complete foolishness in being sucked into it all, and I sometimes cannot
believe that it was actually me that believed in all those nonsensical propositions. It is a wonderful experience –
being free from the spiritual world, realizing that one need not suspend their own native intelligence for the sake of
the apparent security of religious/spiritual practice. I still am rather overjoyed that I am free from all of that. Gary to Peter

I remember the feeling of freedom from spiritual belief
as being very tangible – I walked taller in the world, as it were, my integrity restored. I remember thinking
afterwards – what was all the fuss about? Why did I find it so difficult?
I still sometimes find when the going gets rough, ie. during periods of
anxiety or dread, that there is a slight stirring of the old spiritual beliefs, usually in the form of wanting to pray
for deliverance or guidance. I experienced this in fact yesterday when I became greatly confused and anxious – I was
aware of a desire to pray as a way of getting out of it all – kind of like taking a drink for relief. At that point, I
just remained aware of what was going on, and began focusing more on this feeling of anxiety I was experiencing.
Eventually, through bringing attention and awareness to the feelings and
emotions that were storming inside me, the anxiety wore itself out, and I was much calmer. This morning, as I was
preparing my usual cup of coffee, I became aware that in the past month or so, my intake of caffeine has been sharply
increased, so much so in fact that I am wondering if that may be part of the reason I am experiencing anxiety. Caffeine
has been a trigger for me in the past and it is an insidious kind of thing – it kind of sneaks up on me without my
realizing it. So I am planning on cutting down on the coffee and see what happens.
In hindsight, there were in fact two intertwined
difficulties. One was ‘my’ passions involved in maintaining my beliefs – mainly pride and loyalty – and these
passions then conspired to prevent me from clearly understanding what was on offer in actualism, a condition known as
cognitive dissonance. My brain had been programmed so completely to accept that there were only two alternatives to
human existence – grim reality and a Greater Reality – so much so that it was almost impossible to conceive that
peace and freedom lay where no one had dared to look before. Right here, right now, on earth.
I never clearly conceived that there were only two alternatives to human
existence, until I was introduced to the third. Now it makes sense but I never thought of it that way before. The
underlying passions, whether they be fear, confusion, dread, terror, etc, that fuel spiritual belief are laid bare and
exposed when one chucks their spiritual beliefs. So much so that the underlying feelings that made up the reason for the
beliefs in the first place are experienced much more directly and intimately than before. Now they are out in the open
where you can get at them, so to speak. And there is nothing else to do, and nowhere to go but to pick up the tools and
dig into them. The solution offered by spiritual approaches – life on the basis of faith, belief, and trust – are a
sop to the anxiety, horror, and despair of living in the grim reality of normal human existence. They do work, in the
limited sense that they make people feel better – they are tranquillisers that calm the feelings and ‘sooth the soul’.
I think it is only when one sees very clearly that they do not alleviate malice and sorrow, but just cover it up, that
one begins to look around for an alternative – then it becomes plain that they don’t work – not that they really
did to begin with. Gary to Peter
Actualism
Homepage
Actual
Freedom Homepage
Freedom from the
Human Condition – Happy and Harmless
Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust
|