|
Others ~ Selected Correspondence Spiritualism
PETER: I am always amazed that people subscribe to this list purely in order to push their own wheelbarrow or to indulge in intellectual arguments, ad absurdum. There is a word that I came across in the Oxford dictionary the other day that describes the bulk of objections to actualism – ‘Grübelsucht’. Having been also conditioned to be a man, you would probably know well this male propensity to endlessly intellectualise and philosophise about any subject – men seemingly have an innate propensity to explore and discover and while some do this physically and pragmatically, the majority of men are content to sit around commenting on, or armchair criticizing, those who dare to do. So many who have been on the spiritual path imagine that there is nothing to the actualism method, while others imagine they are already doing it, or have already done it, simply by being ‘above’ their unwanted or undesirable thoughts and feelings. They keep retreating ‘inside’ to a calm and utterly self-centred ‘safe’ space, thereby missing out on the ‘fascinating and intriguing process’ of asking yourself each moment again ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ GARY: ‘Gruebelsucht’. What a great word. But I don’t know how you come up with the umlauts on your program. I’ve never figured out how. Perhaps I need to run another program. Someone once explained it to me, but I still couldn’t figure. Yes, there does seem to be a lot of back and forth commentary on rather rarefied and intellectualized things on this list. As most of you no doubt know, I was for a while on the K list, and I found myself completely stumped by some of what others were talking about. Some of the writers there seemed to be constitutionally unable to express themselves in simple English. I find, looking back at it now, that a lot of the non-dualism writings have this characteristic. I used to read articles on non-duality, and would think I had grasped a great truth or had some great insight and then a short while later I had not a clue as to what I had just read, nor could I begin to explain it to someone else. The thing that is different about the actualism writings is that they make sense and are simply practical. There is no more wasting time endlessly talking about ‘what is perception’, ‘what is thought’, etc. That is a great activity if one wishes to retreat from the world of people and events and live in an ivory tower, but that is not how I have chosen to live my life. 3.8.2001
GARY: 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. PETER: 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. GARY: 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. * PETER: 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. GARY: 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. 6.2.2002
PETER: I find it always useful to remember why spiritual belief and superstition have thus far cornered the market in the human search for freedom, peace and happiness. Once someone has had ‘the Truth’ personally revealed to them in an altered state of consciousness – or as appears to have happened in Goodall’s case, misinterpreted a PCE as an altered state of consciousness – they are bound by a combination of gratitude and their own inflated sense of self-worth to spread the word that, while earthly life is a bitch, there is really truly a God who loves you. GARY: Conversely, the rug is rather pulled out from under one when it is realized that there is no God in the heavens who loves you. Spiritual belief and superstition have always cornered the market in the human search for peace and happiness, since times immemorial. I doubt that it has ever been otherwise. It is the search for power – probably the ultimate power: immortality itself – snatching victory from the jaws of Death and achieving immortality. The self-aggrandizement at the core of the ASC is the most striking difference between the PCE and ASC. Having had many ASCs in the past, I think I can speak with authority on this. PETER: Speaking of earthly life’s a bitch, this brings me to the Dalai Lama, who recently visited this country. He did the usual celebrity tour, at one stage addressed a gathering of some 6,000 school children. His message to the young was that suffering was a necessary aspect of human earthly life, that it was the working through of karma accumulated from past lives and that materialism is the root cause of evil in the world. A national newspaper ran an article about the meeting entitled ‘The platitudes of the Dalai Lama’ pointing out the banality of his message of love and compassion and his total inability to make any sensible or pertinent comment on down-to-earth questions raised by the audience. In taking all this in, I was struck by the fact that only some 30 years ago Eastern spiritualism was relatively new to the West, so much so that most who were interested needed to leave the West and travel to the East. Nowadays Eastern spiritualism is mainstream in the West, Western religions are reviving their mystical roots and absorbing Eastern spiritual concepts and Buddhism is reportedly the fastest growing religion in the West. It only goes to show the staying power of olde-time religions. GARY: I found the link to the newspaper article you mentioned above. For those interested, it is: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/27/1022243311156.html. In it, the author, Chris McGillon, states ‘The Dalai Lama seeks to excite the ‘innate spiritual nature’ of people so that they might choose kindness and affection in their relations to others rather than anger, hatred or the temptation to exploit.’ I find interesting what he calls the ‘innate spiritual nature’ of people. If by this he means the primitive instinctual passions operating as a survival program, then indeed I agree with him that this is ‘innate’, in other words, inherited. If, however, he is waxing spiritual himself and declaring that human beings nature is essentially ‘spiritual’ – in other words, the oft-repeated view that we ‘spiritual beings having a human experience’, then I find much in this view to fault. I myself see the ‘spiritual nature’ of humans as consisting in the rough-and-ready primitive instinctual program that human beings are endowed with, that which endows them with a sense of being. The imaginative faculty is then nurtured and primed throughout childhood by the endless recitation of nursery rhymes, fairy tales, horror stories, and other such fictions. Imagination is set on a pedestal in human affairs. One then only imagines a world where peace and harmony prevail among peoples of different stripes. The imaginative, image-making, capability of the human brain, as well as the emotional-affective faculty of human beings is where the ‘innate spiritual nature’ of humans resides. These faculties produce all the various Gods and Goddesses, devils, demi-gods, ghosts, and goblins, as well as the Greater Self, the observing self, the sense that there is something or someone ‘out there’ or ‘up there’ watching me, looking out for me, caring for me, or condemning and damning me. We involved in Actualism, practising the method, and having learned of Richard’s pioneering discovery, well realize, I think, that the primitive instinctual program, giving rise to one’s ‘spiritual nature’ and other calentures, is not something fixed and invariant, but can be eliminated and is not required in order to function in this world. ‘I’ am indeed redundant. PETER: The other program I watched with interest was a speech given by the Environmental Guru, David Suzuki to a gathering of journalists. He was publicizing his recent book, which evidently points out that all is not doom and gloom but that there have been signs of some environmental successes in the past decades. As the questions and answers drew to an end he was asked if he had a message for the young to which he replied, ‘keep fighting’ and he then praised those who ‘put their lives on the line’. I wondered if he realized the consequences of what he was saying for he was, in fact, condoning youthful violent protests to the point of ‘putting lives on the line’. Ah well, I suppose by his reckoning there is nothing like a good stir or a good stoush – a cause, by whatever name, does gives the kids something to fight about. GARY: When it comes right down to it, the whole enculturation and socialization process requires one to ‘put their lives on the line’, and if you are not willing to do that, you in effect are an outcast, or worse, a dangerously seditious enemy of the community. The community is selfish. The community requires that the young put their lives on the line, and this dreary spectacle has been repeated ad nauseum for thousands and thousands of years in every war of territorial conquest and bloodletting since the beginning of recorded time. People like David Suzuki are needed to stir the troops to the call. 16.6.2002
GARY: I followed avidly In my spiritual days, ‘looking within’ was done to identify my ‘character defects’, cleanse myself of these self-centred habits and traits, so that God’s will (whatever that means) could be more fully accepted and brought in my life. Looking back on it, it was a means of reducing the negative and grasping for the positive, God-identified traits and attributes. And it goes without saying that it was a complete failure, or I wouldn’t be here – I’d still be ‘looking within’. My attention was attracted to what you said in response to a statement of Mr. Morford’s: RESPONDENT No. 28: Isn’t that what he’s saying? – ‘real work where you re-evaluate and question and peel away preconceptions and false patriotism and blind faith’ . GARY: It’s interesting to see the words ‘false patriotism’, with the emphasis on the false. Apparently he believes there must be a version of True Patriotism? It makes me wonder where he says ‘blind faith’, whether he thinks there is a faith that is not blind. Just a couple of my thoughts. 1.7.2002
GARY to Respondent No. 34: 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:
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. 25.7.2002
VINEETO: You are certainly right when you say you are ‘seeing the hand of the instincts in all these myriad forms of behaviour and feelings’ . The first layer of my feelings and behaviour towards other people was mainly due to social role-play, defined and governed by the social identity ‘I’ thought and felt ‘I’ was. As a social identity, I was a member of a spiritual belief system and mostly intermingled with other believers, I was a sister to women friends, I was flirting with men I felt attracted to and suspicious towards every other man. The more I unravelled my social identity – the spiritual part being the most tenacious to take apart and leave behind – the more the underlying instinctual feelings that were the source of my emotions and attitudes towards other people became apparent. GARY: My own experience was that the entire rotten edifice pretty much came tumbling down like a house of cards in short order once I made the decisive step, which for me was to abandon the Krishnamurti-esque facade of belief, throw in the towel on the K-list, and commence to make the most earnest inquiries into Actualism. I think for quite a time I had done my share of fence-sitting and questioning my beliefs, as well as outspokenly questioning the beliefs of other spiritual adherents (undoubtedly always easier to do than question your own beliefs). All this fence-sitting was but a preliminary step to falling right off the cliff and abandoning all forms of spiritual belief and embracing the eminent sensibility of Actualism. At first, I thought that Richard’s holding of the great spiritual teachers of history responsible for all the murder and mayhem that had occurred for thousands of years was going a bit too far, for I thought that surely there must be some good in these belief systems by virtue of the fact that so many people routinely signed-on to these spiritual and religious forms. It took me awhile, then, to completely demolish every last vestige of spiritual belief. But once the decisive steps were taken, the rest fell into place very quickly. At this point in time, it is difficult to fathom that I once was so deluded. 15.7.2003
RESPONDENT No. 50: 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. 9.10.2003
RESPONDENT No. 30 to Vineeto: On a different note, I was wondering why people see the contents of the website to be similar to existing material like Zen/ Buddhism/ Eastern stuff... because I was doing the same for quite some time. Firstly, that everybody has got it wrong is something very big – and such an extreme position is unusual and considered insane. So the emotional response to that is – who does he (Richard) think himself as [as Richard himself has suggested this as the possibility of objection]; but after reading the material and seeing a lot of sense in it – the feeling becomes this is all great, but he is wrong in thinking that this is different. All the differences in the web-site are seen to be linguistic differences. As it is a common belief in the eastern spirituality that all paths/ religions are the same stuff in different guise. So actualism/ actualfreedom is also the same just bottled differently. [At some point I told myself that I was going to take the risk of being called a fool in admitting that everybody got it wrong – that helped to be rid of the fear (is this fear of stepping out of ’humanity’?) and proceed with the investigation.] And since one is used to the vagueness and ambiguity and the indescribables and the unknowables – never defining unambiguously – no wonder actualism looks the same as anything else – but this apparent similarity does not stand the scrutiny. I found Peter’s foresight very accurate:
This is all great fun! 6.11.2003
RESPONDENT No. 51: To experience is easy, you experience your conditioning. Any experience can be made to appear as the actual but to experience the real is hard because it demands unfathomable, indispensable stillness. And how can you be still/silent if you are practicing a method? RESPONDENT No. 30: Simple: I have problems... which will not go away by saying ‘be quiet; quiet mind is noble; ...’ etc. so I understand why I am not being quiet and happy given that this is the only life and why am I wasting it away. Then I get into the psyche and remove the misconceptions and things get better. RESPONDENT No. 51: One more thing, if that No. 53, also known as asshole, interferes in this thread (I wonder if he’s gay!), don’t get upset, he’s just searching for authenticity, sincerity in the outside world (you know, the American dream) and gets mad because he can’t find it! So you’ve to understand the lonely bugger! RESPONDENT No. 30: I have no clue as to the mental state and No. 53’s current intentions: except that he and you are saying the same thing in essence: methods cannot work... words/ knowledge rubbish.... yours is similar to JK and his to UGK... yours to arrive at some stillness through negation... his to negate for negation’s sake... 10.2.2004
RESPONDENT No. 27: 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.’ 30.4.2004
RESPONDENT No. 27: 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 ... RESPONDENT No. 60: I’m not sure I understand this. In what sense are they taking a ‘very similar’ approach? RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. * RESPONDENT No. 27: ... except that generally the guru uses Divine Inspiration, and the genius uses Reason with capital ‘R’ to tune into the Truth. RESPONDENT No. 60: 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). RESPONDENT No. 27: 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’. 3.9.2004
RESPONDENT No. 27: You will likely get other responses, but I thought I’d take a crack at your questions. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: A good place on the actual freedom website to find out why
actualism is ‘180 degrees opposite to spirituality’ is And a 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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, aggression, 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)? RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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? RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 4. Why is Actualism considered to be for ‘peace-on-earth’ and spirituality against it? RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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). RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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). RESPONDENT No. 27: 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.’ RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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? 15.9.2004
RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: ‘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. RESPONDENT No. 74: Your statement that love and sorrow are related does find mention in Krishnamurti’s teachings:
RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. * RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 1. Yes. If by dark side you mean ‘scams, chicanery and deceptions’ … RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: … 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. * RESPONDENT No. 27: Is there a single tradition that puts the blame on our genetic evolutionary history, rather than on some notion of karma or original sin? RESPONDENT No. 74: For one, Krishnamurti does not blame Karma.
RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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). RESPONDENT No. 27: ‘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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: Correct, but an ‘animal realm’ is a far cry from understanding the blind process of natural selection and evolutionary history. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: Glad you agree. * RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 74: From http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/peter/selected-correspondence/corr-religion2.htm
RESPONDENT No. 27: I am surprised that you stopped your quotation at that point. If you would have continued reading, you would have found:
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. * RESPONDENT No. 27: 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? RESPONDENT No. 74: 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). RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. * RESPONDENT No. 27: Why are there so few people who have actually become enlightened? RESPONDENT No. 74: Same can be said about actualism. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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? RESPONDENT No. 74: Even one enlightened being in a million is a great success as compared to actualism, which has only one till date. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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’. RESPONDENT No. 74: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. 16.9.2004
RESPONDENT No. 68: 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. [...] RESPONDENT No. 89: 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? RESPONDENT No. 68: 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! [...] * RESPONDENT No. 68: 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). RESPONDENT No. 89: But denial kicked in and I bought for more than USD 2000 books on Sufism … RESPONDENT No. 68: 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. RESPONDENT No. 89: … and most of it is ‘alienating’ to say the least. RESPONDENT No. 68: I spent so many years, ignoring the ‘dark side’ of spiritualism. I see it clearly now ... and seeing is the END of believing.’ 3.4.2005
RESPONDENT No. 16: 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. RESPONDENT No. 98: 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. RESPONDENT No. 16: 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. 8.9.2005
RESPONDENT No. 27: So, are you a Christian? Do you agree with what you have offered as the ‘Christian view?’ RESPONDENT No. 89: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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? RESPONDENT No. 89: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: Here’s a definition from dictionary.com...
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. RESPONDENT No. 89: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 89: ...and all his confused attributions about the ‘entity’ are strongly biased by his former mystical inclinations; RESPONDENT No. 27: How so? RESPONDENT No. 89: ...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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. RESPONDENT No. 89: [copied from RESPONDENT No. 27: 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?
* RESPONDENT No. 27: 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 RESPONDENT No. 89: I am not attempting anything here. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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? RESPONDENT No. 89: 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. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. * RESPONDENT No. 27: – do you care to lay your cards on the table as to what you actually believe? RESPONDENT No. 89: What I believe or not believe is totally irrelevant. RESPONDENT No. 27: 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. 25.9.2005 Design ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. |
