|
Selected Correspondence Peter Peace-on-Earth
The reason spirituality has failed to bring peace on earth is because peace on earth is simply not part of spiritual belief – … Have you managed to bring peace on earth, now that it is simply part of actualist belief? I would hazard a guess that almost everyone who is subscribed to this mailing list ‘knows’, as in has experienced, the utter peacefulness and stillness of this verdant planet literally hanging in the boundless vastness of space, no matter how briefly and no matter whether they can specifically remember having had the experience. Is not the nascent promise of this experience the inherent attraction to what is on offer on the AF website? Peace on earth? The peace that many people know is already here … if only …? The traditional ‘if only’ response is ‘if only everyone else would stop fighting and feuding’, and yet a little introspection reveals that the ‘if only’ applies only to ‘me’. A little introspection reveals that ‘if only’ ‘I’ stopped feeling resentful about being here ‘I’ could start to feel good about being here and eventually even start to appreciate being here and eventually even start to marvel at the wonder that not only this planet is but at the fact that the universe exists in its peerless infinite and is happening right now. ‘Peace on earth’ does not mean that actualism proposes that everyone has to become peaceful, far from it. Peace on earth means being able to experience the peace that is already here when ‘I’ am not here – the peace that everyone has experienced at some stage in their life, no matter how briefly, no matter whether they have a conscious memory of it or not. Very often people think that actualism is only about bringing an end to the suffering that human beings continue to inflict upon themselves and upon each other and yet whilst this appalling situation would come to an end if everyone on the planet were at least virtually free of malice and sorrow, it is the end goal of actualism which attracts people to actualism in the first place – the lure of the direct experience of the already existing peace on earth. Not as a nearly experience, not as an intellectual understanding, not as occasional experiences, not as temporary experiences but as a permanent 24/7 until physical death experience. Actualism is not an all or nothing business – by doing all you can to eliminate your own resentment, antagonism and sadness you are demonstrating by example the utter senselessness of being an instinctually driven being and by doing so you are concurrently taking the necessary steps towards becoming actually free of the human condition in toto. A win-win situation, a win for you personally and a win for your fellow human beings.
I don’t want to pre-empt your own experiential observations about the sorrowful feelings but in my own investigations I discovered that feelings of malice is more readily discernible than feelings of sorrow. Speaking metaphorically – malice can be experienced as being peaks or flare-ups of emotion, sadness can be experienced as valleys or troughs of emotion, whereas in general the constant plain or milieu of human feelings is one of seriousness and sullenness. The other observation I have made is that sorrow in the form of the feeling of compassion – the compulsion to participate in another’s suffering – is the essential emotion that binds Humanity together, and hence binds ‘me’ to Humanity. Which is why I described sorrow as being a strongest emotional tether to break free of. Thank you for your response. After some reflection, it appears that I am still participating in the feelings of compassion ... not as strongly as before ... but it is lingering around from time to time. I like your definition: ‘the compulsion to participate in another’s suffering’. The deep feelings that come from being an instinctual being are not likely to disappear overnight as they are the very core of ‘me’. The reason I used the word compulsion was to emphasize the instinctual nature of grief, sorrow and compassion. Because these feelings are ‘me’ and ‘I’ am these feelings, the best ‘I’ can do is to be attentive of these feelings whenever and wherever they kick in, name them, observe them in action, feel what they feel like and, as soon as possible, get back to feeling good about being here. This way you disempower the sorrowful feelings before they set in and totally whisk you away from the sensual enjoyment of being here. Now, if compassion were in some way genuinely useful ... if it actually worked in freeing one from insidious feelings that were either destructive to others or oneself, then at least compassion would have some positive purpose or value. What really got me wanting to do something about my sadness and melancholy was a sincere consideration for other people – particularly those closest to me. When I started to become aware of my sad feelings, I also started to become aware of how my feelings affected other people – and feelings of sorrow have a way of spreading from person to person rather like a dark cloud of malaise. The curious thing is that when I started to be attentive to my own feelings of sorrow and thereby gradually stopped being a contributor to this cloud of malaise, I was also less and less affected by the sad feelings emanating from others. I do conclude that when I moved into compassion from compassionless states ... I felt more connected with myself and others ... more in touch with feelings ... as opposed to not feeling or just feeling fear all of the time. Being compassionate, I felt myself to be coming from and living from my own heart. I was tapping into ‘love’ that I could finally experience for myself and share with others. I covertly set myself up as a ‘better’ person ... able to discern the difference between compassionate people and their actions and uncompassionate people and their actions. Yes. The more you start to become attentive to how your own psyche operates, the more you allow yourself to feel the quality of feelings, the more you come to experientially understand the human condition – how feelings of sadness and grief have a bitter-sweet self-indulgent flavour, how feelings of compassion and pity have a cop-out element to them, how feelings of love and compassion for others are inextricably entwined with feelings of superiority and dependency, how the so-called bad feelings are debilitating and the so-called good feelings are aggrandizing, and so on. And the more you experientially understand the human condition the more you come to understand that there is no one to blame – the whole notion of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is but a human invention that has no existence outside of the heads and hearts of human beings. I do not actively do this any longer. I take this back! I do from time to time. Now, with actualism, compassion is up for grabs and may be more closely examined. If I throw out compassion, will I revert to the carefully guarded, encapsulated person I used to be. Will I loose my warmth and become cold? I’m not sure how to proceed with this. Yet, I will examine it. Only you can dare to question the tried and true ways of humanity, only you can dare to take the necessary practical steps that are necessary if you want to be actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow. I always said I went a fair way in questioning the tried and true ways of humanity before I met Richard and was emboldened by his success in becoming free of the human condition to keep going all the way. Those of us who follow Richard’s precedent have it much easier because there is now a path to follow but the wonderful thing is that you get to walk the path by yourself, for yourself and in doing so you prove by your actions that you genuinely care about actually facilitating peace on earth.
But to get back to the topic, my comments in relation to peer review was initially prompted by the following comment you made –
I took this to imply that you either knew of something or had experienced something that is beyond Actual Freedom. It was this statement that led me to assume that you were claiming to be an expert on actualism conducting a peer review of those who were only at the beginning or on the first step. Perhaps you could further explain what you meant by your statement so as to throw a little more light on the subject? So ... I move into another direction now. I’m fed up blaming institutions for the resulted current state I’m in and this world at large is spinning ‘round an AXIS’ of evil thus it’s only fair that I make a few corrections as to the presentation of my request for signing a petition, of which I find in hindsight not even worth to describe more detailed, let alone that I would waste a single word to refer to that petition. As even Richard was bemused by the reception of my request I think that you have experienced a simular bemusement when seeing popping up this request. Yet at this point I am the one who have issued the words regime and change. On a list like this it is fair to presume that no one sees war as an option we would support in any way. You have certainly moved in another direction. As for ‘on a list like this it is fair to presume that no one sees war as an option we would support in any way’, you can exclude me from your ‘we’. I live in little sea-side town where law and order is ultimately maintained by armed police. Usually the threat of the use of those arms is sufficient to deter criminal activity but it is understood by all that if the police need to use their guns to apprehend armed criminals then they will do so. In the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are, in the murky area of inter-tribal moral and territorial conflicts, when push comes to shove, law and order is ultimately maintained by armies. Given the human condition, this has always been so and will always be so, unless and until sufficient individuals take it upon themselves to lead by example by ridding themselves of their own instinctual malice and sorrow. But you should know this by now as I’ve said it before many times. I would
refer you to the following posts for reference – see
However much more was I shocked to discover that when running the ‘what if?’ scenario. If Iraq is indeed being attacked as a ‘quick fix’ to cope with assumed danger. No doubt it will take many innocent lives and be a hazard to the country. What shocked me was that my primary concern was not so much as to how many innocent people would become victim, I hardly had taken that into account, much more was I concerned of how this would have an impact on the global economic situation and hence on my own situation. I think it is fair to assume that the effect of a war would be far from beneficial hence I hope there will not be one. Given that you have also said in this post – ‘I found it helpful to keep in mind that whichever ‘expert’ was presenting his opinion, likely he had accessed information that I had not …’ – I would take it that we both agree that neither of us is in a position to know the facts surrounding this latest threat of war on the planet. However, a few facts from the last century of human conflict have helped me put the current situation into perspective. Dictators have an abysmal record of reeking havoc on their own populations and that of other countries. The likes of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Hirohito, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and other sundry dictators, zealots, emperors and kings have been directly culpable in bringing about the majority of war deaths, genocides, enforced famines, ethnic cleansings and purges in the last century. Of the same ilk, Saddam Hussein has instigated wars against both Iran and Kuwait, has gassed the Kurds in his own country and ruthlessly purged all opposition to his rule. Hitler ruled Germany at a time when it blatantly disregarded the terms of truce that limited its armaments after the First World War and he was not called to task for this breach because pacifism and appeasement was the flavour of the times in both Europe and the US after WW I. In the end, the only thing that bought an end to the violence of the Axis of Germany, Italy and Japan was even more violence. This makes it clear that ultimately, when appeals to reason and sense fail, the only thing that will bring an end to violence is either the threat of more violence or the use of more violence. The ‘peace’ bought about by the use of violence in WW II is the only reason Gary and I do not now live in a Japanese military colony or Alan and you don’t live under the rule of the Nazis. Pacifism is an ideal – that police and armies maintain law and order is a fact.
I won’t go on because you have probably got the gist of what I am saying but, as you have done, I make no claim to be in a position to know the facts surrounding this latest threat of war. Just as an aside, I have recently heard it implied that the idea of suicidal sacrifice is unique to Islam. This notion does deny the fact that the Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka have used suicide bombing as a terrorist weapon for decades and the Shinto and Buddhist Japanese practiced aerial suicide bombing some 60 years ago in WW II. The Palestinians and Al Quaeda are merely following a practice long lauded in the ‘world-is-an-illusion’ Eastern religions. I was discussing the issue of war the other day with someone and in the end the only comment I could make was that I was glad that I had stopped being at war with other people. It’s taken 5 years of intense effort to whittle away at my beliefs and passions such that I now no longer blame others for making war nor do I take the moral high ground of feigning to be a pacifist. This I did by devoting my life to becoming harmless and happy – no more is needed to become free of malice and sorrow but anything less than total commitment will not bring success. That’s why I pricked up my ears when you said above –
For me, the change to becoming aware of, and interested in, investigating my own feelings, passions and beliefs was the most radical aspect of actualism – and I distinctly remember being shocked many a time as to how utterly self-centred I had been programmed to be.
Speaking of which, someone asked me the other day what I would do about the war in Palestine. I replied that if I lived in the area, the first thing I would do was stop being a Jew or Muslim because it is obvious that religious fervour fuels much of the hatred on both sides. The second thing I would do was stop being an Israelii or a Palestinian, because nationalistic fervour and territorial instincts fuel much of the hatred on both sides. And finally, I would leave the area, vote with my feet, abandon ship, get out, be a traitor to the cause. The person who asked seemed to think I was somehow cheating by not offering a solution, not taking sides, not apportioning blame and so on, but he completely missed the point of my answer. He asked me what I would do and what I would do is make the only practical contribution I could – take unilateral action by stop being a believer, stop being a passionate combatant, stop looking for someone to blame and stop seeking retribution in the name of justice and fair play. It is quite extraordinary to see – as well as personally experience – the grip that the combination of ancient beliefs and instinctual passions has over Humanity, so much so that no-where is common sense to be seen. Common sense reveals that the only thing that can be done about peace on earth is personally doing whatever needs to be done to become actually free of malice and sorrow. I realize that the things I write about that strike me about the human condition may not have the same impact on you, but I relate these stories so as to encourage a clear-eyed seeing of the human condition. It is my experience that every time I have an insight into the workings of the human condition, it aids me in understanding the nature of the programming that makes ‘me’ tick, that gives ‘me’ substance, as it were. Then it becomes a matter of persistently and stubbornly refusing to blindly follow the herd so enthralled with doomsday visions and so hell-bent on revenge and retribution.
Nowadays it is not necessary for seekers to spend years on the spiritual path because so much of the spiritual teachings are available on the Net to be read at leisure without the need to become involved in a group or embroiled in a cult. It is also possible to join any one of many spiritual mailing lists in order to assess the effectiveness – or ineffectiveness – of the teachings in producing harmonious and peaceful communities. There are ample opportunities for a present-day seeker to check out for themselves the followers of almost any spiritual teaching, to assess the quality, range and tone of discussions and by doing so make your own assessment as to whether or not the followers are living the teachings and if they are, what effect it has on their daily lives. Given the doubts you have raised in this post about actualism being a cult and your, I can only suggest that you take a clear-eyed look at spiritualism as it works in practice in order that you can move on from doubt to making an assessment one way or the other. The important thing about asking questions and having doubts is to find definitive workable answers and nowadays the Net makes it much easier than having to troop off to the East as was needed in the old days. As I remember it, living in doubt and not-knowing is the pits. There is such a joy to be had in devoting yourself to something one hundred percent. I have no doubts about the ‘cult of AF’. There is absolutely no evidence to that suggestion. I’ve looked at spiritualism and I reject it categorically. Your point about the purpose of questioning/doubting is well taken. Also, I do recognize the importance of commitment and intent to any of this work. While I can browse my way through a world’s worth of information, at the end of the day, the plain old hard work still must be done. My misconception appears to have come from reading your words and taking them at face value. You said, among other things – However, they are leading a simulation of the originator’s way (that’s what the word ‘virtual’ means after all), so it is possible that they have suspended some measure of their common sense in order to ‘be like Richard’. I can’t really ascertain that, but if that were the case, then they are dancing around the edges of cult-ness. When you say ‘however ... it is possible …’ and ‘I can’t really ascertain that, but if …’, that to me means you have doubt, i.e. you are not sure, not confident, or it is not your experience. In other words, to me, what you wrote expressed that you had doubts, which is why I responded as I did. Perhaps this is an example that throws some light on the feedback I sometimes get – that I am putting words into the mouths of correspondents that they didn’t say or that I am misinterpreting what they say. I am not saying I always get things right but I can only respond to the words someone says. The other example that comes to mind – although it has nothing to do with this current conversation – are correspondents who say things like ‘I agree, but …’ which to me means there is not a mutual agreement as to the facticity of what is being said but that very often the correspondent is objecting to the proposition being offered by saying ‘but’. In this case, what can often happen is that the correspondent will ‘dig their heals in’ and begin a standoff of principle as to ‘who’s right and who’s wrong’. Such reactions usually prevent any common sense discussion and further investigation as to what are the facts of the matter and the resulting feedback is that of me ‘being aggressive’ or ‘being confrontational’ or ‘always wanting to be right’. You may have noticed this tendency is common to many discussions – I know it was one that plagued all of my conversations and interactions until I came to see it in action and worked to break the habit. What I realized was happening was that I was emotionally defending my beliefs and convictions, very often without thinking about what I was defending at all. When what ‘I’ said or felt to be right or true was questioned or contradicted ‘I’ immediately felt threatened, the defence and/or attack mode automatically kicked in, and any chance at sensible conversation flew out the window. Sometimes, in a vain effort to keep the peace, I would feign to agree with the other outwardly whilst covertly holding on to the conviction of my rightness, thereby ensuring the truce so gained was nothing but a temporary lull in my ongoing battle with others. The only thing I found that worked to end this cycle of conflict and ceasefire was to make the effort to establish what were the facts of the matter so that my common sense was able to operate in lieu of ‘my’ automatic emotional reactions of defending ‘my’ beliefs and convictions. This process is what is meant by questioning beliefs and replacing them with facts – this is the actualism process in a nutshell and the resulting common sense discussions on this list illustrates why and how it works in practice. Peace and harmony between human beings is possible.
You wrote commenting on something I wrote to Gary –
If I may –
It seems to me that the question would read: Peter what would you do about the war in Palestine? From what I hear there is no request for the condition that you’d be living there. And yet surely it is obvious that the only thing I can do something about is the things I can do something about. It therefore follows that, because I don’t live in Palestine, I had to preface my reply with ‘if I lived in the area’. You may be familiar with the cliché ‘Think globally but act locally’. A sincere interpretation would mean that if one is concerned about wars in general, or the war in Palestine in particular, then one should act locally. And there is no place more local to act than to cease making war with the human beings one comes in direct contact with, be they family, friends, workmates or whatever. Need I say, this involves ceasing being angry, annoyed, peeved, resentful, blameful and so on. It took me a long time to fully comprehend that getting emotionally involved in someone else’s problems and/or contriving imaginary solutions to others’ problems was merely a convenient way of avoiding the responsibility of looking at, and doing something about, my own malice and my own sorrow. A large part of the business of actualism involves breaking this ingrained habit. As I know that you are not to keen at ‘taking a walk in someone else’s imagination/fantasy’. I’m actually surprised that you went that far, yet as you were seriously replying, vis:
I wonder could it be possible that you had missed the ‘point’ of his/her question? No. I was well aware that the questioner was busy with being emotionally involved in someone else’s problems and then contriving imaginary solutions to these problems. I simply responded by offering a solution that I found worked for me – I stopped believing in all forms of religion, spiritualism and mysticism and became an atheist and I stopped believing I belonged to a patch of dirt or a group of people and became an autonomous citizen of the world. By doing so, I found this took much of the wind out of my own malicious and sorrowful feelings – which is precisely why I related the anecdote to Gary in the first place. Given that we could say that you were not fantazising or imagining but running a ‘what if?’ scenario the like we have done on previous occasions with the famous ‘No 38 query’ and I dare say that that definitely offered some food for thought. Also given that Richard’s initiative to make the *AF*-process available (as I recall more or less encouraged to do so by you and Vineeto) through the internet has enabled anyone who has access to the internet can ‘land upon ‘the AF-site. It comes to mind that ‘we’, the people on this list, (not to say that we are some collective/sect and so on) yet are in a rather special position, that is to say on this list we can discuss the ins and outs of Actualism. ^note imo. making AF available through the internet is in fact having skipped a step in the sequence of media with regard to their accessibility^ Although for most of us (on this list) it’s fairly clear that our shared features (i.e. being endowed with a similar genetically encoded survival program and in roughly basically similar programming i.e. in my case, programming via genetics, parents, school, peers, Christianity and Rajneeshism. In your case, programming via genetics, parents, school, peers, Christianity and Rajneeshism, as I understand.) Yet our lifestyles may considerably differ. In fact I dare say they do differ. Given that some of us have a regular job, some don’t, some us are living with a partner, some of us don’t. On top of that our geographic locations are fairly different hence we all more or less have needed to adapt to the ‘dominating cultural and political’ system of our country. So… As to –
Have you considered what it would imply to be a Jew or a Muslim for that matter? Because as for Christianity might be considered an offspring or say modification of Christianity, the Muslim culture is entirely different hence the God Allah needs indeed to be viewed as completely different God then Jehovah. From that I conclude that your solution:
is bypassing the complexity of this enormous problem. Yep. Remarkably effective, hey. It is such a simple thing to do – to totally bypass ‘the complexity of this enormous problem’ – to find, instigate and follow through with a do-it-yourself, by yourself, for yourself, solution. Of course, from a real-world point of view anyone who is not passionately supporting ‘good’ causes is seen to be a traitor, and from a spiritual point of view anyone who is not passionately supporting the ‘Creator’ is seen to be evil. Only by stopping being a believer – and stopping being emotionally involved in someone else’s problems and then contriving imaginary solutions to these problems – are you able to become attentive to the fact that peace on earth already exists and always has. So … If I may suggest a different ‘what if?’ scenario, perhaps a bit more realistic, though of course not much more then the imaginary situation that you’d be a Palestinian with the whole package of Muslim programming. Peter (as an actualist) what would you do about the war in Palestine? The imaginary condition is that you would have access to the world media ie. like the Dalai Lama has. So ... You can be on CNN for one hour and give your solution as to the Israeli /Palestinian conflict. Your words will be translated into Hebrew and Arabic or whatever is needed. Arafat and Sharon will be listening in and also Bush will hear you. Would you take the opportunity? No. It is quite clear that people have to be vitally interested in peace on earth for them to even consider eliminating their own malice and sorrow. Peace on earth is a personal responsibility – to expect others to do it, or wait for others to do it, whilst doing nothing about your own malice and sorrow is but a cop-out. Might I say this is a not even an unrealistic ‘what if?’ scenario as it would only take one person, ie. Wolf Blitzer from CNN, who would be willing to give it a shot, having become ‘interested’ in actualism as solution to this ongoing insanity of warfare. Consider it is an altruistic action. I do understand ‘where you are coming from’, if I can use that phrase. When I first came across actualism I was enthused by its ramifications in bringing an end to the horrendous conflicts between human beings that plague this verdant planet. I wrote my Journal specifically to tell others that actualism worked, I subscribed to two spiritual mailing lists in order to tell others about actualism and even sent copies of my Journal to people I thought would be interested. I fully expected others to readily see the sense in actualism and be eager to try it for themselves. In hindsight, part of this enthusiasm was to spread the message, part was to find security in numbers and part was a passion for peace on earth. The ensuing years have demonstrated that only a small percentage of those who thus far read anything of actualism are at all interested in peace on earth, so obsessed are most people with the spiritual promise of an other-worldly peace, after physical death. This has meant that increasingly my focus changed from wanting, or waiting for, others to change and getting on with the business of changing myself. It does take a good deal of stubborn effort and constant awareness to come to the understanding that the only person that one can change, and indeed needs to change, is oneself. If I can summarize, it is vital for success to continuously remember that actualism is a method of bringing an end to your own malice and sorrow – not that of others.
But, getting back to a possible new phase in the list, I wonder to what extent world events are spurring, for some at least, a desire to find a way to live in peace and harmony with others. News coverage in the past few weeks has included the grim news that a major clash is possible between Pakistan and India, two powers with nuclear capabilities. Too, there has been speculation as to whether humanity once again finds itself in the ‘deep muddy’ of world war – there have been enough indications of late of an increasingly violent and pernicious process at work in world events. All this goes to show that in spite of the spectacular progress made in scientific and technological realms, human beings are still fettered to a stone-age mentality in their dealings with one another. So, I find myself wondering if, on the whole, these world-wide events might be contributing to an increased interest in becoming happy and harmless. Two things occur to me in response. I recently watched a CNN programme where some 30 Nobel Peace Prize winners were part of a televised forum set up to discuss world peace. It seems that some of the panel had compiled a report declaring that talking and negotiation were the only way to end conflict and they were proposing themselves as a roving peace force for the world. However, not all of the peace prize-winners agreed and some were dissenters from the report. Amongst these were resistance leaders from Bosnia and East Timor, both of whom said that the only way suppression, torture and murder had been ended in their countries was by intervention of armed peacekeeping forces and that there was no way possible for the unarmed and suppressed to negotiate peace and freedom with armed and determined repressors. There was polite applause from the audience at this point but the discussion quickly turned away from the pragmatic freedoms gained by meeting force with even more force and moved back to idealism and morality. Apart from re-running the old tried and failed notion that discussion and negotiation can resolve and end conflict, there were the usual noises made about religious tolerance as a way to resolve and end religious conflict, the fashionable railing against globalisation and pleas for a return to tribalism and a strengthening of cultural differences. What was blatantly obvious from watching the show was the marked aversion that human beings have towards facts and pragmatism and the fondness they have for beliefs and ideals. I was reminded yet again that Humanity plays its game by a fixed set of rules – the inviolate morals and ethics that ensures that ‘this is the way it is, because this is the way it has always been, and this is the way it will always be’. At one time I used to waver between optimism and pessimism for Humanity until I realized that Humanity is unchangeable by its very nature. Humanity is locked into a perpetual cycle of conflict between those who willingly submit to the social morals and mores and the angry and frustrated who rile against them. The little town I live in is a cesspool of conflict between family members, neighbours, rival community groups, competing spiritual groups, opposing political organizations, and the like – all of whom are endlessly blaming others for not seeing or respecting, let alone agreeing with their particular point of view. Consensus, consideration, care and co-operation are nowhere to be seen. The traditional ways for Humanity to seek to end conflict have always been, and always will be, bound to morals and ethics and this compulsive fixation does nothing but ensure that Humanity will always be exemplified by a battle betwixt good and evil – by whatever name good is called and by whatever name evil is called. Within this perverse game, those who claim to be peacemakers are those who claim the moral and ethical high ground – notably the pacifists who live in counties where law and order is well maintained by efficient armed police and disciplinarian legal systems, and the priests and God-men who advocate egalitarianism and tolerance whilst simultaneously preaching that their own God is the greatest. As you might have gathered by now, I have abandoned any hope for Humanity as it simply keeps going around in circles, endlessly re-running the tried and failed methods, ideals and beliefs. The next generation frantically digs through the trash bin of history, looks for something that feels good or seems right, dusts it off, blindly ignores all of the evidence of the past failures, forms a group around a charismatic leader and starts to passionately fight the good fight. Enough is enough.
I thought I would pen a comment to something you posted to No. 13 recently as I found the topic pertinent to current events in the world we live in.
I did find it somewhat presumptuous of you to come on this list and tell actualists what actual freedom is, based on a superficial skimming of the web-site which was lately more aimed at picking fault rather than trying to understand what is on offer. The root of your misunderstanding of actualism is patently obvious when one looks at a few of your other comments to this list –
This unambiguous statement indicates that you believe actualism to be identical to Sufism, i.e. you imagine actualism is another form of spiritual belief. This misconception explains your comment to No. 13 because no-where in any of the ancient spiritual or religious texts is there any mention of being happy and harmless in the market place. No wonder there is no peace between human beings and never has been when spiritualists scorn being happy and harmless in the market place as somehow being beneath their lofty and noble other-worldly aspirations.
From this comment it is clear that you see actualism as a sit-back-and-soak-up-the-words poetic philosophy in the same league as the countless spiritual teachings that masquerade as Truths. In order to make such a comment you have had to either ignore or deny the fact that writ large all through the actualism writings is the constant advertising of a practical do it yourself method – a method specifically designed to enable anyone with sufficient motivation to become free of the human condition. That few are so far willing to allow themselves to become ‘sucked in’ to using this method is indicative of the stranglehold that passionate other-worldly beliefs have over down-to-earth common sense. Few are as yet are willing to acknowledge what is patently clear in the world as-it-is – that it is high time human beings stopped believing in Gods and devils, good and evil spirits and such like, and get on with business of becoming happy and harmless. If you read the objections of correspondents on the AF web site, you will be aware of the fact that you are safely ensconced amongst the many. How do you know someone is a spiritualist? Spiritualists are not at all interested in being here in the first place – let alone in being happy and harmless
Personally, I find it hard to think how much worse human beings could treat their fellow human beings. For a start, the amount of bloodshed, torment, anguish and suffering that religious and spiritual belief has caused, and is still causing, in the world beggars description. Words like horror, repulsion and repugnance fail to convey the full extent of the carnage that has been wrought, and is still being wrought, in the name of the followers of some make-believe God against the followers of some other make-believe God. And what is the best the pious God-fearing priests and followers have to offer as a solution to ending this on-going savagery – religious tolerance. Not an end to the madness, but a rehash of the same old failed message of ‘be tolerant towards those who hold different religious or spiritual beliefs than you do’. Nowhere does one hear a clear and unambiguous voice declaring that it is archaic and inane religious and spiritual belief itself that is the very cause of so much human conflict, animosity, misery and suffering and that it is high time to abandon such beliefs to the scrap heap of history. Blame is always laid at the feet of the believers who are either too fervent in their belief or not fervent enough – but nobody is willing to question the efficacy of the sacred teachings themselves. I have been fascinated to observe and contemplate upon the machinations that are occurring in the most recent flair-up of a religious conflict that has been ongoing for some two thousand years. There is a wealth of information to be had about the human condition simply by observing and thinking clearly about what is happening. There is also a salient opportunity to check on one’s own emotional reactions so as to ascertain where one is hooked, by one’s own social programming. in to feeling anger, sorrow, despair, fear, piousness, aloofness, or whatever Whilst it has been convenient to lay the blame for the latest outbreak on religious extremism or fanaticism, it is pertinent to note that no one is daring to question the immediate cause – human beings desperately hanging on to and defending ancient puerile religious and spiritual beliefs. The conflict has raised a welter of conflicting moral and ethical issues and opinions which, with the benefit of modern worldwide communications, we are clearly able to see and hear, as it is happening, as the war unfolds. A bewildering amount of opinion is being offered as to who is right and who is wrong, who is good and who is bad, who has God on their side, who is to blame, etc – and all of it is nothing other than points of view or emotional reactions that differ depending on upon the proponent’s personal religious or spiritual beliefs, which country or ethnic group they belong to, which side they favour, who they think is right, their degree of patriotism, their political predilections, etc. Thus not only is the cause of the current flair up obvious – religious and spiritual beliefs – but the moral and ethical conflicts and quandaries that are also stirred up can be clearly seen as insolvable. In the face of what is obviously a fearful situation for many, the pat solution is to pray to one’s God, which does nought but add the fuel of passionate belief to the fire. The followers of Eastern religions, given that none of their particular Gods or God-men is currently involved in the conflict, generally adopt a pious and cynical fence-sitting role, all the while frantically denying the very religiosity of their own dearly held spiritual beliefs. I have pondered for a few days now about the conflict, trying to follow the moral and ethical debates and found I have no opinion one way or another. There is no right or wrong, there are no good guys or bad guys per se – it is simply a battle of mythical ethereal Gods being fought out, not in some fairy tale other-world, but here on this verdant planet amongst fellow human beings. One can clearly see the stranglehold that spiritual and religious belief holds over human beings when one sees that people are willing to kill and maim other people in the name of their beliefs and yet no-one dares to questions the need to hold spiritual and religious beliefs in the first place. And given how passionately people hold their religious and spiritual beliefs and to what lengths they are willing to go to defend them, this conflict, and those other conflicts like it, will go on for as long as human beings believe in Gods. And underneath all the superficial feuding over religious/spiritual beliefs can be felt a bloodlust for violence and revenge that is both animal and instinctual in its roots. What is clear from the deep-seated passions that are being stirred up in the current outbreak of anarchy and mayhem is not only a reflex instinctive fervour for violence and revenge but also a morbid fixation with sorrow, grief, despair and fear. When push comes to shove, the raw instinctual passions in humans invariably come to the surface and currently the world is awash with them. * For an actualist these regular flare-ups present a potent opportunity to study the human condition ... with the ‘lid off’, as it were. One only needs to turn on the television, soak up as much information as possible, and observe beliefs, morals, ethics, values, attitudes, feelings, emotions and passions in action ... as well as be able to feel these reactions as they arise in oneself. As you become aware of your own beliefs, morals, ethics, values, feelings and passions, as and when they arise, you begin to understand the nature and extent – the very nitty gritty, if you like – of your own social and instinctual programming. You start to both understand, and directly experience, the role that one’s own social conditioning plays in fostering and maintaining human animosity and suffering as well as be able to understand, and directly experience, the underlying passions that are the very root of human malice and sorrow. Being an actualist means one is pragmatic about people as-they-are and the world as-it-is. An actualist does not waste time or opportunity by looking for band-aid solutions within the mayhem of the human condition ... for it is clear there are none to be found. The human condition is a self-sustaining closed loop in that it is perpetuated by clinging to and lauding archaic beliefs, come-what-may, and it is continually ennobled by clinging to and lauding the animal instinctual passions, no matter how horrific the outcome. * But to get back to your own spiritual belief about those LDG’s (Long Dead Gurus) who promulgate the archaic beliefs and ancient wisdoms that humanity so unquestioningly reveres –
I would be interested as to your comments about how much worse you think religious wars and spiritual conflicts should be before human beings come to come to their senses and start to question the veracity of spiritual beliefs and ancient wisdoms?
The below conversation twigged me into serious re-evaluation.
As there were no notion given of AF in 1930’s, the question ‘What would be the appropriate action based on the country learning that Jews were being put to death by the millions in Germany?’ is purely speculative as well as ‘Invade to prevent further suffering or not get involved because fundamentally we can’t influence others?’ as in 1930’s AF not yet even had been discovered so, as to the degree of sensibility of these questions one might as well have asked, to stick to actuality. ‘If Mr. Bush would not have won the US-elections and the US as a whole had subscribed to the notion of AF, how would a different president have responded to the terrorist attack on the WTC provided that such an alike event would have occurred?’ Despite your objections to No. 38’s question, your question is still hypothetical and not related to an actuality. (No offence meant, the intent of the question is assumed to be serious) Are Jews and Germany an issue for the questioner? I obviously can’t speak for No. 38, but the question that No. 38 asked is one that is often asked of pacifists and, as such, deserved a direct answer from an actualist. Despite the long-held idealism of pacifism, the fact is that what humans term ‘civilization’ is but a thin and tenuous veneer that is ultimately only maintained at the point of a gun – i.e. law and order is maintained by armed police and armies. Thus the posing
I found not to be correct, as it reflects the viewpoint of an EVF (expert virtual freedom) rather then that of an AAF (authority actual freedom). A fact is not dependant on who says it – a fact is something that stands by itself. While a fact is not necessarily apparent to all, for personal feelings, passions and beliefs often prevent their acknowledgement. However, if one aspires to actualism, the acknowledgement of facts is essential lest one remains a believer of commonly held viewpoints or in the authority of some person or persons. Yet as the posed hypothetical situation ‘US as a whole subscribed to the notion of AF in the 1930’s’ has been transcribed into or suggested to be of appliance to a recent actual event ‘the same appropriate action that was recently taken by some of the world’s armies to put an end to the genocide that was happening in the Balkans’, it has been taken that:
is representing the viewpoint of an EVF as to his own opinion/ observation/ conclusion that it is sensible and not silly, that police and army are prepared to maintain law and order at the top of a gun. No, the reply I offered was not representing my viewpoint, opinion, conclusion, nor Richard’s. It was offered as a statement of fact. It is based on a clear-eyed observation of the history of humankind and the current situation of the human condition. The other evidence that it is fact is that there are no exceptions, nor have there ever been exceptions to the situation of law and order being maintained at the point of a gun (or whatever other weapon was used at the time). Thus it looks like he deflects his own responsibility (with regard to maintain law and order by imposing his influence) to those who are willing to participate in army and/or police activity. If by he you mean me, I take it that you are suggesting that I should be responsible for my own protection. Being responsible for your own protection was how it was in primitive societies where everyone carried arms, be it a club, a spear, a bow and arrows or more lately a gun. A brief look at history will show that early humans very quickly gathered in groups and built walls around their compounds so as to be more safe from raids from other groups of human beings. As these groups became more organized they also developed an array of morals, ethics and laws as a code of behaviour so as to maintain a semblance of law and order within the group itself. These codes and laws were either imposed by the shamans under threat of damnation or by the chieftains and kings under threat of physical punishment. When these tribal groups grew sufficiently large and more organized over time, they developed police forces whose job it was to maintain internal law and order and maintained armies whose job it was to defend the group and its territory. There is no doubt that in an ideal world – a world in which the human beings are no longer driven by instinctual fear and aggression – there would be no need for law and order to be maintained by armed police and armies. But we humans who live on the planet now have to start somewhere and somewhere is here – in the world as-it-is, with people as-they are. For those who are genuinely interested in peace on earth as an actuality, the question then becomes a personal one – ‘How can I become happy and harmless in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are?’ Having abandoned the unworkable idealism of pacifism in favour of the pragmatism of actualism, I have no objections to world as-it-is where law and order is maintained by armed police. As history shows, it is far, far preferable to a world where everybody is responsible for maintaining their own law and order by imposing his or her influence on others – that’s what is known as anarchy. * So ... to update to (f)actuality nowadays: 1. There is – or /are group(s) of people sharing a vision as to how to resolve the questions: ‘How to create/maintain a space for this-these particular group-(s)?’, as such so that this group can/will be enabled to move into the direction that the members can continue to maintain/expand this vision on a solution to the question; ‘How can their members be enabled in doing their ‘business at large’ without getting disturbed while doing it?’ Now this vision nowadays most often goes by a flag of a nation or group of nations yet a religious symbol may also be play a significant part (ie Koran, Bible). The history of humanity is a litany of inter-group and inner group conflict. Tribal leaders have often stirred the passions of their tribe so as to seize the territory of other tribes or to wreak a bloody revenge for some past wrong. And history is also littered with Saviours who declare ‘if you follow me and join my group, one day we will be so powerful that we will rule the world and then there will be peace on earth’. A little clear-eyed seeing will reveal there is scant difference between the vision and messages of real-world dictators and those of spiritual-world saviours. 2. In his recent ‘state of the Union’ Mr. Bush, as one of the world leaders of nations, has more or less redefined war as: ‘doing justice’. 3. This way of ‘doing justice’ has been largely agreed upon by a great number of people to be considered as ‘taking appropriate action’. And to have head off objections at the pass before breaking loose: ‘I neither do agree nor disagree on that as to be appropriate action. I do not know.’ Yet I question whether to call this intelligent and/or sensible action. I do not find so, as it is very far from clear in whose interest this kind of actions are being performed and as for now it has not been agreed upon commonly what the word justice is to imply. As I understand there is still a bit of disagreement about that. 4. More over Mr. Bush set the tune that, those nations who disagree with USA-strategies, are assumed to be opponents hence losing the right to either be supported by USA and/or even may run the risk of facing the force of the US-army. Not to mention the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, so far for an update to (f)actuality nowadays. From the thrust of your conversation, I take it that you are more inclined to believe in pacifism and complain about the world as-it-is and people as-they are, rather than take unilateral action by proving you can rid yourself of malice and sorrow. Speaking personally, it took me a long time to rid myself of the seductive beliefs and idealisms promulgated by the ‘good’ people of the word. I found that time and again I would be drawn to take sides in the battle of good vs. evil, lured into believing that there might one day be a solution within the human condition that could magically bring peace on earth. It’s easy work to question and understand the passions that fuel evil and bad but it’s tough work to question and understand the nature of the passions that fuel the sacred and good.
I remember someone explaining that to save an endangered species one needed to exploit the species commercially, to ensure its survival. An unconvincing argument for anyone interested in the species’ quality of life, but it had a pragmatic kind of logic. I think there is no doubt that the human species is an endangered species but not from external threat, nor from any ‘environmental’ disaster or earth resources’ depletion, but from the simple fact that human beings cannot live together in anything remotely resembling peace and harmony. As a practicalist, when I came across Richard, I chose to disprove the logic of Ancient Wisdom that you can’t change Human Nature. Otherwise a human existence of perpetual malice and sorrow is indeed a sick joke. I saw in a PCE that the universe is too magnificent, too grand, too perfect and too pure for me to continue to be sorrowful and malicious. So I set out to change the only thing that was wrong – as in silly and senseless – and that was a ‘me’ inside this flesh and blood body. As for ‘endangered species’, I realized I was not alone in this exercise of seeking peace on earth. It is an almost universal hope and wish, but everyone looks to others to bring it about, to actualize it. Peace on earth is already here, of course, and only you can find it for yourself. A bit from my journal –
An actualist stands on the shoulders of many, many who have gone before in a grand exercise of finding peace on earth. This is no small thing we do.
A year after writing this [about the Milgram experiment in journal-chapter ‘Peace’], the same issue is coming home to me again as I find that, after 2 years of ‘cleaning myself’ up – digging deep into my psyche and exploring the roots of fear and aggression, it is blatantly obvious that there is nothing that can be done, within the Human Condition, to eliminate malice and sorrow. No matter how good, moral, ethical or well intentioned the individual or group attempts to be, the instincts will always win out. There have been billions of people who have prayed for peace, attempted to live moral and good lives but peace on earth is still no closer to happening. Peace on earth is an impossibility while human beings are instinctually driven to fight each other. The clearly unworkable, unliveable and unsuccessful reliance on morals and ethics to bring peace on earth – let alone within tribal groups, families or couples – can surely now be abandoned as a failure. Of course, one would not want to venture off and begin to question the ‘good’ if one had no evidence that there was something better, and that evidence is the Pure Consciousness Experience. One of the prime qualities of the ‘self’-less state of the PCE is the fairy-tale like purity and perfection of the actual world, and the quality of a human being in a PCE is one of innocence – there is a total absence of instinctual fear and aggression. This is the innocence much sought after on the spiritual path but what one ends up with is feeling Good or becoming Divine – a perversion and human corruption of the actual state of innocence. A synthetic, fragile, supposed innocence that does nothing to tackle the inbuilt programming of fear and aggression in the amygdala – the ‘primitive brain’ within humans.
I have said that if the meaning of surrender is gratitude. And I will not kill or die for my Faith. What you said was – ‘If the meaning of surrender is deep gratitude to Osho, Yes, I am completely surrender to him with my whole being.’ So we can now add ‘but not enough to kill or die for Him’. This is indicative of what happened to Sannyas and Sannyasins after the end of the Ranch. You may remember that Rajneesh was raging against the Christians at the time and to quote him – ‘More blood has been shed by the Christians than by anybody else; more wars have been fought by Christians than by anybody else. People have been massacred, butchered, burned alive by Christians!’ Outrages like these, combined with poisonings, buggings, arson, vote stacking, etc. caused a situation where armed conflict became a distinct and very real possibility. There were a number of police and FBI investigations under way and the National Guard was reportedly on stand-by. Both sides were armed and ready. Rajneeshies were armed and deliberately invited the press in to show off their weapons and training. In the end, Rajneesh flew the coup, so the situation was diffused, but it shook many people’s faith to the point that many dropped Sannyas, became disillusioned or ‘watered down’ their faith – exactly as you seem to have done. The end of the Ranch indeed ‘scared the shit’ out of many disciples. * I noticed that you said to Alan that Japanese people are atheists, yet millions fought and died for their Emperor who, unless I am wrong, they regarded as a living God. These are facts that I am writing, this is not some belief of mine. I was born after the world war Second, and have learned the Emperor was a just fellow human being who was responsible for the War. So, in the case of Japan in the war, it was the Emperor who was responsible. I take it that aspires to the popular theory that it is evil leaders who cause wars. It does seem a little simplistic to me and to directly fly in the face of many studies and many documented accounts of the apparent ‘delight’ in killing and blood-lust that happens in wars. The Buddhists at Nanking seemed not to have been forcibly driven to serve the Emperor. Were they not proud to kill and be killed? This is the whole point of surrender, love, gratitude, service, devotion, loyalty – and the supreme test (particularly for the male of the species) is his willingness to lay down his life for his beliefs, for his ideals. On the Sannyas list I said I was probably willing to ‘defend’ the Ranch and Rajneesh to the point of killing, and I said ‘probably’, only because it is a hypothetical question. I got howled down for saying so, which I took as sheer hypocrisy on the part of most.
I wonder why you are so stick to your definition of it. I am vitally concerned with peace on earth and see no sense at all in people sitting silently hoping it will happen by itself, or by some mythical Divine intervention. I see a great deal of sense in questioning and investigating the reasons that we humans live in misery and suffering and, despite our well-meaning efforts to date, continue to inflict misery and suffering on each other. For the discussion to be meaningful, a common agreed definition of words is essential and the vital interest of both parties is essential. A vital interest in peace on earth is necessary for anyone to at all consider an Actual Freedom rather than continuing on the selfish, self-centred and Self-gratifying spiritual path of denial and fantasy. One either stays in the Human Condition or actively and rigorously pursues an actual freedom from its insidious grip. There is now a choice, a third alternative, for those who want it. The question is – are you, vitally concerned with peace-on-earth and do you want to become free of the Human Condition of malice and sorrow? * Being a disciple of a spiritual Master or God-man, as you have declared yourself to be, clearly puts you (specifically) in the group of ‘people sitting silently hoping it will happen by itself, or by some mythical Divine intervention’ – meaning Rajneesh’s intervention. How can I be more specific? Millions of people are suffering the stupefying horrors and atrocities of wars this very moment and all they have been able to date is pray to imaginary Gods, or believe the fairy stories of demented God-men, that ‘one day’ there will be peace. It’s time to put our store in human intelligence, for there is obviously no such thing as Divine Intelligence – any sensible reading of the inane fairy-stories of the Sacred Texts will soon attest to that. Of course, it means abandoning our belief in an after-life, but how else can one fully be here, doing what is happening. 100% committed to being here, in this very actual world, as a sensate, thinking and reflective, flesh and blood body – without any ‘self’ whatsoever. What a puny price to pay for personal peace and peace on earth. And as for your question, sure I want to become free of sorrow and malice. I am vitally concerned with my personal peace and peace on earth. I don’t doubt your sincerity in wanting and being vitally concerned, many humans are. It is the source of our deepest sorrow when we become aware of our instinctual willingness to inflict suffering upon each other. I’m just being busy trying to tell you that there is another alternative to blindly following what everyone has been trying for thousands of years and which obviously hasn’t worked, isn’t working, and never will work. If you want to put your faith and trust in the past failed efforts, then fine. If you want to find out about an alternative, there is only one way – for you to find out for yourself. And there is only one way to do that – read about it. Finding out for oneself makes much better sense than believing others.
You are on your own in this business of actualism, but you are not alone. Countless people have and are seeking peace on earth – an end to the appalling violence and senseless suffering that human beings continuously inflict on themselves and others. Many have even sheeted home the cause of violence and suffering to the animal instinctual passions while others have addressed the issue of the ‘self’-centredness, but all these efforts have failed to date simply because of the human obsession with the past. For some inexplicable reason humanity reveres the wisdom of shamans, witchdoctors and mystics and doggedly refuses to let go of the ancient fairy stories of good and evil spirits, Gods and demons and an ongoing life after death for the human spirit. The longer I am at this, the more I realize that the past is irrelevant to living in peace and harmony with other human beings. There is always this going back to the past – one’s past history, one’s tribe with their mores and traditions, the ‘lessons’ of the past, etc. The past has taught us nothing about living in peace and harmony and reliance on the past is reliance on the ‘Tried and Failed’. Something completely, totally new is needed. ‘I’ am the result of all these past influences. ‘I’ am what is preventing peace and harmony on earth from being realized. It is such a simple fact, is it not? Human beings have lived in so-called civilized communities for over 5,000 years from the physical evidence available and these communities all operated under varying moral and ethical codes, all worshipped various Gods, all practiced spiritual practices. And yet this same physical evidence points to the fact that human beings have been in a constant state of warfare with each other during this entire period and continue to do so. There is ample myth about a golden age, a time of innocence and peace but absolutely no evidence to support it. I don ’t need to be a historian or archaeologist to know this – I only have to look back at my own lifetime. Things were never better in the past – my father’s life was much tougher than mine, less comforts, less technology, less leisure time, less pleasures, less entertainment, less information and educational opportunities, etc. To dwell in the past makes ever-freshness an impossibility – or to put it another way, you are certainly not the same Gary who started this process, so why be worried about ‘him’ and whatever ‘he’ thought or felt in the past. * There are intrinsic fears to overcome in completely breaking free of spiritual belief, for the priests and God-men ultimately rule by peddling fear and superstition. But the stranglehold has now been conclusively broken and you and I and others are reaping the benefit not only from Richard’s discovery, but also from the cumulative efforts of many before who sought peace on earth. You are on your own in this business of actualism, but you are certainly not alone. Breaking free from the past is indeed frightening, but the rewards are legion. There is no contentment within the Human Condition. The search for peace whilst living in the Human Condition is like a dog chasing its’ tail. One tries and tries but never gets there. ‘There’ is ‘here’, right under our noses, when ‘I’ with my cares and woes, loves and hates, dreams and hopes, ideals and schemes, plans and goals, is not. There is nothing else to compare with being here now in this present moment of being alive. It is so simple, in a way quite ordinary, but definitely an incomparable experience. One of the invaluable aspects of this mailing list is to be able to confirm these far-better than normal, and far-superior than spiritual, experiences with others. To know from other’s experiences that it is possible to raise the bar of human experience that everyone has mutually agreed should be set on the most miserable of lows – just getting by, as in ‘life’s a bitch and then you die’ or practicing getting out of it, as in ‘I’m just a spirit, passing through’. To confirm that it is possible to feel good, or even feel excellent in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are. It is impossible for a grumpy, resentful, melancholy or angry person to activate sufficient naiveté and delight to trigger a pure consciousness experience, let alone experience a sustained period of feeling good or feeling excellent. As I’ve said before, if a person ain’t willing to make the effort to be virtually happy and virtually harmless then their interest in actualism will remain intellectual only. I like it that you have read sufficient of the instructions to now know what you need to do and how to do it. I do relate to this stage of pushing off from the edge and plunging in, regardless. For me, this stage coincided with realizing that my becoming free of the human condition was totally my business and totally my journey ... and that any rewards would only come by my efforts. I also had sufficient confidence by this stage to know that I could rely on the combination of my own integrity and the pure intent gleaned from my own pure consciousness experiences. Once understood, it is a necessary stage to then put the instruction book aside and get on with the experiment. You can always pick it up when you need it or even put a note in some margin or other if you think it may be of use to others. Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
