|
Selected Correspondence Vineeto Agnosticism Richard: 3. As there is no such ‘Being’ in actuality it is patently obvious that physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. To Richard: Er. Nope. Why is it ‘patently obvious’. It’s not at all patently obvious to me. It’s not patently obvious that nothing which in some way I am does not continue after death. It is not patently obvious to me that, without mind, body and spirit I am still, somehow, That. Can you see that exactly this point is the crux of the matter? No. Can you understand that your idea that ‘nothing which in some way I am does not continue after death’ is a spiritual belief, a belief in a spirit-being which will be able to continue after physical death – when *what you are* ceases to be alive, when the lungs stop breathing in air, when the blood ceases to circulate, when the brain ceases to function and when consciousness ceases and when decay and decomposition inevitably begins? Firstly it may not be a belief. The electric aliveness that doesn’t seem to be completely me, and yet is here, is not a belief, and it doesn’t seem to be just meat. Richard may have extinguished his psyche-spirit, but I don’t see why that strange-yet-actual life isn’t something different to the vagaries of spirit, that it wasn’t always here, and that it won’t always, in some way, be here. Secondly, I don’t believe in anything that I don’t know as experience. At least I do my best not to. But not believing in something does not mean that it doesn’t exist. (…) I know many people who proudly wear their openness on their sleeve – a little introspection on my part revealed that having such an attitude was but a form of intellectual arrogance. What these people fail to understand is that being ‘open’ means that they always have to remain closed to the facts of the matter in order to maintain their philosophy of being open one way or the other. But then again were they to be open to discovering the conclusive facts of the matter for themselves, they would find quickly themselves outside of the mainstream of those who believe in whatever beliefs are currently fashionable. * For Richard it is patently obvious that there is no ‘Being’ surviving physical death because Richard’s ‘Being’ is extinguished … before physical death. As he lives this experience of being a flesh-and-blood-body-sans-identity day and night he knows without a doubt that there is no resemblance of any ‘Being’ whatsoever found in his physical body. I understand that. If you understand that then why do you go on to say, further below, that ‘I doubt that Richard’s being is indeed extinguished’? Understanding does not mean completely accepting. I understand, while doubting. Like I understand the big bang theory (more or less) without completely accepting it. Then the next obvious question for you to answer to yourself is – what do you need to do in order to turn your understanding into an indubitable fact, or, to be more precise – what do you need to do in order to turn this understanding into experiential certainty? Assuming that finding the answer is vitally important to you, that is. * … and therefore you are bound to doubt that Richard’s Being is indeed extinguished No. I doubt Richard’s Being is extinguished because it is sensible to doubt the kind of pronouncements being made by Richard. Totally accepting something like this as true which I haven’t investigated beforehand is obviously insane. In my personal experience merely doubting has no value at all. What I did when I came across actualism was to make a sensible judgement of Richard’s report by firstly taking it at face value and then establishing a prima facie case as to its sensibility from all the information I could gather. From there I took up the challenge to *experientially* verify for myself the facts of the situation. However, this required that I stopped relying on belief – and its stable-mate agnosticism – and instead investigated each belief, conviction, opinion and truth that I had taken on in my life in order to replace them with solid facts and experiential evidence. * […you are bound to doubt that Richard’s Being is indeed extinguished] and consequently that his condition is something entirely new to human history. Yes, now again we get to this ‘consequently’ bit. Here it makes no sense whatsoever. As I keep on asking, how does having no identity make it clear that nobody has ever had no identity before? Richard seems to base his knowledge on an enlightened picking up or not picking up of psychic footprints. (…) Of course, the ‘consequently’ makes no sense to you … you haven’t resolved the first issue which is to investigate if your belief in a life after death, in whatever form, is fact or fiction. Once you resolve this issue to your own satisfaction, you will be in a much better position to understand for yourself what Richard means when he says his being is extinguished. What do I have to resolve? Do I have to accept that death is the end of absolutely everything that in some way I am? This would amount to a belief to me. Just as it would amount to a belief to accept that the opposite is true. I accept neither 100 per cent until it is definitively revealed to me one way or another. It seems more likely that something in some way that I am continues. Does this have to change to a ‘more likely that something in some way that I am does not continue’? What do I need to do to ‘resolve’ this. Please inform. You don’t have to do anything. But if you want to stop vacillating between belief and doubt about an actual freedom being entirely new to human experience, then a useful starting point is your belief, or more to the point your agnostic stance, about life after death. And a belief, any belief, is only satisfactorily resolved one way or the other when you find out for yourself the solid and conclusive fact of the matter. * Your circulatory correspondence on this topic … It seems to me that my correspondence is circulatory because I’m not getting a straight answer to my questions. I am quite willing to accept that it is my crooked reasoning that is warping what is too straight for me to see. But I need to see my crooked reasoning. Your reasoning is ‘crooked’ because on one hand you want to maintain a belief in life after death … No I don’t. I don’t want to completely reject it. But it’s not a big deal. This is what you said (additionally) on this subject at the top to this letter –
This is what dancing around the subject before finally turning one’s back to it looks like in print –
It obviously is ‘not a big deal’ to you, otherwise you would get straight to the task of finding out the facts about life after death. To remain an agnostic about the big questions in life is to chicken out on experientially discovering the answers to the difficult questions of life but it also means that you will never get a satisfying, definitive, conclusive, i.e. experiential, answer about what it is to be a human being.
One of those break-throughs happened when I mused about the nature of the universe and my beliefs in a mystical, metaphysical or super-natural energy permeating it. The longer I contemplated the more it became clear that both a beginning to and an edge of the universe do not make sense because this theory raises far more questions than it solves, whereas an infinite and eternal universe does away with any and all the theorizing about the how, when and by whom or by what mysterious force the universe was created and what it is that it supposedly expands into. At this point it also dawned on me that in a universe without boundaries there is no physical space for any mystical Force to be ruling the world and the very meaning of actuality – matter devoid of spirit but in constant change – became stunningly clear, not just intellectually but experientially. The very simplicity of my intellectual understanding and the resultant immediate experiencing of this very understanding made the nature of the universe self-evidently obvious. I acknowledge that it requires great daring, intent and stubborn determination to leave one’s safe haven of being an agnostic about the nature of the universe in order to recognize and experientially discover the facts about the nature of the universe as opposed to remaining ‘open’ to any and all theories about the universe. To leave the non-committal position of not-knowing behind and commit oneself to finding out the facts, whatever the cost, is a truly life-changing process as one’s whole personal worldview will fall apart and disappear. Naturally in the face of this threat, the survival instincts kick in, causing ‘me’ to opt for the safety of the status quo. The first thing to counteract this automatic instinctual reaction is to become aware of it so that one can then make an informed decision in which direction one wants to proceed. But then again, you have apparently experienced the strength of theses passions –
The actualism method itself is very simple – the consequences of applying it are enormous.
I liked your post on agnosticism as you state the three options of believing quite clearly. I think the actualist approach to agnosticism is often misunderstood quite simply because there are normally only 3 positions on for example, God.
You can take these 3 positions on virtually any issue – For, Against, and ‘I don’t know’ – but you might notice that they all involved belief – the 3rd is wondering about what to ‘believe.’ There is another kind of ‘agnostic’ – one who is not ‘open to believing’ – yet remains open to discovering the fact of the matter. That is where I am and where the only place I think that is sensible – since if one doesn’t know something – why believe either way – and why wonder about what to believe – just get rid of believing altogether. I also think that the reason why so many people get tripped up at this point is because they think that regular agnosticism is the only intelligent response to not knowing – then when they tout their precious agnosticism, they are befuddled to learn that they are not supported in that view by actualists. As I stated above, there are 2 ways to ‘not know’ – the most common way is to ‘not know what to believe,’ whereas another way is to ‘not know’ the facts. To further clarify what you so aptly called ‘their precious agnosticism’ I would like to add the Oxford Dictionary definition of an agnostic –
As such an agnostic not only doesn’t know what to believe but many who consider themselves agnostics passionately defend their stance that ‘one can never know’ or even that the answers to the mysteries of life can not be known. Thus maintaining an agnostic viewpoint is used as an excuse to shield the ‘Unknowable’ from being explored. I have seen many discussions by both Buddhists and the followers of Jiddu Krishnamurti in which they passionately defended the Unknowable as sacred threshold that should not be questioned, let alone be actively explored. To me an agnostic is someone, as you say, who does ‘not know what to believe’ but who also, as per his doctrine, does not want to find out the facts … and I am definitely not an agnostic.
No 37: I think the actualist approach to agnosticism is often misunderstood quite simply because there are normally only 3 positions on for example, God.
You can take these 3 positions on virtually any issue – For, Against, and ‘I don’t know’ – but you might notice that they all involved belief – the 3rd is wondering about what to ‘believe.’ There is another kind of ‘agnostic’ – one who is not ‘open to believing’ – yet remains open to discovering the fact of the matter. That is where I am and where the only place I think that is sensible – since if one doesn’t know something – why believe either way – and why wonder about what to believe – just get rid of believing altogether. I also think that the reason why so many people get tripped up at this point is because they think that regular agnosticism is the only intelligent response to not knowing – then when they tout their precious agnosticism, they are befuddled to learn that they are not supported in that view by actualists. As I stated above, there are 2 ways to ‘not know’ – the most common way is to ‘not know what to believe,’ whereas another way is to ‘not know’ the facts. To further clarify what you so aptly called ‘their precious agnosticism’ I would like to add the Oxford Dictionary definition of an agnostic –
As such an agnostic not only doesn’t know what to believe but many who consider themselves agnostics passionately defend their stance that ‘one can never know’ or even that the answers to the mysteries of life can not be known. Thus maintaining an agnostic viewpoint is used as an excuse to shield the ‘Unknowable’ from being explored. I have seen many discussions by both Buddhists and the followers of Jiddu Krishnamurti in which they passionately defended the Unknowable as sacred threshold that should not be questioned, let alone be actively explored. To me an agnostic is someone, as you say, who does ‘not know what to believe’ but who also, as per his doctrine, does not want to find out the facts … and I am definitely not an agnostic. No 37 – Yes, I’m glad you pointed out that agnostics normally maintain that it is ‘impossible to know’ – so that not only are they (normally) saying they just don’t know, but also that one cannot know – so that one had better not claim that they do know. Yeah, but it’s hardly sensible to apply the same terminology and adopt the same attitude toward (a) people who recognises their lack of omniscience; and (b) people who avoid seeking out the facts ON PRINCIPLE! I fail to see the point you are making. OK. I don’t think we’ll need to go into much detail here ... please correct me if I’m wrong. In the correspondence so far we’ve identified two types of agnostic:
Whenever I have talked about agnostics on this list is was always about
It is you who persists in giving a meaning to the word agnosticism it does not have as in ‘they’re not omniscient’. The first kind isn’t seeking out the facts because ‘unknowability’ is their creed. The second kind may or may not be seeking out the facts, but their (current) ‘agnosticism’ is based on the fact that they currently do not know enough to be certain one way or the other. Does the fact that you yourself put agnosticism in inverted commas indicate that it is not a commonly used meaning of the word? And as for your use of the term ‘(current) ‘agnosticism’’ – it is my experience that by and large agnostics tend to hold to their agnosticism as an attitude or even a conviction such that it becomes an impediment to wanting to find out the facts of the matter for themselves. Example of type (1): Somebody who believes that reality is unknowable. Example of type (2): No 37 in relation to Einstein’s relativity. I cannot make a sensible comment as I have no idea whether or not No 37 fits to your type (1) category or not? My outburst of peevishness last week was motivated by what I saw as your indifference to this distinction. As there is no distinction because only type (1) classifies as an agnostic I wonder what all the fuss was about. In all of the dictionary definitions that I could find, agnosticism does not refer to ‘non-omniscience’ as in your ‘a person can be ‘agnostic’ because they realise they are not in full possession of the facts (they’re not omniscient…)’. Does this clarify what I meant, and what I mean now? Neither No 37 or I made reference to agnosticism as ‘people who recognises their lack of omniscience’ in our conversation. It was you who introduced this second definition. * The point I was making to No 37 was that those who wave the ‘I am an agnostic flag’ as an objection to actualism mostly do so based on the principle that nothing can be known of the existence of God (one way or the other) and thus go on to claim that the essential facts of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being can never be known, let alone directly experienced. As for someone waving the ‘I am not omniscient’ flag as an objection to
actualism in the name of agnosticism – this is what is known in Australia as Also, notice the use of a technique that Peter employs so frequently: reification of a harmless down-to-earth abstraction as a Metaphysical Greater Reality Which Does Not Exist. Example: It is a simple fact that in an immense (possibly infinite) universe, the vast majority of facts are going to remain ‘unknowable’ to my human mind. No matter how determined I am to find out the facts for myself, I shall never know the precise shape, size, colour and weight of every nasal hair in every Chinese grandmother (come to think of it they’re probably grey – but let’s move on). Your example is yet again a furphy. This is what I said –
The example that you give – that it is impossible to know ‘the precise shape, size, colour and weight of every nasal hair in every Chinese grandmother’ – implies that actualism is about becoming omniscient. Whilst omniscience is a claim readily made by those who claim to have realized the Truth, it is not one made by actualists – to claim omniscience is clearly nonsense. Now, if I say I don’t know, I’ll never know, I cannot know these things, these things are ‘unknowable’ to me ... sensible people would realise that I’m NOT postulating a Metaphysical ‘Unknowable’ in which these nasal hairs reside. Again, actualism is not about becoming omniscient, actualism is about discovering and unearthing the mysteries of life, and a large part of this process is stripping away the multitude of passionate beliefs that human beings have accumulated over millennia. Prime amongst these beliefs is the insistence that life, the universe and what it is to be a human being is a mystery that can never be known. Yep. I managed to imbibe that belief in my late teens, where it has lain almost unnoticed (seeming to be so self-evident) for nearly two decades. Yep. By the far the majority of beliefs that we have imbibed appear not to be beliefs but are taken to be self-evident truths solely for the reason that everybody else also takes them to be self-evident truths. * But Peter and Vineeto pull this kind of crap all the time. They reify an abstraction (in this case the ‘unknowable’, the set of all facts which I cannot in practice ever know) as ... The Unknowable. And whaddya know? Suddenly it’s transmogrified into an Eastern spiritual belief in an Unknowable Sacred Metaphysical Beyond and blah blah fucking blah ... again, and again, and again. Maybe the following snippets of conversation might be of help to understand that the idea of exploring the ‘Unknowable’ is a frightening, if not blasphemous proposition for many people –
And from Richard’s correspondence –
There are many more examples that the belief in the ‘Unknowable’ is an awe to be reckoned with and not to be dismissed lightly when one investigates the human condition in oneself. It’s perhaps pertinent to point out that Richard uses the expression ‘beyond Enlightenment’ to explain what an actual freedom is because an actual freedom from the human condition is what Enlightened Beings consider to be the ‘Unknowable’ –
I am not seeking a response from you No 37, and I am not trying to stir up a fight. Any more of this would be pointless. I just want to put this out there for others to see, in the hope that by recognising this particularly obnoxious pattern of argumentation it might spare them some of the frustration I have experienced as a result of it. OK, I understand all of this. Now, to understand the point I was making, all that is necessary is to bear in mind that not every ‘I dunno’ is equivalent to a belief in The Unknown, and not every ‘I can’t know that’ is equivalent to a belief in The Unknowable. That’s all. That really is all I meant. Personally, whenever I find that I have an emotional reaction to finding out the facts of a particular matter, I know that I have work to do – it isn’t necessarily a belief in ‘The Unknown’ or ‘The Unknowable’ but my emotional reaction is always a sure sign that ‘I’ feel threatened that ‘I’ will be exposed for the fraud that ‘I’ am. My own integrity demands that I have to proceed until I arrive at irrefutable facts – that’s the nature of actualism, nothing remains hidden if it is in any way relevant to the human condition. * If you regard my attempts to discuss these matters with my fellow human beings on this mailing list as being a ‘particularly obnoxious pattern of argumentation’ then so be it. Yet to mount a critique of what others are saying on this list and then discourage any discussion about it is not going to bring more clarity to the situation. The reason why I wrote to No 37 about the agnostic stance in religious, spiritual and metaphysical matters is that I wanted to make it crystal clear that maintaining an agnostic attitude to the mysteries of life will not work if one wants to become free from the human condition. I found I needed a passionate inquisitiveness, an urge to get to the bottom of matters and an imperative to know if there was a God or not, if there was afterlife or not, if the universe was infinite or not, and so on. At first it was not always easy to overcome my fears of leaving the well-trodden path of my comfortable beliefs, my convenient agnosticism and my lethargic indifference to finding out for myself the answers to the mysteries of life the universe and what it is to be a human being. Speaking personally now, I can understand what you mean by the ‘convenient agnosticism’ comment – agnosticism can be a way of avoiding putting one’s money where one’s mouth is, or sitting on the fence forever. Speaking personally, whenever I became aware that I was avoiding finding out the facts that related to the human condition and the nature of the universe, I knew I had to abandon my convenient agnosticism and find out for sure. Personally I can’t relate to the ‘comfortable beliefs’ though, because even though I have sought out something to believe in I’ve never been able to settle down with a set of beliefs (for better or worse). And yet didn’t you just say, a few lines above, that ‘I managed to imbibe that belief in my late teens’ in relation to my comment that ‘prime amongst these beliefs is the insistence that life, the universe and what it is to be a human being is a mystery that can never be known’? The reason I point this out is that it is the nature of the beliefs that one doesn’t recognize them as beliefs unless one personally has the intent to question what one takes to be the truth and dares to scrutinize its efficacy by oneself, for oneself. Unless one is prepared to do this, one is fated to remain trapped in the endless game of passionately defending or mindlessly espousing beliefs – the pathetic game that masquerades as discussion within the human condition. For me, the search has been more desperate, driven, restless and futile rather than lethargic (hence ‘kicking-in-mid-air-ism’). What I meant by ‘my lethargic indifference to finding out for myself the answers’ is that for long periods of time I was all too willing to take the easy route and believe what others told me were the answers rather than make the effort to find out for myself. However, if I hadn’t been driven to find out for sure, to know for certain, I would not be where I am today. Making the effort to pursue the spiritual path for all those years proved to be of immense benefit because I came to know and understand experientially why the spiritual path fails and why it will always fail to deliver anything remotely resembling peace on earth. What actualism gave me at first, and it is no little thing, was an end to my life-long search for the Truth, be it a secular Truth or a spiritual Truth. In a PCE it is absolutely obvious that peace on earth is always here, right now, and that it is ‘me’ who is standing in the way. It is also obvious in a PCE that ‘I’ am the only one who can do the necessary work to become free from the human condition.
One day I dared to contemplate about the issue of a possible life after death right through to its obvious conclusion and the lingering agnostic option disappeared to be replaced by a confidence that when I die then that will be final – and the issue disappeared forever. I realized that holding onto the option of ‘me’ being a spiritual ‘being’ had locked me out of experiencing the sheer and wonderful actuality of this physical body being alive right now in this pure and perfect physical universe. In short, it is impossible to be vitally interested in being here whilst holding on to any spiritual or agnostic beliefs. This is never brought up in the atheist/agnostic debate. Of course not, taking this into account would expose atheism and agnosticism as being silly. As a rough rule of thumb, atheists generally believe that grim reality is all there is, spiritualists believe in a Greater Reality of some sort and desperately try to be ‘there’ whereas agnostics, lacking the vitality to find out the facts of the matter for themselves, generally remain smug in their indifference. However, what you have written shows very explicitly that being an agnostic will hold one back from vf/af. It holds one back from even being interested in experiencing the only moment one can ever actually experience. * This is what is meant by actualism being ‘non-spiritual’. Got ya – totally non-spiritual to the flesh and blood bone. Right on. Mind you, the most favourite beliefs are hiding in the cupboard and lash out when you least expect them to.
A current myth, for instance, is the ‘big bang’ theory that most physicists nowadays accept as ‘Truth’ and it is interesting to watch how they tie themselves in ever complicated knots in trying to reconcile this myth with the empirical laws of physics as they apply in the actual physical universe. ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic’. Arthur C. Clarke Technology, however advanced, is by its very nature pragmatic and factual, i.e. it is based on cause and effect, it can be observed, experienced and reproduced by any number of people and it works. In short, it is neither trick nor supernatural and as such is easily distinguishable from magic as defined in definitions [Mr. Oxford’s] 1 & 2 above. Most people make no distinction between magic as in ‘inexplicable’ and ‘surprising results’ and magic as in ‘invocation’ of either ‘good’ or ‘evil spirits’ and this lack of intellectual vigour helps explain why non-Newtonian Western theoretical physicists are now eagerly shaking hands with Eastern mystics and vice versa. <snipped> Sufficiently advanced technology cannot be ‘observed, experienced and reproduced’, at least by us, now. That’s what makes it advanced, otherwise it would be the norm. Just to establish whose opinion you are agreeing with – Arthur C Clarke is a renowned science-fiction writer and has, apart from his novels, become famous for collaborating with motion-picture director Stanley Kubrick in making the innovative and highly praised science-fiction film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), which was based on Clarke’s short story ‘The Sentinel’. Therefore I would say that Mr. Clarke has a personal interest in keeping the distinction blurred between technology (applied science based on cause and effect) and imaginative magic (inexplicable phenomena). Contrary to popular belief, humans cannot think up or imagine ‘advanced technologies’ and simply make them happen if these ‘technologies’ turn out to not conform to the physical laws that govern the behaviour of the matter, phenomena and physical forces of the universe – i.e. if these technologies do not work in practice then they were, are and always will be, science fiction. The internet could not have been ‘observed, experienced and reproduced’ by Newton, for instance. It would be like ‘magic’ to him, yet it is completely mundane to us. If Newton was intelligent, and there is every indication that he had a keen intellect, the ‘magic’ of the internet could easily be explained to him if he were alive today. The magic of the internet is a working down-to-earth magic, conforming to the physical laws that govern the behaviour of the matter, phenomena and physical forces of the universe – not the super-natural ‘magic’ of science fiction. By extension, oughtn’t there be science that makes no sense to us, but will to those of 500 years hence? There is no doubt that the scientific knowledge of 500 years hence will produce technological advances that are inconceivable to us today but they will make sense to those who are alive then. This is because those future technologies will have to conform to the physical laws that govern the behaviour of the matter, phenomena and physical forces of the universe. If they don’t, they won’t make sense and they won’t work. To get back to the topic of this discussion, the Big Bang theory, I can say with confidence that the theory is not only nonsensical, it is also wrong in fact. And as you can see from the following quote, I am not even alone in this perception. Paul Marmet, a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of in Ottawa, explains the Big Bang model –
This article is indeed fascinating to read because it refutes the evidence provided for the Big Bang theory and explains, in terms a layperson can understand, how blatant oversights and assumptions were made in favour of keeping the theory afloat. This is really the only point I was trying to make – that it is presumptuous for us to suppose that we know everything about the physical universe at this juncture. It wasn’t that long ago that the world was flat. As I understand it, the point you were originally making, and are still making, is that you would rather keep ‘not-knowing’ that the universe is in fact eternal and infinite – i.e. that it has no beginning and no end, no centre and no edge. I am not supposing that I ‘know everything about the physical universe’, far, far from it. I am continuously learning more things about the universe that have put paid to previous wrong theories or have revealed what were simply unknown facts at the time I went to school. Whilst it is obvious that we humans do not know everything about the physical universe at this juncture, the ancient belief that ‘someone’ or ‘something’ created it still has legs, and strong ones at that. The fairy tales of a Someone creating the universe has been proven to be nonsense by the geological and fossil evidence of evolutionary development of life on this planet. Rather than these facts eliminating the belief that the universe had a beginning, we now see that a whole ‘new’ creationist belief has been spawned – theoretical ‘scientists’ theorizing a creation event that relies on imaginary super-natural forces for its supposed happening. All of which only demonstrates the extraordinary lengths human beings will go in order to cling to their spirit-ual beliefs. What I have learned since I started applying the actualism method is to distinguish between belief and fact, between faith and common sense, between hope and actuality. This ability to clearly discriminate can make me appear to be ‘presumptuous’ – or arrogant, conceited, insolent, big-headed, and haughty – to those who haven’t questioned their beliefs and their automatic habit of believing. To give a personal example – after I had my first pure consciousness experience, I remember being in shock for the whole of the next day. I had not only seen the extent of my own spiritual beliefs but when I went to the local market I saw everyone hawking their own particular beliefs along with their merchandise. I could see that sensibleness or usefulness were not the criteria of value for the vendors – what was for sale was merchandise within a belief system. What was vitally important was being part of the ‘right’ crowd, following the ‘right’ or sacred prescriptions as to how to live life and obtaining the ‘right’ symbolic chattels that related to the ‘right’ lifestyle. These symbolic chattels consisted of food, alternative medicine and supplements, jewellery, particular style clothes, sacred objects, and other paraphernalia. Because I had seen my own spiritual beliefs from the ‘self’-less perspective of a PCE, my perception of actuality was direct and clear. Yet not a single one of those vendors would have agreed with me – they were so totally immersed in their own particular world that they could not understand, let alone directly experience, what was actually happening. I kept my mouth shut at the time but I would have certainly been called arrogant, conceited and presumptuous if I had pointed out the nature of their beliefs. The same is the case with the Big Bang theory. In a PCE, the universe is experienced and perceived from neither a ‘self’-centred nor an anthropocentric viewpoint. In such a clear-eyed perception, the idea that the universe started out of nothing – as if God snipped his fingers and suddenly there was light – is simply absurd. In a PCE I am able to see and experience things simply as they are because there is no ‘self’ to speculate, believe, feel or imagine otherwise. Things are as they are and I am sensately aware of how they are as well as being aware of that awareness. I assume that you might be familiar with a kind of clear-eyed perception, – when something suddenly clicks and you know that, despite your earlier doubts or questions, that it can’t be otherwise, it has to be so. Then there is an element of ‘of course!’ in one’s perception, maybe an ‘aha!’-effect of suddenly getting it and everything falling into place.
A current myth, for instance, is the ‘big bang’ theory that most physicists nowadays accept as ‘Truth’ and it is interesting to watch how they tie themselves in ever complicated knots in trying to reconcile this myth with the empirical laws of physics as they apply in the actual physical universe. It is fascinating to see the ever-widening gulf between belief and fact, so much so that physicists are now studying things that have no material existence outside of their own fertile imaginations and the virtual calculations of their computer programs. There simply was no ‘big bang’, the universe has always been here and it will always be here – eternal and infinite, peerless in its perfection. This ties into an area that I’ve occasionally considered delving in to, but it’s of secondary importance to this process. But, we’re here, so let’s give it a whirl. Note that this discussion refers only to the physical universe; there is no intimation of spirituality/magic/gods/etc. Your implication is that these scientists have an investment in self-fulfilling prophecy/myth. While that is likely true in many cases, it is also presumptuous on any of our parts that we know the absolute extent and content of the physical universe. We really only know what information we’ve gathered to date and can be proven empirically to some degree of confidence. From these data points, we may extrapolate other theories, some of which are provable and some more elusive. It’s likely though that there are a vast number of other data points that are far beyond our ability to even conceive, based on what we know right now. As a crude example, a nineteenth century coal miner (let alone Cro-Magnon man) couldn’t possibly conceive of the internet*. *‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic’, Arthur C. Clarke I have always found it useful, based on my many years of experience with spiritual practices, to be particularly precise about words that can also mean something spiritual, i.e. non-material, and the word ‘magic’ in two of its three meanings listed in the Oxford Dictionary means something additional to or other than factuality –
Technology, however advanced, is by its very nature pragmatic and factual, i.e. it is based on cause and effect, it can be observed, experienced and reproduced by any number of people and it works. In short, it is neither trick nor supernatural and as such is easily distinguishable from magic as defined in definitions 1 & 2 above. Most people make no distinction between magic as in ‘inexplicable’ and ‘surprising results’ and magic as in ‘invocation’ of either ‘good’ or ‘evil spirits’ and this lack of intellectual vigour helps explain why non-Newtonian Western theoretical physicists are now eagerly shaking hands with Eastern mystics and vice versa.
Goodness gracious ... I’m having trouble discerning anything of value arriving from the AF list. We have the believers, who recite the same old litanies, and the snipers, who have nothing other than criticisms to offer. Is this genuine or generic viagra, ummm, I mean actualism? I guess that’s the way it’s set up, because, really, there’s no room for true dialogue in AF, only repetition of the dogma, … Believers and snipers, eh. Seeing that you have named only two categories of players on the AF mailing list, I wonder which team you assigned yourself to? Within a few weeks of corresponding on this list you made it quite clear that you prefer to remain loyal to your conviction of ‘I’m an agnostic’, someone who maintains ‘that matters such as the infinitude of the universe are fundamentally unknowable’. Re: The Magic of It All, 25.3.2003. Given that an agnostic is someone who believes that there are certain things that cannot be definitely known as facts, your ideology ensures that you have no way of establishing the difference between a belief and a fact or the difference between a believer and someone who has established a fact. To put it succinctly – just because you believe that there are no facts doesn’t mean that there are no facts. What I report as a fact, for you can only be a ‘dogma’, a firm belief. What I report as the experiencing of the actual world, for you can only be a ‘worldview’ because according to your agnostic attitude there is no such thing as a fact because for you any and all of the matters that actualism addresses are ‘fundamentally unknowable’. Thus by holding to your agnosticism you gag your intelligence, you put a stop to further inquiry, you stifle the desire to find out and prevent yourself from ever achieving definitive results. As a consequence you lock yourself out from ever experiencing the actual world in a pure consciousness experience. It is indeed ‘the way it’s set up’ – not by actualists, but by the parameters you have set yourself. … and correction of the acolyte’s interpretation. Rinse and repeat. It must be wonderful for everyone to be so sure of things ... no need for that nasty ambiguity in your life. <snip> The reason I write is to entice you to have a close look at the parameter set by your stance that certain matters ‘are fundamentally unknowable’ because I know by experience that a whole new world can open up – it happened to me, it can happen to you. My intent in our correspondence has always been to tempt you to probe further, to find out for yourself, to lift the ‘self’-inflicted restrictions of the hoary belief that ‘one can never know for sure’ – I know that one can know for sure. I find it telling that you use the word ‘acolyte’ which has an ecclesiastical meaning –
You also asked for a ‘badge’ for your anniversary in participation on this list –
whereby ‘neophyte’ also has an ecclesiastical meaning –
And just lately, in the same line, you made comment to No 45 that there has been no graduation –
The reason I find it worth mentioning is that your choice of words points to a perception that has been there all along, maybe unnoticed and certainly unexamined – a perception that you were entering a club with somewhat spiritual rules, goals and achievements. And now that the ‘graduation’ has not come forth, you quit with a few snide remarks. In actualism, the only ‘graduation’ there can be when you come to certify for yourself, experientially, in a pure consciousness experience, that what Richard and other practicing actualists are reporting is factual. Then you can stand on your own feet, then you have to rely neither on faith nor on belief, neither on hope nor on trust. Then you know for yourself, by your own experience, that the actual world indeed exists, is already always here and is only obscured by your own passionate beliefs and instinctual ‘self’. However as you never considered questioning your agnostic belief that certain matters are ‘fundamentally unknowable’ this ‘graduation’ to independence could never take place and there is nobody to blame but yourself. * You made your contempt of definitive results even more clear in your second post titled ‘Dialogue … or Spam?’ – I am content with ambiguity, as Peter/Vineeto et al shall likely find for themselves. The actual world is unambiguous and a PCE confirm this fact. I think actualism is a wonderful thing and will continue to practice such. In order to practice actualism you would first have to remove the tight leash that you have put on your inquiry, the leash that certain matters are ‘fundamentally unknowable’? Unless you do so you will continue to practice agnosticism, not actualism. Further, as your parting posts demonstrate, you blame others for the frustration you felt on this mailing list and thus make it clear that being harmless is not included in your practice. The ‘actualism’ you are practicing is certainly not the method described on this mailing list and on the AF website. What I find repulsive is Actual Freedom, Inc., with it’s rigid dogmatism, and anal obsession to correct spelling and content for cultural differences. Someone who is ‘content with ambiguity’ cannot but dismiss clarity and facticity as ‘rigid dogmatism’, if only to defend their own vagueness. Sincerity and naiveté would change your perspective by 180 degrees. What you call ‘anal obsession to correct spelling’ is simply the sensible use of the auto formatting and spell-checking functions of a computer’s word processing program to enable an easier understanding of the correspondence published on the website. If you find English spelling and grammar ‘anal’ then that is your sphincter fixation, not mine. Clearly my time here has come to an end. I have learned a lot, for which I am grateful, but you are only offering part of the picture. Sincerely (and I do mean that), thank you, and thanks for all the fish. Have you ever wondered that it could be you who is only seeing ‘part of the picture’ … if only for the sake of keeping alive the fiction that maybe there is a ‘Restaurant At The End Of The Universe’ after all?
Richard professes that he enjoys tobacco, which contains an addictive substance. Where is the line that delimits ‘good’ addictions from ‘bad’ addictions? The topic of ‘addictions’ is a diversion from the issue at hand, which is how to become free from the human condition of malice and sorrow. The reason I found the comparison between addiction and the human condition so apt was that, in the process of examining the human condition in me, I detected very similar reactions to those that I had observed in drug addicts when I was a social worker. Particularly when I investigated the issue of my spiritual loyalty, my thoughts tended to shift from this uncomfortable subject as a way of avoiding the issue, I invented diversions and furphies not to stick to the issue at hand, I experienced hot and cold flushes, I caught myself wanting to start a fight, I suddenly became tired if confronted with the issue, etc. … you might get the picture. The whole cunning ‘me’ swung into action so as to desperately defend ‘my’ precious beliefs and feelings in exactly the same way an addict feels that he is fighting for survival when the drugs are withdrawn. Only pure intent and stubborn determination to get to the bottom of this addiction-like dependency on being a believing and feeling ‘being’ causes me to continue whittling away at my ‘self’ until the very end of this pernicious addiction that is the human condition. Regarding this topic of how to investigate the human condition I would also like to comment on a remark that you made to No 23 the other day –
To ‘question everything’ aimlessly will only lead to a nihilistic outlook on life on earth and an acceptance that real virtue lies in ‘not-knowing’. My questioning everything was only fruitful because I had set myself an aim in life – I had made a definitive choice. This choice – to live with a man in peace and harmony, whatever the cost – gave my questioning and subsequent investigations a direction and a focus. Because I had a practical, tangible aim, my practice of questioning everything had a purpose – to remove whatever obstacle was preventing my living in perfect peace with a fellow human being in each moment. This purpose compelled me to put the insights and realizations that came from my questioning into practice and committed me to apply them to my actions in daily life – thus my former theoretical activity of questioning was turned into a hands-on down-to-earth affair and I came to definitive and reliable answers based on facts and sensibility. My commitment of living with a man in peace and harmony very soon grew into an intent to be free from malice and sorrow entirely because I understood that peace and harmony cannot end at the front door if this peace is to be genuine. And thus I ended up in a far bigger adventure than I had originally anticipated. And now I am in a likely position to be the first woman to become free from the human condition. What a hoot. PS: On the question of the addictiveness of smoking you might want to read up
on
The recent comment to No 23 about Richard as ‘mystic’ was factually correct – but the quip about both eyes being closed (reading meditatively) was over the top – unnecessary. The ‘full-stop’ shock you appear to intend only alienates the other person. I cannot comment on your general impression – you will need to give me specific examples where I have used an ‘aggressive style’. However, I can comment on your example of my post to No 42 – where I commented ‘about Richard as mystic’. Vis –
You may interpret my response as ‘over the top’ ‘alienating’ and an example of my ‘aggressive style’ but I did use the words ‘meditatively’ and ‘eyes closed’ deliberately and for good reason. No 42 has not only reported that he spent 40 years on the spiritual path following first G. Gurdjieff and then M. Rajneesh, but he also clearly stated his predilection for the spiritual virtue of ‘not-knowing’ in lieu of a genuine freedom from malice and sorrow –
Given that No 42 has been subscribed to the Actual Freedom mailing list for a while now and is still presenting Richard as a mystic, at best that means that he read the ongoing posts about actualism with both eyes closed. If he has read with open eyes, then his reading was certainly meditative – in the spirit of ‘not-knowing’ and not wanting to know. I can well understand when people do not want to know about becoming free from the human condition, because I know from experience that the process of investigating the human condition can sometimes be a daunting enterprise. What I cannot understand, however, is why someone is still misinterpreting actualism as spiritualism when it has been clearly stated many times that actualism is about questioning all beliefs.
I don’t know what ‘never-never land’ represents for you, but I am reminded of Peter Pan’s dreamland for children, where one is transported from the misery and dullness of the ‘real’ world into the unreal land of imagination, where one never has to become a grown-up. Never-never land was not a good description to use because you have no way of knowing exactly what I meant. It did seem like an unreal land but it is more of a void or not-knowing. Kind of a disconnected feeling which is what I meant by a feeling of abandoning humanity. ‘Abandoning humanity’ in Actual Freedom terms stands for gaily taking the pen-ultimate step before self-immolation. After one has removed one’s social identity of being a son or daughter, a man or woman, an American or Englishman, a seeker, a writer, a doctor, etc. and has become an utter non-identity, one is then able to investigate the collective psyche, the result of the instinctual passions that all human beings have in common. Applying attentiveness and awareness to the instinctual passions as they arise enables one to stop acting as per the instinctual software in the brain and thus one can slowly, slowly reduce the automated reactive and emotional impact that instincts have on our feelings, thoughts and behaviour. In doing so one not only becomes happy and harmless but also stops being part of the biggest fold of all, humanity itself. One is no longer a member of the species that ‘nourishes malice and sorrow in their bosom’ to quote Richard’s expression. Whereas ‘a disconnected feeling’ is clearly an affective feeling, arising out of the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. To have a ‘a disconnected feeling’ has nothing at all to do with ‘abandoning humanity’; it is, on the contrary, common to all human beings and arises out of the Human Condition in each of us. You see, in order to communicate about the possible advantage that Actual Freedom could have for your life, it is essential to not mix up the terms that we use with emotional or spiritual terms. For instance, ‘not-knowing’ is used by Buddhists and other Eastern religions as an expression for the highest achievable wisdom when one enters the ‘Unknowable’, synonymous for the ‘Truth’. Aspiring to or succeeding in achieving the ‘Truth’ and reaching a state of ‘not-knowing’ is well accepted in the ‘book of rules for humanity’. When achieving a state of ‘not-knowing’ one simply exchanges the illusion of the ‘self’ for the grand delusion of a higher ‘Self’.
The other night Peter and I went out for dinner and by chance met a couple we knew from our spiritual days. As we started discussing about life, the universe and what we have discovered in about being a human being, Peter talked about the difference between actualism, reality and spiritualism. The man responded that you could never really know what is actual. He touched the table we sat on and said ‘this is not a table – it is just the word ‘table’. For Australian Aborigines it would be a pile of firewood and not a table at all.’ Therefore, by his abstract thinking, he can never really know if what we call a table is really a table or in fact something completely different. If you become totally abstract in your thinking and feeling you can even get to the stage where you really-truly believe that the table and everything else that is actual is only an illusion and only ‘you’ are real, or should I say ‘Real’. This belief that one cannot know what is actual is only possible because he was removed from the direct sensate experience, his experience was totally coloured by his abstract thinking combined with his spiritual ideas. He didn’t acknowledge his sensate experience of the piece of furniture we were resting our elbows on. He preferred to question the actuality of the table rather than questioning his own ideas, beliefs and feelings. His stated position was that we cannot know anything as a certainty and he had made that into his prime spiritual belief. Thus he made the sensual concrete experience of a simple wooden table into a spiritual experience of ‘Not-Knowing’ – another word for connecting with the Divine Unknowable. The conversation made it clear to me again that any belief, including the generalizing belief that you don’t know, casts a distorting veil over our senses and sensibility and thus prevents the direct experience of the actual. I also understand your friend’s statement at the dinner, that the table is, in some sense, a table because we compare it with an abstract concept in our brain. Without this comparison, and recognition, the table would have no meaning for us at all. Most scientists also believe that most of the processing in the brain is pure pattern recognition. But instead of storing all patterns and then try to compare all new ones with all previous stored, the brain works with abstracts and ideal ideas. We have a concept of the table stored, the concept is not necessarily associated with a certain physical table. By accident Peter and I met the same couple a few days later in another restaurant. They had finished their meal and, as the restaurant was full, they insisted that we should take over their table when they left. We had a short amicable chat and then they left. The man, who had previously said that he did not know if a table existed in fact or not, was now, by his very actions, neither questioning the function nor the existence of this table – he rested his elbows on it, he confidently placed his wine and meal on the table, he also without questioning communicated to us and the waitress about passing the table on to us for our use. His theories of ‘not knowing’ were merely philosophical, conceptual and
disconnected from his daily actions. His stated position of ‘Not Knowing’, derived from Eastern Spiritualism, turns
the world upside down – everything physical is a mere concept and the only real thing is ‘Me’, the one who makes
those concepts. By asking ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ you can, one by one, discover and strip away your abstract and spiritual concepts in order to free your senses so you can directly and intimately perceive the world and people around you. To understand new things, for example in physics, we can learn from books and create images of a reality, which we cannot see, smell and touch. These abstract concepts or models are absolutely essential for us to be able to grasp scientific ideas about nature. We are learning about the world by experience, which includes the creation of abstract concepts and ideal ideas. This is true when we learn to understand the nature of the physical world, but also true when we learn about ourselves and about our fellow man. ‘Creating images of a reality’ happens via the affective faculty in our brain. An example might help you to experience this fact rather than thinking it out theoretically – When someone talks about cars and you create a particular image of a car in your mind, upon closer examination you will find that this particular image of a car, the brand, its colour, size, speed, etc. is directly linked to a feeling. In this case it would most likely be a desire, a liking, or a favourable memory. If there is no particular liking of this or that car, you won’t produce an image when hearing the word ‘car’ but nevertheless you will know what the generic term ‘car’ stands for. As for ‘scientific ideas about nature’ – scientific ideas are but working models or theories for exploration purposes that will have to be proven to be verifiable, objective actuality in order to be considered scientific facts. And a fact is –
And is doubt enough for you? No. Or should I say I don’t know. But doubt has kept me going, not allowing me to settle to any belief and has saved me from surrendering myself to anybody. Seeing yours and Peter’s account of your spiritual journey, I think it has been a pretty useful asset. Doubt as feeling doubt has no value at all; it is just the equivalent to believing. Belief means – I don’t know, doubt means – I don’t know. Doubt as well as belief is an expression of not-knowing and not wanting to know or to investigate the facts for yourself. But scrutiny and scrupulous investigation into so-called facts, truths and dearly-held beliefs is certainly a useful asset. With facts, doubt is then replaced by certainty, and as each doubt is replaced by certainty, one can move on with confidence to the next discovery.
I should like to add a few words to my prior email. In Greek language we have to words. Symban for universe and cosmos for the planets, earth etc. So I can think that right now the most distant star from earth must have a finite distance. Even if the universe expands the distance of this star will tend to infinity but will remain always finite. I can see that the space is infinite in the sense that this star living and moving in this space might reach a distance bigger than any given number in light’s years and will continue forever to his distance to be bigger and bigger indefinitely (until the star collapse). If you mean that by infinity (space) o.k., I agree with you. The sensate experience of the infinitude of the universe only happens when ‘I’ step out of the way and thus remove the boundaries and limitations of ‘self’-induced narrow-mindedness. When this happens, all ideas, beliefs and theories that propose a creation event, an expansion or contraction and a doomsday ending of the physical universe are seen as what they are – beliefs and theories. Being here now as this flesh and blood body only – without any identity whatsoever – enables the infinitude of the universe to be apparent and this infinitude is wondrous, unparalleled, without an edge, without a centre, having no outside to it, having had no beginning nor will it have an ending. As long as your contemplations are based on the currently-fashionable scientific theories of an expanding universe – with a Big Bang beginning, replete with all sorts of unseen, unseeable and unmeasurable phenomena and a Diabolical End – then you will remain locked into a ‘self’-centred view and you cut yourself off from experiencing directly and sensately the splendour and magnificence of the peerless and perfect physical universe. Let me sum up what you have presented as ‘scientific facts’ so far –
These ‘scientific facts’ are all examples of spiritual belief, the belief that proposes that the physical world is merely a by-product of ‘my’ consciousness, the belief that ‘I’ am the creator of all that ‘I’ see. If you aspire to become free from the emotional and instinctual bondage created by the psychological and psychic entity it is necessary to rigorously and sincerely question the way ‘you’ perceive the world. That means questioning your spiritual awareness and your spiritual beliefs and in that process of questioning it is vital to include the spiritual belief that ‘we must always be in the state of not-knowing’, as you said to No 21 the other day. The way to discover a belief is to check out whether the theory or belief you hold needs you to actively believe in it in order for it to exist. A fact can stand by itself, whereas a belief always needs faith. To quote from the AF Glossary –
It does take courage to question the view that the universe is solely a product of one’s own consciousness, particularly as so many others hold to the same view that the universe is a product of their own consciousness. But hey, the actual universe exists even after ‘I’ as the creator cease to create ‘my’ universe. Not having to be the creator of all that you see and feel is an enormous burden to be freed from and it is an exquisite and delicious freedom to be gained.
I should like to ask you, what do you mean by scientific fact? Sure.
That makes a scientific fact ‘a thing known for certain to have occurred’ ‘according to the objective principles of scientific method’. Is gravity for you a scientific fact? Is a leaf falling because of the gravity, or just for unknown reasons? Facts are not a matter of personal opinion. A fact is a ‘datum of experience’, human experience. To make a fact a matter of personal agreement or disagreement would be silly. As far as I know it is universally accepted that a force known as gravity acts on all objects on this planet. Are you proposing evidence to the contrary? Is the earth for you round or flat? The nature of the earth is a well-known fact for most humans on the planet. If the nature of the earth is in question for you I suggest that you verify the fact for yourself. The photographs taken by orbiting astronauts or by those standing on the moon are sufficient evidence for me. Probably you say it is round, because Richard called Jesus a flat earth godman. I don’t rely on Richard’s writing to determine if I am living on a disk or a globe, do you? That means that you as Richard and me and others we know now that the earth is round. It was you who introduced the question if the earth was ‘round or flat’. Given that you hold the concept that ‘the tree is not green, the brain is giving the colour’, it might be for you that the earth is not a sphere, the brain is giving the shape. That means you are accepting scientific facts. As I said, it is silly to have a personal opinion about facts – a fact is ‘a datum of experience’ and manifestly clear. However, a discerning eye and ear is needed in order to ascertain what is fact and what is merely theory, postulation, concept, commonly agreed, belief, assumption, speculation, imagination, myth, wisdom, real or true. The so-called scientific facts quoted above, which you presented recently to the list, are all examples of theory, postulation, concept, assumption and plain imagination. Is the roundness of the earth proved by AF? That this planet is spherical is patently clear – evidence can be observed here – http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030714.html Why then you want to prove the infinity of the universe through AF? I simply stated the fact that the physical universe we flesh and blood bodies actually live in is infinite and eternal. It was you who questioned the infinitude of the physical universe by introducing God into the conversation –
by suggesting parallel universes, something which is impossible in an infinite universe –
and by presenting a spurious postulation as to why the universe can’t be infinite –
I do not ‘want to prove the infinity of the universe’ – it is a fact that is patently clear to anyone who undertakes a down-to-earth contemplation about the physical nature of the universe, i.e. unhampered by spiritual belief and affective feelings. Do you know any scientific proof that the universe is finite or infinite? It is up to the people who propose that the universe is finite, has an edge to it and has something beyond that edge to come up with empirical proof for their concepts, theories, formulas and speculations. Until that happens the theories that the universe is finite in size will remain theories. You said though that since you had the insight that the universe is infinite, then means that there was not place for god to exist prior the universe for him to create it. How can you be so sure about that? We have covered this issue before. Here is the relevant piece of conversation –
If let’s say we did not know yet that earth is round, should you be able to say that in fact is round and prove it through this flesh and blood body? So science has its validity. Are you disputing the fact that the earth is spherical in shape despite the
empirical evidence that this is so or are merely indulging in a philosophical / theoretical argument? An actualist is
always attentive to the When one makes the distinction between applied empirical science and theoretical mystical science then it becomes clear that the earth being round is proven by the first category of science whereas the ‘scientific facts’ introduced by you as quoted above belong to the second category of science … in other words they are beliefs. You also said
I never said that for the simple reason that I don’t know what consciousness is. I said that the brain is co-creator of what we see hear etc. I will insist on that because I see it like one axiom, not theory, but axiom. It is a fact also now with the new science, neuroscience. As far as I can ascertain, you have not used the word ‘co-creator’ before, what you have said is –
If you prefer to live your life thinking that you are the ‘co-creator’ of all you see and consider this to be an unchangeable unquestionable axiom, then that is your personal choice. Personally I found that it makes no sense to discuss the content of others’ beliefs unless they themselves are interested in questioning and investigating their own beliefs in order to become free from the grip of ancient superstition. I am really puzzled why I can not convey it. You are conveying your views very clearly. What you fail to understand is that you are trying to convince actualists that there ‘really truly is something else’ other than the actuality that human beings sensately experience. In short, you are busy flogging your beliefs to those who are upfront that beliefs are the bane of humankind.
Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
