Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

with Correspondent No. 78


October 26 2004

RESPONDENT: I am definitely trying to practice actualism, but I have not received one answer to any of my questions I have posed to you. You know I don’t expect you to be some sort of guru or anything, just would like some info. Earlier you asked ‘where have I ever been evasive in answering direct questions to me?’ and it seems to me that my direct questions have been evaded.

RICHARD: I have just now gone back through all twelve of the e-mails you have written to this mailing list and found the following three addressed specifically to me:

• [Respondent]: ‘I have been practicing your method for about 2 months now with significant changes in my life. Gotta enjoy that intense sensation in the amygdala! Before I discovered your experience/method, I was doing Vipassana the Goenka way. There I also had big changes in my life. I still sit now, what do you think of that? I sit, and try my damnedest to be this body and every sensation that is a part of it, delighting in the change. Do you see any conflict with this and actualism? This sitting is very restful, but that seems to be its main function now. I am trying to decide if it would be beneficial for me to chuck it, but when I can really experience the sensations, I get STRONG pressures/sensations in the amygdala, an indication of change, and I propose that this is accelerating the process – what do you think?’ (Thursday 07/10/2004 AEST).

And:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am new to the list, but have been practicing quite some time now. I posted a question for you right before you left recently, but you never got around to it. My question is this – What is wrong with sitting by yourself and thoroughly enjoying the changing sensations that show up in the body? (Friday 22/10/2004 AEST).

And:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am in a class called philosophy and psychology of the self, and I have the opportunity to have many wonderful conversations with my professor. He defines beauty as complexity harmonized – where do you have a problem with that? If you say that harmony is not a fact or is subjective, then how is peace not the same? (Saturday 23/10/2004 AEST).

If all it takes is to not respond to each and every e-mail each and any person addresses to me in order to qualify as being evasive (synonyms: elusive, slippery, shifty, cagey, hard to pin down, equivocal, ambiguous, vague) in answering a direct question then all I can do is tug my forelock and say ‘guilty as charged, milord’ as there are an untold number of e-mails I have not responded to.

You asked what I thought of you still doing Vipassana Bhavana – aka ‘Insight Meditation’ – in the way Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west (as in your ‘I still sit now’ phrasing), and whether I saw any conflict with that and actualism, plus what I thought of your proposal that it is accelerating the process of you trying your damnedest to be the body and every sensation that is a part of it.

First of all, in regards to your query, here is what Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) had to say:

• ‘Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta – Impermanence, Suffering and Egolessness – are the three essential characteristics of things in the Teaching of the Buddha. If you know anicca correctly, you will know dukkha as its corollary and anattā as ultimate truth. It takes time to understand the three together. Impermanence (anicca) is, of course, the essential fact which must be first experienced and understood by practice. Mere book-knowledge of the Buddha-Dhamma will not be enough for the correct understanding of anicca because the experiential aspect will be missing. It is only through experiential understanding of the nature of anicca as an ever-changing process within you that you can understand anicca in the way the Buddha would like you to understand it. (... ...) The real meaning of anicca is that Impermanence or Decay is the inherent nature of everything that exists in the Universe – whether animate or inanimate. The Buddha taught His disciples that everything that exists at the material level is composed of ‘kalāpas’. Kalāpas are material units very much smaller than atoms, which die out immediately after they come into being. Each kalāpa is a mass formed of the eight basic constituents of matter, the solid, liquid, calorific and oscillatory, together with colour, smell, taste, and nutriment. The first four are called primary qualities, and are predominant in a kalāpa. The other four are subsidiaries, dependent upon and springing from the former. A kalāpa is the minutest particle in the physical plane – still beyond the range of science today. It is only when the eight basic material constituents unite together that the kalāpa is formed. In other words, the momentary collocation of these eight basic elements of behaviour makes a man just for that moment, which in Buddhism is known as a kalāpa. The life-span of a kalāpa is termed a moment, and a trillion such moments are said to elapse during the wink of a man’s eye. These kalāpas are all in a state of perpetual change or flux. To a developed student in vipassanā meditation they can be felt as a stream of energy’.(U Ba Khin, The Essentials of Buddha Dhamma in Meditative Practice http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html).

Thus where you say you can ‘really experience the sensations’ whilst still sitting now (doing insight meditation the way Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west) then what you are experiencing – a stream of energy known as kalāpas – is impermanence or decay, and its corollary, suffering itself ... neither of which has anything to do with who you really are as you who are trying your damnedest to be the body, and every sensation that is a part of it (aka the kalāpas), are an illusion.

And I say this, not only out of my own experience, but also because of what the very goal of Vipassana Bhavana makes crystal clear:

• [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘... we should understand that each action – whether by deed, word or thought – leaves behind an active force called ‘saṅkhāra’ (or ‘kamma’ in popular terminology), which goes to the credit or debit account of the individual, according to whether the action is good or bad. There is, therefore, an accumulation of saṅkhāra (or Kamma) with everyone, which functions as the supply-source of energy to sustain life, which is inevitably followed by suffering and death. It is by the development of the power inherent in the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anattā, that one is able to rid oneself of the saṅkhāra accumulated in one’s own personal account. This process begins with the correct understanding of anicca, while further accumulations of fresh actions and the reduction of the supply of energy to sustain life are taking place simultaneously, from moment to moment and from day to day. It is, therefore, a matter of a whole lifetime or more to get rid of all one’s saṅkhāra. He who has rid himself of all saṅkhāra comes to the end of suffering, for then no saṅkhāra remains to give the necessary energy to sustain him in any form of life. *On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering*. For us today who take to vipassanā meditation, it would suffice if we can understand anicca well enough to reach the first stage of an Ariya (a Noble person), that is, a Sotāpanna or stream-enterer, who will not take more than seven lives to come to the end of suffering’. [emphasis added]. (U Ba Khin, The Essentials of Buddha Dhamma in Meditative Practice http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html).

Hence where you ask what is wrong with sitting by yourself, and thoroughly enjoying the changing sensations that show up in the body, you are not only committing the cardinal error of trying to identify with that which is impermanence or decay (which, according to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, is ‘dukkha’) but you who are trying to so identify are not who you really are anyway (the perfected saint who, at the termination of your life, will pass into an after-death peace).

As to how all this conflicts with actualism: both who you currently are (an illusion) and who you really are (a delusion) can never be the flesh and blood body ... both the thinker (the ego) and the feeler (being itself) are forever locked-out of actuality.

In regards to your professor defining beauty as complexity harmonised and, if harmony is not a fact or is subjective, then how peace is not the same: all I can say is that I have never said that harmony is not actual/is subjective ... it is beauty itself – the very feeling of beauty – which has no existence in actuality.

When I speak of living in peace and harmony I am referring to living in accord, amity, fellowship, and so on (and not as in blending, balance, symmetry, and so forth).

November 06 2004

RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘body’.

RICHARD: As I can only presume that by ‘SC ‘body’’ you are referring me to my ‘Selected Correspondence’ topic labelled ‘Body’ I checked through both pages and cannot find ‘Vipassana’ mentioned at all: if you could provide the text where Richard ‘perhaps’ does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought.

And the reason why I suggest this is also because of this (in a recent post):

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) I myself do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition, but the [Vipassana] technique works and it is not at all what Richard or Vineeto describes it to be. THAT is why I say they do not understand the technique’. (Saturday 06/11/2004 AEDST).

As you not provide the text, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is ‘not at all’ what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to.

RESPONDENT: From what I have been taught, the teaching of Vipassana is to go beyond both body AND consciousness, or mind.

RICHARD: Indeed ... here is but one instance (among many) where Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes it abundantly clear that full release is beyond both body and consciousness:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) Lastly, the discourse drives the point home by explaining that the instructed disciple is

• [quote] ‘Disenchanted with the *body*, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with *consciousness*. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released’. He discerns that ‘Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world’. SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66; ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic).

Note well it says ‘there is nothing further for this world’ ... if that is not a clear indication of a withdrawal from this sensate material world I would like to know what is. [emphasises added].

RESPONDENT: (...) Are you sure actualism is 180 degrees opposite?

RICHARD: Ha ... as I am this flesh and blood body only, and as this flesh and blood body being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, being sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is what consciousness is (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition), I am most assuredly not disenchanted with the body/disenchanted with consciousness ... let alone fully released from same (and thus) discerning there is nothing further for this world.

RESPONDENT: Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks.

RICHARD: As the only occasion I am cognisant of, wherein you have read anything of what I have written about the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west, is the e-mail I wrote to you on Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST – wherein I quoted from what Mr. Ba Khin had to say – I can only assume that you are characterising him (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) as being a quack.

Especially so as you specifically say that you [quote] ‘do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition’ [endquote].

November 07 2004

RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘body’.

RICHARD: As I can only presume that by ‘SC ‘body’’ you are referring me to my ‘Selected Questions’ topic labelled ‘Body’ I checked through both pages and cannot find ‘Vipassana’ mentioned at all: if you could provide the text where Richard ‘perhaps’ does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought.

And the reason why I suggest this is also because of this (in a recent post):

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) I myself do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition, but the [Vipassana] technique works and it is not at all what Richard or Vineeto describes it to be. THAT is why I say they do not understand the technique’. (Saturday 06/11/2004 AEDST).

As you not provide the text, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is ‘not at all’ what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to.

RESPONDENT: (...) Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks.

RICHARD: As the only occasion I am cognisant of, wherein you have read anything of what I have written about the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west, is the e-mail I wrote to you on Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST – wherein I quoted from what Mr. Ba Khin had to say – I can only assume that you are characterising him (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) as being a quack. Especially so as you specifically say that you [quote] ‘do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Ok –

RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you saying ‘Ok’ (as in an assent or acquiescence in response to a question or statement) to my assumption that it is Mr. Ba Khin – Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master – whom you are characterising as being a quack?

RESPONDENT: Actually I was referring to your general description of Vipassana and the SC body from Vineeto.

RICHARD: If you could provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to where you think Richard [quote] ‘perhaps’ [endquote] does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought.

Furthermore, as you do not provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is [quote] ‘not at all’ [endquote] what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to.

RESPONDENT: I just figured you guys agree on most of the things you say about actualism.

RICHARD: Indeed we do ... however, as the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west is not, and never will be, actualism there is no reason to suppose that such concordance would extend to each and every detail of one of the multitudinous sub-sects of the multiplicity of sects which subsist in the religious denomination known as ‘Buddhism’.

Speaking personally, I always leave sectarian disputes to the sectarians to deal with.

November 08 2004

RESPONDENT: Richard – you may also want to look at this and explain how you can still assert the 180 degree different-ness of actualism and what you call spirituality. Sure, you don’t have to know everything about all the different sects and such, but you better know enough to be able to assert how what you say and what others say is actually 180 deg. opposite.

[Richard]: ‘Actual freedom: This physical universe is beginningless and endless (unborn and undying). Spiritual freedom: God (by whatever name) is beginningless and endless (unborn and undying)’.

No God in Vipassana., this becomes clear after practice.

RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘The law of nature is such that when you stop creating new sankharas [mental formations] you are on the path of liberation, nirodha-gamini patipada. The Buddha called it dukkha-nirodha-gamini patipada, the path to eradicate all miseries; and he has also called it vedana-nirodha-gamini patipada, the path to eradicate all vedana [sensation]. In other words, by walking on the path one reaches the stage where there is no more vedana because *one experiences something beyond mind and matter*. Within the field of mind and matter there is constant contact, because of which there is vedana, whether pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. To come out of vedana is to come out of misery’. [italics in original, emphasis added]. (‘The Snare Of Mara’; www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl0002.html).

Just as a matter of interest ... were you ever to ‘come out of misery’ (as also expressed in the ‘freedom from all suffering’ phrasing below) just what is your plan for informing this mailing list of your success? And here is why I ask:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘When one experiences the truth of nibbana – a stage beyond the entire sensorium – all the six sense organs stop working. *There can’t be any contact with objects outside*, so sensation ceases. At this stage there is freedom from all suffering’. [emphasis added]. (‘Buddha’s Path Is to Experience Reality’; www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl9510.html).

Here is some more on that ‘something’ referred to in the first quote which is beyond mind and matter:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... transcending the field of mind and matter, one comes to *the ultimate truth* which is beyond all sensory experience, beyond the phenomenal world. In this transcendent reality there is no more anicca [impermanence]: nothing arises, and therefore nothing passes away. It is a stage without birth or becoming: the deathless. While the meditator experiences this reality, the senses do not function and therefore sensations cease. This is the experience of nirodha, the cessation of sensations and of suffering’. [emphasis added]. (‘Sensation – The Key to Satipattana’; www.vri.dhamma.org/archives/ddsensation.html).

November 09 2004

RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘body’.

RICHARD: As I can only presume that by ‘SC ‘body’’ you are referring me to my ‘Selected Correspondence’ topic labelled ‘Body’ I checked through both pages and cannot find ‘Vipassana’ mentioned at all: if you could provide the text where Richard ‘perhaps’ does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought. And the reason why I suggest this is also because of this (in a recent post): [Respondent]: ‘(...) I myself do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition, but the [Vipassana] technique works and it is not at all what Richard or Vineeto describes it to be. THAT is why I say they do not understand the technique’. [endquote]. As you not provide the text, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is ‘not at all’ what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to.

RESPONDENT: (...) Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks.

RICHARD: As the only occasion I am cognisant of, wherein you have read anything of what I have written about the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west, is the e-mail I wrote to you on Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST – wherein I quoted from what Mr. Ba Khin had to say – I can only assume that you are characterising him (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) as being a quack. Especially so as you specifically say that you [quote] ‘do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Ok –

RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you saying ‘Ok’ (as in an assent or acquiescence in response to a question or statement) to my assumption that it is Mr. Ba Khin – Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master – whom you are characterising as being a quack?

RESPONDENT: Actually I was referring to your general description of Vipassana and the SC body from Vineeto.

RICHARD: If you could provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to where you think Richard [quote] ‘perhaps’ [endquote] does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought. Furthermore, as you do not provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is [quote] ‘not at all’ [endquote] what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to.

RESPONDENT: I just figured you guys agree on most of the things you say about actualism.

RICHARD: Indeed we do ... however, as the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west is not, and never will be, actualism there is no reason to suppose that such concordance would extend to each and every detail of one of the multitudinous sub-sects of the multiplicity of sects which subsist in the religious denomination known as ‘Buddhism’. Speaking personally, I always leave sectarian disputes to the sectarians to deal with.

RESPONDENT: You’re right, Richard, on pretty much all counts there.

RICHARD: So as to save spelling it out in full a third time around here is an itemised summary of what has transpired so far:

1. You think that Richard, perhaps, does not know what he is talking about when he speaks of Vipassana ... without providing any text where such speaking occurs.
2. You state that the [Vipassana] technique is not at all what Richard describes it to be ... without providing the text where such describing happens.
3. You say that Richard does not understand the [Vipassana] technique ... without providing the text wherein such lack of understanding takes place.
4. You suggest that, maybe, Richard just knows Vipassana as taught by quacks ... without providing any text where such teaching. is mentioned.
5. You refer me to what you, somewhat vaguely, depict as my ‘general description of Vipassana’ for the text pertaining to items numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 ... without providing the text wherein such a description is to be found.
6. You hedgingly allow I am right on ‘pretty much all’ counts there ... without specifying what the ‘counts’ are or where the ‘there’ is.

Not all that surprisingly I am reminded of what you wrote two weeks ago:

• [Respondent]: ‘As it is right now my professor of p+p [philosophy and psychology] of the self is having quite a hard time with me ...’. (Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST).

RESPONDENT: If you refuse to defend Vineeto’s understanding of Vipassana your responses are not flawed one bit.

RICHARD: This is what I was referring to when I said what I did in regards sectarian disputes (from the same e-mail I responded to at the top of this page): 

• [Respondent]: ‘... her [Vineeto’s] understanding of Vipassana is in err. It must be Osho’s understanding, which also was in err’. (Thursday 28/10/2004 AEST).

There is no way you are going to inveigle me into a dispute about the errancy/ inerrancy of Mr. Satya Goenka’s certified teachers’ understanding of Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded vis-à-vis the errancy/ inerrancy of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s certified teachers’ understanding of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s understanding of Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded – nor into any dispute about the errancy/ inerrancy of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s certified teachers’ understanding of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded for that matter – let alone into defending Vineeto’s understanding of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s certified teachers’ understanding of either Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded or Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s understanding of Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded.

No way at all.

November 25 2004

RESPONDENT: You say that trust is antithetical to the AF method. Yet you say in ‘The Highly Esteemed Compassion Perpetuates Sorrow’ that: [quote] ‘I have the greatest admiration for ‘Richard the identity’: He was willing to self-immolate so that I could be here. He never knew me, but was ***utterly confident*** that the universe knew what it was doing.’ [emphasis added]. So you needed confidence? I have posted the definition of trust below for evidence that you have stated that you had to trust in the universe ... [quote] ‘trust \Trust\, v. i. 1. To have trust; to be credulous; to be won to confidence; to confide. 2. To be confident, as of something future; to hope. 3. To sell or deliver anything in reliance upon a promise of payment; to give credit. To trust in, To trust on, to place confidence in,; to rely on; to depend. ‘Trust in the Lord, and do good.’ –Ps. xxxvii. 3. ‘A priest ... on whom we trust.’ –Chaucer. To trust to or unto, to depend on; to have confidence in; to rely on. (Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.). [Addendum: Never mind – ignore the above question, Richard, I have already understood the answer there. :)]

RESPONDENT No. 68: No. 78, would you mind sharing what ‘I have already understood the answer there’? Richard, I am still interested in your response.

RICHARD: Why? I clearly use the word ‘confident’ yet your co-respondent sees fit to look-up the word ‘trust’ in a dictionary – and then posts that definition as being [quote] ‘the evidence’ [endquote] I have stated I had to trust in the universe – as if I had, in fact, said the identity who was inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago was *utterly trustful* that the universe knew what it was doing.

Not having access to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary I can only provide what the Merriam-Webster has to say about the word I actually used:

• ‘confident: 1. characterised by assurance; esp. self-reliant [having confidence in and exercising one’s own powers or judgement]; 2. obs. trustful [full of trust], confiding; 3a. full of conviction, certain b. cocksure’. (©Merriam-Webster).

Just by-the-by I see that a couple of other dictionaries also say the ‘trustful’ meaning is obsolete:

• ‘confident: (obsolete) 1. trustful, confiding’. (Oxford Dictionary).
• ‘confident: 4. obsolete confiding; trustful. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

Be that as it may ... this is the essence of what to be ‘characterised by assurance’ means to the Merriam-Webster’s compilers:

• ‘assurance: (...) the state of being assured [to give confidence to; to make sure or certain; convince; to inform positively; to make certain the coming or attainment of]; a being certain in the mind; confidence of mind or manner; easy freedom from self-doubt or uncertainty; something that inspires or tends to inspire confidence’. (©Merriam-Webster).

Here is what certainty (aka ‘an easy freedom from uncertainty’ just above) means to them:

• ‘certainty: something that is certain; the quality or state of being certain esp. on the basis of evidence (...) certainty and certitude are very close, certainty may stress the existence of objective proof: ‘claims that cannot be confirmed with scientific certainty’, while certitude may emphasise a faith in something not needing or not capable of proof: ‘believes with certitude in an afterlife’. (©Merriam-Webster).

Anyway, dictionary definitions aside, the quote of mine you are enquiring about, at the top of this page, comes from a section of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site entitled ‘Audio-Taped Dialogues’ and the very first conversation in that section is titled ‘Confidence Is Born Out Of Perfection’ ... here is the relevant passage:

R: (...) The mind is a fertile breeding ground for fantasies and hallucinations; if one backs it up with hope, trust, belief and faith then anything weird can eventuate. *Instead, make full use of a confidence born out of the peak experience* [a pure consciousness experience]; the surety that comes from a solid knowing ... an irrefutable knowing, not a flight of fancy or some religious epiphany or spiritual visionary occurrence.
(...)
R: One can experience the ground of one’s being – the basis of ‘me’ – becoming as quicksand. One does not know where to place oneself, orientate oneself, as the very ground beneath becomes as shifting sand.
Q(1): I can relate to that.
R: This is where one can rely upon this confidence born out of the experience of perfection [the PCE].
Q(1): Sometimes there are things coming in so quickly; sometimes there is so much there, so much happening that there is a ‘Wow!’, there is a ‘This is excellent’. No sooner do I feel I’ve tapped something than the next thing is there to strike me where I think ‘My God what else is going to happen!’ Essentially my mind is operating in a way where I’ve never seen it so clearly.
R: This is a prime example of pure intent operating. This engenders a reliability to back up that confidence. One apprehends that, ultimately, nothing can go wrong – in the universal sense, that is. When one knowingly steps onto the path of actual freedom, carried along by the pure intent born of the peak experience [a PCE] ... when one extends oneself for the sake of the best for oneself, for humankind and for the universe, then all will be well. *There is no need for trust whatsoever* ... with its requisite loyalty to a psychic adumbration called The Truth’. Neither is faith and belief to play a part, giving consolation and hope to the metaphysical aspirant. (...). [emphasises added].

I do not see how I can be more clear than that.

RESPONDENT: I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF ...

RICHARD: I have no difficulty whatsoever in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition – nor spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakening for that matter – and there is nothing in the above exchange, nor at the link provided, which could possibly be construed as such as I clearly delineate just what I mean by my usage of the word in question, provide various explanations of diverse dictionary definitions of that word, include a relevant passage from another conversation in the same section whence you obtained the quote, and provide a link to even more discussion/explanation of that word.

RESPONDENT: ... [I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF] as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections.

RICHARD: I see ... you read the word ‘confident’ and feel that it means ‘trust’, then, even though there is nothing in the passage from which you obtained the quote of mine (at the top of this page) to indicate or even imply that it does? Vis.:

Q: ‘... mostly, people don’t want to be here. There is a basic resentment against being a body and being here.
R: ‘Which brings us back to the belief that life is inherently bad. In 1980, when I was looking at the stars one night, I realised that I could no longer believe that this gigantic happening called the universe could possibly be ‘set-up’ so that I would be perpetually miserable in it. Or any of us humans. It is simply too enormous for it all to be some sick joke, some divine punishment or some random accident ... what nonsense! I realised the vast perfection of everything happening all at once. From that moment on I could no longer go on believing it all to be bad. Not that I then believed it to be good ... it is no use whatsoever to be swapping one belief for another; going from a negative belief to a positive belief still leaves you living in the land of belief. Seeing the fact is what is important.
The fact is that this universe is already perfect. It is only ‘me’ who is seeing it wrongly. ‘I’, as an identity, a self, should not be here. ‘I’ live in mortal danger of being found out for the usurper that ‘I’ am ... so ‘I’ am ready and willing to believe in ‘Whatever’ to appease ‘my’ unease. ‘I’ avoid looking at the fact, for such a ‘seeing’ will lead to ‘my’ inevitable demise. ‘I’ will spin fantasies of an after-life to ensure my immortality ... anything to deny death.
*I have the greatest admiration for ‘Richard the identity’: He was willing to self-immolate so that I could be here. He never knew me, but was utterly confident that the universe knew what it was doing*. He was happy to disappear so that all this could eventuate. He was prepared to go all the way without reservation ... the ‘boots and all’ approach, he called it. What are you saving yourself for? Reach out. Extend yourself. All one gets by waiting is yet more waiting. Patience may be a virtue, but procrastination is an abomination.
Be wary of virtues ... they are designed to perpetuate the self. [emphasis added].

I have highlighted the sentences you quoted ... if you could explain just how it is that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words, to describe an actual freedom from the human condition, as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections, it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: Everyone I talk to considers joy and delight to be emotional experiences.

RICHARD: So? None of the people I was talking to in the above conversation considered being confident to be an emotional experience called trust – not one of them – as seeing the fact renders all trust (and faith, hope, belief, and certitude, for that matter) null and void.

Seeing the fact means there is only confidence ... the assurance of the surety that certainty provides of its own accord.

November 25 2004

RESPONDENT: (...) I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF ...

RICHARD: I have no difficulty whatsoever in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition – nor spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment for that matter – and there is nothing in the above exchange [now snipped], nor at the link provided [now snipped], which could possibly be construed as such as I clearly delineate just what I mean by my usage of the word in question, provide various explanations of diverse dictionary definitions of that word, include a relevant passage [now snipped] from another conversation in the same section whence you obtained the quote [now snipped], and provide a link to even more discussion/explanation of that word [now snipped].

RESPONDENT: ... [I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF] as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections.

RICHARD: I see ... you read the word ‘confident’ and feel that it means ‘trust’, then, even though there is nothing in the passage from which you obtained the quote of mine (at the top of this page) to indicate or even imply that it does? Vis.: Q: ‘... mostly, people don’t want to be here. There is a basic resentment against being a body and being here. R: ‘Which brings us back to the belief that life is inherently bad. In 1980, when I was looking at the stars one night, I realised that I could no longer believe that this gigantic happening called the universe could possibly be ‘set-up’ so that I would be perpetually miserable in it. Or any of us humans. It is simply too enormous for it all to be some sick joke, some divine punishment or some random accident ... what nonsense! I realised the vast perfection of everything happening all at once. From that moment on I could no longer go on believing it all to be bad. Not that I then believed it to be good ... it is no use whatsoever to be swapping one belief for another; going from a negative belief to a positive belief still leaves you living in the land of belief. Seeing the fact is what is important. The fact is that this universe is already perfect. It is only ‘me’ who is seeing it wrongly. ‘I’, as an identity, a self, should not be here. ‘I’ live in mortal danger of being found out for the usurper that ‘I’ am ... so ‘I’ am ready and willing to believe in ‘Whatever’ to appease ‘my’ unease. ‘I’ avoid looking at the fact, for such a ‘seeing’ will lead to ‘my’ inevitable demise. ‘I’ will spin fantasies of an after-life to ensure my immortality ... anything to deny death. *I have the greatest admiration for ‘Richard the identity’: He was willing to self-immolate so that I could be here. He never knew me, but was utterly confident that the universe knew what it was doing*. He was happy to disappear so that all this could eventuate. He was prepared to go all the way without reservation ... the ‘boots and all’ approach, he called it. What are you saving yourself for? Reach out. Extend yourself. All one gets by waiting is yet more waiting. Patience may be a virtue, but procrastination is an abomination. Be wary of virtues ... they are designed to perpetuate the self. [emphasis added]. I have highlighted the sentences you quoted ... if you could explain just how it is that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words, to describe an actual freedom from the human condition, as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections, it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: Everyone I talk to considers joy and delight to be emotional experiences.

RICHARD: So? None of the people I were talking to in the above conversation considered being confident to be an emotional experience called trust – not one of them – as seeing the fact renders all trust (and faith, hope, belief, and certitude, for that matter) null and void. Seeing the fact means there is only confidence ... the assurance of the surety that certainty provides of its own accord.

RESPONDENT: Did you read my response to No. 68 explaining ‘I have already understood the answer there’?

RICHARD: Yes ... here it is in its entirety:

• [Respondent]: ‘Well, basically Richard is describing trust as a relying on something, and this sets you up for disappointment. To have confidence or surety implies a past record of consistent action. Someone may ‘trust’ a stranger, or trust that the gov’t of the U.S. may act wisely, but there is no way you can have confidence in a stranger, and I certainly do not have confidence in my gov’ts decision making abilities’. (Friday 19/11/2004 AEDST).

RESPONDENT: If you did then you would know that I no longer ‘feel’ that you meant trust when you said confidence ...

RICHARD: How can I possibly know that from your (above) response?

Moreover I do not, basically or otherwise, describe trust there as ‘a relying on something’ and neither do I say there that to have confidence or surety ‘implies a past record of consistent action’ in regards to seeing the fact, in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), that this universe is already always perfect and that it is ‘I’/‘me’ who is standing in the way of that perfection being apparent.

At this stage I would suggest you re-read what I actually said (re-posted in full further above) before further engendering even more complexification of what is really a remarkably simple issue ... to wit: that seeing the fact renders all trust (and faith, hope, belief, and certitude, for that matter) null and void.

Which means there is only confidence ... the assurance of the surety that certainty provides of its own accord.

RESPONDENT: ... [If you did then you would know that I no longer ‘feel’ that you meant trust when you said confidence] as this cleared up for me moments after erroneously posting my original message.

RICHARD: I am not responding to your original message – my response (further above) was in response to your response to my response (now snipped) to another co-respondent upon them informing me that they were still interested in my response to your original message – and, as you said in the context of the subject to hand that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition (as words have been created by feeling beings and most words have emotional connections), not being a mind-reader I had every reason to assume you were referring to my response to that co-respondent’s request.

May I ask? What were you referring to, then, and why did you refer to it under the same title and in the same context, anyway?

In other words, if you could provide the text wherein it is obvious that I do indeed, as you say, have difficulty in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition (as words have been created by feeling beings and most words have emotional connections) there would be something of substance to discuss ... and thus clarify.

Plus it would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of emails.

November 25 2004

RESPONDENT: ... [I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF] as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections.

RICHARD: I see ... you read the word ‘confident’ and feel that it means ‘trust’, then, even though there is nothing in the passage from which you obtained the quote of mine at the top of this page [now snipped] to indicate or even imply that it does? Vis.: [snip passage]. I have highlighted the sentences you quoted ... if you could explain just how it is that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words, to describe an actual freedom from the human condition, as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections, it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: ... [Did you read my response to No. 68 explaining ‘I have already understood the answer there’? If you did then you would know that I no longer ‘feel’ that you meant trust when you said confidence] as this cleared up for me moments after erroneously posting my original message.

RICHARD: I am not responding to your original message – my response [now snipped] was in response to your response to my response (now snipped) to another co-respondent upon them informing me that they were still interested in my response to your original message – and, as you said in the context of the subject to hand that you are now beginning to understand how difficult it is for me to use words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition (as words have been created by feeling beings and most words have emotional connections), not being a mind-reader I had every reason to assume you were referring to my response to that co-respondent’s request. May I ask? What were you referring to, then, and why did you refer to it under the same title and in the same context, anyway? In other words, if you could provide the text wherein it is obvious that I do indeed, as you say, have difficulty in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition (as words have been created by feeling beings and most words have emotional connections) there would be something of substance to discuss ... and thus clarify.

RESPONDENT: What I was initially referring to was the fact that when I looked up confidence in the dictionary (Webster’s unabridged revised ed.) I found a synonym for trust.

RICHARD: If you could copy-paste that dictionary’s definition – the ‘Webster’s unabridged revised ed.’ dictionary’s definition – for the word ‘confident’ (as that is the word I used in that audio-taped conversation) in full it may throw some light upon the matter as this is the quote you provided for the word ‘trust’ from that same source:

trust
\Trust\, v. i. 1. To have trust; to be credulous; to be won to confidence; to confide.
2. To be confident, as of something future; to hope.
3. To sell or deliver anything in reliance upon a promise of payment; to give credit.
To trust in, To trust on, to place confidence in,; to rely on; to depend. ‘Trust in the Lord, and do good.’ – Ps. xxxvii. 3. ‘A priest ... on whom we trust.’ – Chaucer.
To trust to or unto, to depend on; to have confidence in; to rely on.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

And the reason I ask is because this is what I found on the internet (at ‘dictionary.com’):

trust
\Trust\, v. i. 1. To have trust; to be credulous; to be won to confidence; to confide.
More to know could not be more to trust. – Shak.
2. To be confident, as of something future; to hope.
I will trust and not be afraid. – Isa. xii. 2.
3. To sell or deliver anything in reliance upon a promise of payment; to give credit.
It is happier sometimes to be cheated than not to trust. – Johnson.
To trust in, To trust on, to place confidence in,; to rely on; to depend.
‘Trust in the Lord, and do good.’ --Ps. xxxvii. 3. ‘A priest ... on whom we trust.’ – Chaucer.
Her widening streets on new foundations trust. – Dryden.
To trust to or unto, to depend on; to have confidence in; to rely on.
They trusted unto the liers in wait. – Judges xx. 36.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Apart from the three illustrative sentences (‘More to know could not be more to trust. – Shak.’ and ‘Her widening streets on new foundations trust. – Dryden’ and ‘They trusted unto the liers in wait. – Judges xx. 36.’) it is identical in every respect, including the typography, to the quote you provided ... and upon clicking on the link-word ‘Source’ the following explanation appears:

• Database Info: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913): This file was converted from the original database on: Sun Feb 22 14:18:06 1998.The original data was distributed with the notice shown below. No additional restrictions are claimed. Please redistribute this changed version under the same conditions and restriction that apply to the original version. Begin file 1 of 24: A. (Version 0.46) of An electronic field-marked version of: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary Version published 1913 by the C. & G. Merriam Co. Springfield, Mass. Under the direction of Noah Porter, D.D., LL.D. This version is copyrighted (C) 1996, 1998 by MICRA, Inc. of Plainfield, NJ. Last edit February 3, 1998. [snip remainder].

Could it be possible you were using a 1913 edition of the Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary – albeit re-presented as being copyrighted © 1996, 1998 by MICRA, Inc. – to provide [quote] ‘the evidence’ [endquote] I have stated I had to trust in the universe?

I not only have the full version of the latest Merriam-Webster’s dictionary on a CD but there is an on-line version of the 10th edition freely available ... and the synonyms for the word ‘confident’ are as follows:

• ‘synonyms: 1. assured, sanguine, secure, self-assured, self-confident, undoubtful; 2. sure [marked by unwavering assurance especially as to the rightness of one’s views or actions], cocksure, positive; 3. presumptuous [marked by or based on bold and excessive self-confidence], brash, brassbound, overconfident, overweening, presuming, pushful, pushy, self-assertive, uppity’. (©Merriam-Webster).

In short: the word ‘trust’, as a synonym for the word ‘confident’, is nowhere to be seen.

RESPONDENT: I was alluding to the fact that using the word confidence spread confusion because of the definition connecting it to trust.

RICHARD: I see ... just because upon your looking-up of the word ‘confident’ in a dictionary, and finding one of the synonyms for it to be ‘trust’, I am the one that, as a fact, is spreading confusion, eh?

RESPONDENT: As you have already cleared up this matter there is NOTHING of substance to discuss ...

RICHARD: If I may point out? There was nothing of substance to discuss in the first place ... other than why there is such a readiness on your part to find a flaw and/or a contradiction and/or an affective component and/or a whatever is prejudicial to what is being presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site (so much so that you dig yourself deeper and deeper into a quagmire of your own making). Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘You say that trust is antithetical to the AF method. Yet you say [snip quote]. So you needed confidence? I have posted the definition of trust below *for evidence* that you have stated that you had to trust in the universe. [emphasis added].

Never mind that you later negated it ... because when I responded to another this was your (unsolicited) observation:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am now beginning to understand how difficult it is for you to use words to describe AF as words have been created by feeling beings, and most words have emotional connections. Everyone I talk to considers joy and delight to be emotional experiences.

As I have no difficulty whatsoever in using words to describe an actual freedom from the human condition – nor spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment for that matter – and as neither of the words ‘joy’ or ‘delight’ appear anywhere in the text in question this can only be a distraction away from the subject to hand ... as in a diversionary ploy, for instance, just as is your continued insistence I attend to another co-respondent’s much-ado-about-nothing allegations, rather than continue to address the topic you not only raised but bought back into with the above observation.

Perhaps this might be of assistance:

• [Richard]: ‘It is pertinent to comprehend that dictionaries are descriptive (and not prescriptive as are scriptures) and reflect more about how words came about, how they have changed, and how they have expanded into other words, rather than what they should mean. I tend to provide dictionary definitions only so as to establish a starting-point for communication ... from this mutually agreed-upon base each co-respondent can apply their own specific nuance of meaning to words as are readily explainable and mutually understandable (such as I do with ‘real’ and ‘actual’ and with ‘truth’ and ‘fact’, for example).
Generally I can suss out what the other means by a word via its context and both where they are coming from and what they are wanting to establish ... if not I ask what they are meaning to convey. [emphasis added].

Would it not have been a lot more conducive to a sensible discussion to have enquired, rather than have made an allegation, as to what I was meaning to convey by my usage of the word ‘confident’ in that audio-taped conversation (given that you apparently could not suss out its meaning via its context and both where I was coming from and what I was wanting to establish)?

Just curious.


CORRESPONDENT No. 78 (Part Two)

RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity