|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 36
RESPONDENT No. 25: I responded to No. 12’s humorous post because to me what you contribute here smacks of delusion, of false and contradictory claims. RICHARD: So as to substantiate your statements, would you care to demonstrate where I am deluded; where I am false; where I am contradictory? Either that or withdraw your easy-to-say throwaway lines. RESPONDENT No. 25: This is not a court your honour (oops.) My statements must stand or fall on their own. You are free to dismiss them. It seems to me that you say you imply that you are free of pride, and yet most of your talks here are about you the person having achieved enlightenment or whatever. If you were really so aware, would you not be more interested in saying things in a way less adversarial? You do not seem interested in co-operation at all – evidently because of your insistence that you do not stoop to the level of others who are in what you claim to be your former state. RESPONDENT: Richard, I am afraid I have to agree with No. 25, your writings abound of hubris. RICHARD: So as to substantiate your statement, would you care to demonstrate where I am presumptuously insolent toward the gods? I provide a verifiable, matter-of-fact and well-researched exposé of all the ‘Teachings’ and all the ‘Teachers’ and the ‘Source’ of ‘The Teachings’ ... there is nothing presumptuous – let alone insolent – about what I present at all. I have personally verified what I have to say by my own direct experiencing ... balanced by an, admittedly ad hoc, study of literally hundreds if not thousands of books, combined with intensive face-to-face discussions with my fellow human beings (some of whom are, or allegedly are, enlightened). It is no little thing that I do, going public like this. RESPONDENT: How can you be sure that you have truly rid yourself of ego? RICHARD: Apart from the dramatic moment of awakening ... there has been eighteen years of twenty four hour a day experiencing. But that is not why I went public (there are ‘ego-dissolved’ peoples popping up like mushrooms these days). After eleven years of the ‘ego-less state’ I likewise had the ‘soul’ dissolve ... both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul died; became extinct; as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. Finished. Kaput. There is no phoenix here to arise from the ashes. RESPONDENT: This is a very practical question, one that I hope you will answer. RICHARD: I am only too happy to answer any question for I have nothing to hide – my life is an open book – as a genuine peace-on-earth is at stake. RESPONDENT: I get the impression from reading your writings that you are probably a really intelligent person, or at least ostentatiously pedantic. RICHARD: My intelligence is not much higher than the average on the scholastic scale ... it is just that it is not crippled by ‘me’ and all ‘my’ should’s, ‘my’ want’s, ‘my’ must’s, ‘my’ doctrinaire disabilities and so on. I am not hindered by feelings clamouring for attention and demanding to be the authority over sensible reason, either. My writing is deliberately ostentatious – to the point of being baroque – but I am no pedant. Basically I talk out of my on-going experiencing ... I refer to written works only to amplify what is actually happening in an historical and cultural context. RESPONDENT: How do you know that you haven’t just intellectualised the whole process? RICHARD: It would be a sheer impossibility to intellectualise this perfection day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. It is unbelievably magical to live in a world without fear, for example ... just perfect peace twenty four hours a day. When I wake up in the morning I have nothing but perfection to ‘look forward to’ and when I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day. I take it for granted that when I wake up the following morning it will be the same perfection ... day after day ... after day after day. It actually happens ... day after day ... after day after day. And this has been my on-going experiencing each moment again for years and years now ... plus I know what ‘I’ did to be here now and I know why I am here, now. Besides, if it were but an ‘intellectualised process’ then I would wake up in the pits, would I not? RESPONDENT: I have known several Thelemites over the years that claimed to have ‘crossed the abyss’ (experienced ego-death), when it was painfully obvious that they had enormous egos still intact. RICHARD: Yet what Mr. Francois Rabelais started has nowt to do with what I write ... what inspires you to make such a comparison? RESPONDENT: They were not making false claims in their eyes, they honestly believed it. RICHARD: Such is the nature of the beast, eh? RESPONDENT: Such is the slippery slope of enlightenment. RICHARD: Aye, the divine is underpinned by the diabolical. RESPONDENT: I get a similar feeling when I read your words. RICHARD: Yet other humans – some of whom who are downright suspicious of me – have been unable to detect anything untoward at all despite the closest observation possible. There are people here in my daily life who observe me closely – very closely – for all of the waking hours of the day. This kind of scrutiny has been going on for eighteen years now ... and has been fruitless as in regards to finding a fault for the last seven years. No-one has been able to observe a discrepancy between what I say about myself and what they see in my behaviour. No one has been able to observe any trace of an identity or a feeling – an emotion or a passion or calenture – in me since 1992. I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists (and by one of them every three months for more than three years) and found to have:
My condition is classified as a psychotic condition in the DSM – IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders) which is the diagnostic criteria used by all psychiatrists and psychologists around the world for diagnosing mental disorders. Also, a psychologist followed my condition at three-weekly intervals from March 1994 to January 1997. I do find it so cute that a freedom from the human condition is considered to be a severe mental disorder. RESPONDENT: I am not baiting you, this is an honest inquiry into the state you claim to be in, but take it as Thou Wilt. RICHARD: Hmm ... thy ‘Thou’ will be wilting like all get-out if you read what is being said with both eyes. You will find that what is written is a factual report that clearly explicates how the human condition came about and how to free oneself from it ... and clear description of life in this actual world where peace-on-earth already always is. It is possible.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I am afraid I have to agree with No. 25, your writings abound of hubris. RICHARD: So as to substantiate your statement, would you care to demonstrate where I am presumptuously insolent toward the gods? I provide a verifiable, matter-of-fact and well-researched exposé of all the ‘Teachings’ and all the ‘Teachers’ and the ‘Source’ of ‘The Teachings’ ... there is nothing presumptuous – let alone insolent – about what I present at all. I have personally verified what I have to say by my own direct experiencing ... balanced by an, admittedly ad hoc, study of literally hundreds if not thousands of books, combined with intensive face-to-face discussions with my fellow human beings (some of whom are, or allegedly are, enlightened). It is no little thing that I do, going public like this. RESPONDENT: Hubris as I used it is excessive pride and arrogance. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... so as to substantiate your statement, would you care to demonstrate where I am ‘excessively proud and arrogant’? I provide a verifiable, matter-of-fact and well-researched exposé of all the ‘Teachings’ and all the ‘Teachers’ and the ‘Source’ of ‘The Teachings’... there is nothing excessively proud’ – let alone ‘arrogant’ – about what I present at all. I have personally verified what I have to say by my own direct experiencing ... balanced by an, admittedly ad hoc, study of literally hundreds if not thousands of books, combined with intensive face-to-face discussions with my fellow human beings (some of whom are, or allegedly are, enlightened). It is no little thing that I do, going public like this. RESPONDENT: Which I see in your writings. I was not commenting on literature related to the Greek pantheon. And, as No. 25 pointed out, this is not a court of law, and there is no compulsion on my part to back up anything that I have written. RICHARD: Are you really saying that you can state any unsubstantiated thing that you like ... and there is to be no demonstration? No examination? No back-up? No validation? No investigation? No exploration? And you fondly think that this is then a discussion? A dialogue? An exploration into the appalling mess that is the human condition? Are you for real? RESPONDENT: To paraphrase No. 31, the truth comes out in the wash. RICHARD: My experience of India shows that it is the dye that comes out in the wash ... if only their ‘Truth’ washed out so easily the human world would be a far, far better place. RESPONDENT: There is no need for me to compose an exegesis of your writings, you seem to be able to do that yourself. RICHARD: Yet I read what others write with both eyes ... how do you read? An exegesis would clarify what you are understanding of what is being written, would it not? Why this reluctance to engage in meaningful dialogue? What have you got to lose? * RESPONDENT: I have known several Thelemites over the years that claimed to have ‘crossed the abyss’ (experienced ego-death), when it was painfully obvious that they had enormous egos still intact. RICHARD: Yet what Mr. Francois Rabelais started has nowt to do with what I write ... what inspires you to make such a comparison? RESPONDENT: The only people that I have ever met who claimed to be ego-less were in actuality ego-inflated sex-magicians. Thelemites. Yes Francois Rabelais was the first to write of Thelema, but I am sure that you know that Aleister Crowley (the Beast) was its prophet and salesman. RICHARD: Yet what Mr. Aleister Crowley propagated has nowt to do with what I write ... what inspires you to make such a comparison? * RESPONDENT: I am not baiting you, this is an honest inquiry into the state you claim to be in, but take it as Thou Wilt. RICHARD: Hmm ... thy ‘Thou’ will be wilting like all get-out if you read what is being said with both eyes. You will find that what is written is a factual report that clearly explicates how the human condition came about and how to free oneself from it ... and clear description of life in this actual world where peace-on-earth already always is. It is possible. RESPONDENT: Thank you for explaining your state, I am listening. I am curious, are you without Will? RICHARD: I am most definitely without ‘Will’. I have discovered a new way to live life on this verdant planet ... which eliminates the need to humble oneself in a degrading surrender and servitude to some imagined deity. Gone now are the days of having to assiduously practice humility and pacifism in an ultimately futile attempt to become free by transcending the opposites ... the traditional and narrow path of denial and fantasy, negation and hallucination. A wide and wondrous path of blitheness and gaiety is now available for one who wishes to live in the freedom of the actual world.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I am afraid I have to agree with No. 25, your writings abound of hubris. RICHARD: So as to substantiate your statement, would you care to demonstrate where I am presumptuously insolent toward the gods? I provide a verifiable, matter-of-fact and well-researched exposé of all the ‘Teachings’ and all the ‘Teachers’ and the ‘Source’ of ‘The Teachings’ ... there is nothing presumptuous – let alone insolent – about what I present at all. I have personally verified what I have to say by my own direct experiencing ... balanced by an, admittedly ad hoc, study of literally hundreds if not thousands of books, combined with intensive face-to-face discussions with my fellow human beings (some of whom are, or allegedly are, enlightened). It is no little thing that I do, going public like this. RESPONDENT: Hubris as I used it is excessive pride and arrogance. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... so as to substantiate your statement, would you care to demonstrate where I am ‘excessively proud and arrogant’? I provide a verifiable, matter-of-fact and well-researched exposé of all the ‘Teachings’ and all the ‘Teachers’ and the ‘Source’ of ‘The Teachings’... there is nothing excessively proud’ – let alone ‘arrogant’ – about what I present at all. I have personally verified what I have to say by my own direct experiencing ... balanced by an, admittedly ad hoc, study of literally hundreds if not thousands of books, combined with intensive face-to-face discussions with my fellow human beings (some of whom are, or allegedly are, enlightened). It is no little thing that I do, going public like this. RESPONDENT: Didn’t you say all of this already? RICHARD: Yes, but as you pointed out, I said it in the context of ‘hubris’ meaning ‘presumptuous insolence towards the gods’ instead of the ‘excessive pride and arrogance’ that you intended. I corrected my assumption and re-presented my original request for your consideration ... and you still have not answered it. Why? RESPONDENT: Are you being redundant all over again? RICHARD: What inspires you to say that my response was redundant the first time? RESPONDENT: This is like listening to a record that has a lock groove in it. RICHARD: Why? You took the time to write to me that my ‘writings abound of hubris’ and I responded asking you if you would care to demonstrate where the hubris is that you say my writings abound with. This is a Mailing List purportedly set-up to investigate the appalling mess that is the human condition and you see something in me that I do not see ... so I ask you to demonstrate where. You have not ... how am I going to see the error of my ways if you will not demonstrate where the hubris is? Is this too difficult to comprehend? * RESPONDENT: Which I see in your writings. I was not commenting on literature related to the Greek pantheon. And, as No. 25 pointed out, this is not a court of law, and there is no compulsion on my part to back up anything that I have written. RICHARD: Are you really saying that you can state any unsubstantiated thing that you like ... and there is to be no demonstration? No examination? No back-up? No validation? No investigation? No exploration? And you fondly think that this is then a discussion? A dialogue? An exploration into the appalling mess that is the human condition? Are you for real? RESPONDENT: Isn’t this the same exact thing that you responded to No. 25 with? RICHARD: Yes. He does the same thing ... firing off any old statement then declining to substantiate it. How can I take you sincerely if you will not or cannot provide examples to demonstrate that what you see is correct? Why? RESPONDENT: It may be that I do not understand your editing technique. RICHARD: No, it is not an editing technique ... it is a genuine and interactive dialogue. Will you – or can you – engage in meaningful discourse? Or is all this just a game to you? If you do not wish to investigate into the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides then why are you here? Why did you write to me in the first place? Why? * RESPONDENT: To paraphrase No. 31, the truth comes out in the wash. RICHARD: My experience of India shows that it is the dye that comes out in the wash ... if only their ‘Truth’ washed out so easily the human world would be a far, far better place. RESPONDENT: Oh, THEIR truth. Seems like most religions leave unsightly stains. RICHARD: Okay, so by ‘the truth’ you did not mean the truth as epitomised in eastern metaphysical thought. Good. What truth were you referring to when you paraphrased? RESPONDENT: There is no need for me to compose an exegesis of your writings, you seem to be able to do that yourself. RICHARD: Yet I read what others write with both eyes ... how do you read? An exegesis would clarify what you are understanding of what is being written, would it not? Why this reluctance to engage in meaningful dialogue? What have you got to lose? RESPONDENT: I could engage you in dialogue, but Chris Rock is coming on the TV. I am a very lazy man. RICHARD: And so all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides will roll on for another day. Do you never wonder why? * RESPONDENT: I have known several Thelemites over the years that claimed to have ‘crossed the abyss’ (experienced ego-death), when it was painfully obvious that they had enormous egos still intact. RICHARD: Yet what Mr. Francois Rabelais started has nowt to do with what I write ... what inspires you to make such a comparison? RESPONDENT: The only people that I have ever met who claimed to be ego-less were in actuality ego-inflated sex-magicians. Thelemites. Yes Francois Rabelais was the first to write of Thelema, but I am sure that you know that Aleister Crowley (the Beast) was its prophet and salesman. RICHARD: Yet what Mr. Aleister Crowley propagated has nowt to do with what I write ... what inspires you to make such a comparison? RESPONDENT: I thought that I had detected the presence of a Thelemite among us, nothing more. Disturbance in the force kind of thing. RICHARD: Uh-huh ... and you are satisfied now that I am not a Thelemite I take it? Can we proceed? * RESPONDENT: I am not baiting you, this is an honest inquiry into the state you claim to be in, but take it as Thou Wilt. RICHARD: Hmm ... thy ‘Thou’ will be wilting like all get-out if you read what is being said with both eyes. You will find that what is written is a factual report that clearly explicates how the human condition came about and how to free oneself from it ... and clear description of life in this actual world where peace-on-earth already always is. It is possible. RESPONDENT: Thank you for explaining your state, I am listening. I am curious, are you without Will? RICHARD: I am most definitely without ‘Will’. I have discovered a new way to live life on this verdant planet ... which eliminates the need to humble oneself in a degrading surrender and servitude to some imagined deity. Gone now are the days of having to assiduously practice humility and pacifism in an ultimately futile attempt to become free by transcending the opposites ... the traditional and narrow path of denial and fantasy, negation and hallucination. RESPONDENT: Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty I am free at last! RICHARD: Is this a prime example of your – easy-to-say – line: ‘I am listening’? Where have I mentioned any god or goddesses? Tell me, please ... what is your response when you are not listening? * RICHARD: A wide and wondrous path of blitheness and gaiety is now available for one who wishes to live in the freedom of the actual world. RESPONDENT: Reminds me of the time that I smoked hashish from a hookah. RICHARD: Yea verily ... it is somewhat like having a twenty four hour a day drug trip except that there are no side-effects and it is not illegal. Owing nothing to no one I am free from corruption ... perversity has vanished forever. Freeing myself of the altered state of consciousness called spiritual enlightenment was the last step into actuality. ‘My’ extinction was the ending of not only fear, but of all of the affective faculties. As this flesh and blood body only, I am living in the paradisiacal garden that this planet earth is. We are all simply floating in the infinitude of this perfect and pure universe ... coming from nowhere and having nowhere to go to we find ourselves here at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space. Extinction releases one into actuality ... and this actual world is ambrosial, to say the least.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 37): The ‘psychiatric assessment’ was for the official record (I find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition is classified as a severe psychotic disorder) and I wanted that fact on record. RESPONDENT: Why did you want the fact on record? RICHARD: Amongst other reasons: so that peoples with some remnants of commonsense left would be able to see the absurdity of the whole mental health profession ... to a certain extent the psychiatric/psychological profession has become as powerful as the fundamentalist clergy of yore. To put it simply, a person who is said to be ‘egotistical’ is considered to be ... well ... not a nice person, and power-hungry egotist (megalomaniacs) who become dictators can plunge whole nations into bloody war. Ergo: eliminate the ego and the entire problem is dissolved. However, such a person is officially classified as ‘depersonalised’ and is diagnosed psychotic. Now I ask you: is it not the dictator who is psychotic? I could go on through the other symptoms but I said I would put it simply ... I am only too happy to elaborate. RESPONDENT: What part of you wanted it? RICHARD: The intelligent ‘part’ that wants all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides to stop. RESPONDENT: I was under the impression that these tests were taken after you had rid yourself of ego, and perhaps soul as well. Do I err here? RICHARD: No, you do not err, the on-going assessment was after the identity in its totality became extinct. * RICHARD: No psychiatric or psychological treatment would meet what I was wanting – I was looking to go beyond both normal and abnormal – thus I was not seeking to ‘undergo treatment’ but rather to find out, experientially (as I did in other fields) what was the extent and range of other human’s experience and solutions. RESPONDENT: I must have erred, because I would not think, in my present state of egoity, that an egoless person would think in terms of going ‘beyond both normal and abnormal’. RICHARD: No you have not erred, it is my error: I omitted the small quotes. Vis.: [Richard]: ‘No psychiatric or psychological treatment would meet what ‘I’ was wanting – ‘I’ was looking to go beyond both normal and abnormal – thus I was not seeking to ‘undergo treatment’ but rather to find out, experientially (as I did in other fields) what was the extent and range of other human’s experience and solutions’. RESPONDENT: Are not normal, abnormal, and ?????? simply different states of the same thing? RICHARD: No ... thus far in human history one has had only two choices: being human (normal) or being divine (abnormal). Now there is a third alternative ... and it outstrips any altered state of consciousness. RESPONDENT: Beyond, before, etc have no meaning, do they, without the ego frame-of-reference? RICHARD: Indeed not ... but I write for peoples with an ‘ego frame-of-reference’ (and I do have a fully functioning memory). RESPONDENT: And once again, who is wanting to go beyond? RICHARD: Whosoever reads this and has it strike a chord. RICHARD: Yes, the ‘I’ that was revved up desire like ‘he’ had never desired before ... only ‘he’ channelled all of ‘his’ desire into enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent through ‘his’ demise. And ‘he’ succeeded. RESPONDENT: Desire is ego. RICHARD: Oh yes ... and the ego has a job to do: When ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. This is altruism
RESPONDENT: Correspondent No. 36 writes to Richard: ‘Are you building a religion?’ No need to answer this one Richard, I have seen your web page. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that you were able to sort that out for yourself. More than a few people make that mistake ... somehow they miss reading those bits where I say things like:
RESPONDENT: I also see that I am (correspondent) number 36. I would have preferred number 33 but oh well. RICHARD: The indexing system of all the E-Mails I write (designed to preserve anonymity) is purely arbitrary ... I attach no significance to numerology at all.
RICHARD: The ‘psychiatric assessment’ was for the official record (I find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition is classified as a severe psychotic disorder) and I wanted that fact on record. RESPONDENT: Why did you want the fact on record? RICHARD: Amongst other reasons: so that peoples with some remnants of commonsense left would be able to see the absurdity of the whole mental health profession ... to a certain extent the psychiatric/psychological profession has become as powerful as the fundamentalist clergy of yore. RESPONDENT: So you are saying that it was done merely as an expose of the psychiatric/psychological profession and their conventional wisdom? RICHARD: Not only that, no ... I covered many angles in my study of what other humans have made of weird and/or wonderful experience ... psychiatry and psychology were as equally valid an avenue to explore as physics or metaphysics, palaeontology or cosmogony, archaeology or sociology, philosophy or theology and so on. And I discovered that psychiatric medication and psychological counselling are designed to bring those who are suffering from any of three main psychotic categories (Bi-polar Disorder, Schizophrenia and Clinical Depression) and any neurotic sub-categories, back to a state of as near-normal functioning as possible (and ‘normal’ is categorised by Mr. Sigmund Freud as ‘common human unhappiness’). Therefore, I know for a fact that no psychiatric or psychological treatment would meet what any ‘I’ is wanting – peace and harmony and satisfaction and fulfilment and so on – because I found out, experientially (as I did in other fields) what was the extent and range of other human’s experience and solutions. Psychology and psychiatry has failed just as dismally as philosophy and spirituality. RESPONDENT: Just what does your examination accomplish? RICHARD: It demonstrates that psychiatry and psychology do not have the answer to the problem of the human condition. And worse ... it actively works against anybody becoming free of the human condition with its attitude of helping to bring the ‘sick’ client back to a state of as near-normal functioning as possible. RESPONDENT: It demonstrates that you have mental disorders, can you prove otherwise? RICHARD: Why would I try to prove otherwise? I do have a mental disorder ... and a severe psychotic disorder at that. RESPONDENT: Did you have a series of examinations taken before and after your ego-death, to demonstrate that a change had occurred? RICHARD: Yes ... I was psychologically assessed as being normal (‘a well adjusted personality’) by acknowledged experts in the field well prior to 1981 as well as these ‘after the event’ assessments we are discussing here. RESPONDENT: Is it possible that it was done as a form of proof that you could offer to non-believers of your egoless state? RICHARD: I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves the root cause of the humans condition. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. Of course, if they believe my words to be false they close the door on their own freedom from the human condition. * RICHARD: To put it simply, a person who is said to be ‘egotistical’ is considered to be ... well ... not a nice person, and power-hungry egotist (megalomaniacs) who become dictators can plunge whole nations into bloody war. Ergo: eliminate the ego and the entire problem is dissolved. However, such a person is officially classified as ‘depersonalised’ and is diagnosed psychotic. Now I ask you: is it not the dictator who is psychotic? RESPONDENT: It seems that ego, like pH needs to be within a narrow range for proper health of the individual. Too much ego and one is egotistical, not enough and one suffers from low self-esteem. RICHARD: Yes, psychiatry and psychology describes this as something like ‘a well-adjusted personality coping with the conflicting demands of both the inner and outer worlds’. RESPONDENT: The idea of an egoless individual is an oxymoron to most people. I have my reservations about the possibility. Most see enlightenment (and beyond) as a fool’s dream, and therefore it is not an option. RICHARD: Indeed ... there is an affirmation of this on the Internet from a long-time ‘seeker’ that explicates what you are saying quite well. Vis.:
In other words: they are saying that it is not possible to be free from the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body. And is it no wonder ... after all, the Buddhist’s ‘Ancient Wisdom’ extols ‘Parinirvana’ and the Hindus ‘Ancient Wisdom’ exalts ‘Mahasamadhi’ and the Christians inscribe R. I. P. on their tombstones and so on and so on ... on unto the after-death ‘Ultimate Freedom’. After all, the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ propagated by the ‘Bodiless Ones’ reigns supreme here on earth. The ending of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time as this flesh and blood body. * RESPONDENT: What part of you wanted it? RICHARD: The intelligent ‘part’ that wants all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides to stop. RESPONDENT: If I follow what you have said, you are intelligence and the senses. I do not think that the senses have wants, are you saying that intelligence has wants? RICHARD: I am this physical (sensate and reflective flesh and blood body) being apperceptively aware: with no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul lurking around inside this body stuffing up the works, then this body’s intelligence can operate freely. As it is silly to have to have locks on the doors and bars on the windows and judges and juries and gaols and police forces and military forces and customs officers and so on and so on all maintaining a semblance of law and order at the point of a gun when we could all be living together in peace and harmony then yes, ‘that intelligence has wants’ ... and very sensible, reasonable and practical wants. This kind of thinking and reasoning is what intelligence is very good at when not crippled by ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ and ‘my’ precious feelings. If you are going to object to peace-on-earth just because ‘that intelligence has wants’ ... then you have a long, long way to go before you can even begin to understand what freedom means. * RESPONDENT: I must have erred, because I would not think, in my present state of egoity, that an egoless person would think in terms of going ‘beyond both normal and abnormal’. RICHARD: No you have not erred, it is my error: I omitted the small quotes. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: It does not seem to matter whether you put quotes around the ‘I’ or not you are describing an action that was undertaken by the person called Richard. RICHARD: It does not seem to matter what I say or how I say it ... you are going to find a way to object to it. However, I am only too happy to re-phrase the paragraph in a way that even you should not be able to find fault with. Vis.:
I do so look forward to what you are going to come up with next in your on-going objection to being happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: There was an awareness of the insufficiency of the ‘abnormal’ state that you were in with a desire to change that state. RICHARD: Prior to 1992 there was a marked awareness that the altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment was a delusion and that over the last 5,000 years of recorded history – and perhaps 50,000 years of prehistory – this state has been held up as being the summum bonum of human experience. I personally experienced this hallucinatory ‘Deathless State’ to be an institutionalised insanity. RESPONDENT: Time and anticipation were involved, were they not? RICHARD: Time and anticipation is involved in all endeavours ... one would never start doing something worthwhile (like enabling peace-on-earth) if one did not expect results. * RESPONDENT: Are not normal, abnormal, and ?????? simply different states of the same thing? RICHARD: No ... thus far in human history one has had only two choices: being human (normal) or being divine (abnormal). Now there is a third alternative ... and it outstrips any altered state of consciousness. RESPONDENT: Your words imply that no one before you has accomplished what you have done. RICHARD: No one else, as far as I have been able to ascertain in eighteen years of scouring the books and travelling overseas, has accomplished what I have done. The only person who comes close is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti whom I found out about last year when I first came onto the Internet. But he does not know what happened to him and has no solutions to offer. He is simply a curiosity to those who go to see him. He states that he is a ‘never to be repeated sport of nature’. Whereas I know where I came from and where I am at and how I got here. RESPONDENT: That is highly arrogant in my opinion. RICHARD: Am I to wait until everybody else is happy and harmless before I am? If I was to wait, I would be waiting forever ... for under this twisted rationale, no one would dare to be the first to be happy and harmless because No. 36 would be waiting in the wings to pounce on them with his ‘that is highly arrogant’ wisdom. Your peculiar reasoning allows only for a mass happiness and harmlessness to occur globally; overnight success, as it were. Someone has to be intrepid enough to be first, to show what is possible to a benighted humanity. One has to face the opprobrium of one’s ill-informed peers. RESPONDENT: How do you know what you said is true? RICHARD: Because I personally verify everything I say about my on-going condition. * RESPONDENT: Beyond, before, etc have no meaning, do they, without the ego frame-of-reference? RICHARD: Indeed not ... but I write for peoples with an ‘ego frame-of-reference’ (and I do have a fully functioning memory). RESPONDENT: You have side-stepped my question. RICHARD: I have not ... ‘beyond’ and ‘before’ have no meaning to me because all that I write about the ego and soul (self and Self) have no actuality whatsoever. Their reality lives only in other people’s psyches. RESPONDENT: You may be using words that us with an ego frame-of-reference can understand but you are talking about an event where some part of you seems to have made a choice. What is it in you that chooses? RICHARD: Perhaps it is the use of the word ‘intelligence’ (and I mean a freed intelligence) that is confusing the issue ... would the word ‘sensibleness’ convey it? As in: it is silly to be malicious and sorrowful and it is sensible to be happy and harmless. This is what a freed intelligence looks like. RESPONDENT: And once again, who is wanting to go beyond? RICHARD: Whosoever reads this and has it strike a chord. RESPONDENT: Side-stepped again. I was asking what part in YOU is wanting to go beyond. RICHARD: It would seem that there is a mix-up as to timing and the sequence of events. Briefly, in 1981, ‘I’ as ego went beyond normal (ego death) resulting in the abnormal state; in 1992 ‘me’ as soul went beyond abnormal (soul death) resulting in the third alternative ... which I choose to call an actual freedom. All I want now is for my fellow human beings to become free of the human condition themselves ... this is my sole reason for writing. You see, peace-on-earth is already always here – here in this actual world – and no one needs to invent it. It is all a matter of entering into it; making it apparent; allowing it to emerge; watching it unfold ... or whatever description. Everyone is either rushing about trying to make an imitation peace ... or sitting back moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all. I did not devise, concoct or contrive this peace-on-earth ... it is already always here – as it already has been and always will be – as we live in a perfect universe. I discovered it, that is all ... and it being so perfect that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence. What they do with this information is their business. Because none of this matters much when one is already living in the actual world. In an actual freedom, life is experienced as
being perfect as-it-is. One knows that one is living in a beneficent universe ... and that is what actually counts. The self-imposed iniquities
that ail the people, who stubbornly wish to remain denizens of the real world, fail to impinge upon the blitheness and benignity of one who lives
in the vast scheme of things. The universe does not force anyone to be happy and harmless, to live in peace and ease, to be free of sorrow and
malice. It is a matter of personal choice as to which way one will travel. Humans, being as they are, will probably continue to tread the ‘Tried
and True’ paths, little realising that they are the tried and failed ways. There is none so contumacious So be it.
RESPONDENT: [Any person] who picks up a weapon with the intent to kill another has a fundamental character flaw. It does not matter what they do to justify their action, if they place a higher value on their own life than on another they have a character flaw (...) People with true ‘character’ do not kill one another, for whatever reason, period. If I were placed in such a situation ... I guess my character would be found lacking. RICHARD: I have condensed your statements for clarity (amend my digest if I left anything crucial out) for I am intrigued by your reasoning. Given that the discussion is in the context of an armed aggressor poised at that split-second prior to killing you (who therefore has ‘a fundamental character flaw’) you are suggesting that only if you had ‘a fundamental character flaw’ would you kill them so as to not be killed yourself. And your justification for this stance is that a person with ‘true character’ does not ‘place a higher value on their own life than on another’ ... even when (in this scenario) that other person clearly and unambiguously has ‘a fundamental character flaw’ in themselves and you the recipient does not (as evidenced by your now-dead body lying next to the weapon that you did not ‘pick up with the intent to kill another’). Could you confirm (or alter as appropriate) my summary of your rationale before I continue? Also, are you in accord with the dictionary definition of the word ‘value’? (Oxford Dictionary): ‘value’ (Latin: ‘valere’; be strong, be worth): a thing regarded as worth having; the worth, usefulness, or importance of a thing; relative merit or status according to the estimated desirability or utility of a thing; estimate or opinion of, regard or liking for, a person or thing; the principles or moral standards of a person or social group; the judgement of what is valuable and important in life; the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’. I only ask what the word ‘value’ signifies to you because you do seem to be saying that it be of some kind of important value that those people with a ‘true character’ get to be killed by the bully-boys of the world on a predictably regular basis. Given that those people with ‘a fundamental character flaw’ in themselves thus get to propagate the species, and set the character of future generations, my question is: How do you see this as being a worthwhile thing?
RESPONDENT: [Any person] who picks up a weapon with the intent to kill another has a fundamental character flaw. It does not matter what they do to justify their action, if they place a higher value on their own life than on another they have a character flaw (...) People with true ‘character’ do not kill one another, for whatever reason, period. If I were placed in such a situation ... I guess my character would be found lacking. RICHARD: I have condensed your statements for clarity (amend my digest if I left anything crucial out) for I am intrigued by your reasoning. Given that the discussion is in the context of an armed aggressor poised at that split-second prior to killing you (who therefore has ‘a fundamental character flaw’) you are suggesting that only if you had ‘a fundamental character flaw’ would you kill them so as to not be killed yourself. And your justification for this stance is that a person with ‘true character’ does not ‘place a higher value on their own life than on another’ ... even when (in this scenario) that other person clearly and unambiguously has ‘a fundamental character flaw’ in themselves and you the recipient does not (as evidenced by your now-dead body lying next to the weapon that you did not ‘pick up with the intent to kill another’). Could you confirm (or alter as appropriate) my summary of your rationale before I continue? RESPONDENT: You have put your usual spin on the topic at hand, but your digest is basically correct. I would not say that a person who does not kill another is necessarily without a flaw in character, there are other criterion for character besides not taking human life. You also have omitted from discussion the other point I made about the nature of a person with character, namely that a person with true concern for human life would not stick their head in the sand until the ‘Hun is at the door’. Remember, we are not talking about random acts of violence, we are talking about a systemic approach to killing. Something like that does not happen in a vacuum. If I will not personally kill another, but stand idly by while someone else kills another when it is within my power to prevent it, then my character would be lacking. If I know that my government has been giving monetary aid and selling armaments to a country like Indonesia, that have been used to oppress the people in East Timor, and I do nothing to stop it then I have all but pulled the trigger on some poor East Timorese peasant. Thou shalt not kill, even by proxy. RICHARD: Okay ... is this following résumé fully correct (rather than just ‘basically correct’): [Respondent]: ‘[Any person] who picks up a weapon with the intent to kill another has a fundamental character flaw. It does not matter what they do to justify their action, if they place a higher value on their own life than on another they have a character flaw (...) People with true ‘character’ do not kill one another, for whatever reason, period, [although] a person who does not kill another is not necessarily without a flaw in character, there are other criterion for character besides not taking human life: a person with character, a person with true concern for human life, would not stick their head in the sand until the ‘Hun is at the door’. Acts of violence do not happen in a vacuum, [a person with character] will not personally kill another, but [will not] stand idly by while someone else kills another when it is within [their] power to prevent it. Thou shalt not kill, even by proxy’. Please correct it if I left anything crucial out for I am intrigued by your reasoning and wish to have your values completely accurate. Given that the discussion is in the context of an armed aggressor poised at that split-second prior to killing you (who therefore has ‘a fundamental character flaw’) you are suggesting that only if you had ‘a fundamental character flaw’ would you kill them so as to not be killed yourself. And your justification for this stance is that a person with ‘true character’ does not ‘place a higher value on their own life than on another’ ... even when (in this scenario) that other person clearly and unambiguously has ‘a fundamental character flaw’ in themselves and you the recipient does not (as evidenced by your now-dead body lying next to the weapon that you did not ‘pick up with the intent to kill another’). Could you confirm (or alter as appropriate) my summary of your rationale before I continue? * RICHARD: Also, are you in accord with the dictionary definition of the word ‘value’? (Oxford Dictionary): ‘value’ (Latin: ‘valere’; be strong, be worth): a thing regarded as worth having; the worth, usefulness, or importance of a thing; relative merit or status according to the estimated desirability or utility of a thing; estimate or opinion of, regard or liking for, a person or thing; the principles or moral standards of a person or social group; the judgement of what is valuable and important in life; the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’. I only ask what the word ‘value’ signifies to you because you do seem to be saying that it be of some kind of important value that those people with a ‘true character’ get to be killed by the bully-boys of the world on a predictably regular basis. Given that those people with ‘a fundamental character flaw’ in themselves thus get to propagate the species, and set the character of future generations, my question is: How do you see this as being a worthwhile thing? RESPONDENT: If I lived in the two-dimensional world that you describe I would not see ‘this’ as being worthwhile. RICHARD: If I may point out? I was asking how you see it from your world ... do you have some difficulty with answering a straight question with a straight answer? RESPONDENT: Once again, you have put a Richardian spin on my words. RICHARD: Where is the spin that you say I have put on your words? You say that people of ‘true character’
will not kill a killer who is about to kill them ... thus under your system, people of ‘true character’ would rapidly go onto the
endangered species list ... and the people with ‘a fundamental character flaw’ thus get to perpetuate the human species. Via your
process of ‘unnatural selection’ the human race will steadily deteriorate into more and more ‘fundamental character flaws’. My
question is this: why do you wish it upon the children RESPONDENT: If a man of character did nothing to better the world, was totally inert and complacent, then he and his kind would be extinct at the hands of the ‘bully boys’ in short order, and rightly so. RICHARD: Why do you say ‘and rightly so’? This has an undercurrent to it that intrigues me. Are you suggesting that it is right that the bully-boys kill off those who did nothing to better the world, who are totally inert and complacent? Why is it right that they and their kind become extinct? Why do you applaud the culling of those who did nothing to better the world, who are totally inert and complacent? RESPONDENT: As I have said, a man of character would not do nothing while the world falls apart, that would be antithetical to his very nature. RICHARD: Okay ... what would a person of character be doing while the world falls apart (other than endorsing the eradication of those who did nothing to better the world, who are totally inert and complacent)? RESPONDENT: True character manifests in action, and it is typically inaction and apathy that gives rein to the ‘bully boys’. RICHARD: Once again ... what kind of action do you propose that ‘true character’ manifests as? RESPONDENT: Their minority can only hold us if they terrorize us into inaction, in the hopes that by cowering in the corner they will not see us. RICHARD: Hmm ... could you speak for yourself instead of this presumptuous ‘us’ business? Nobody terrorises me into inaction in the hope that by cowering in a corner I will not be seen. RESPONDENT: We would probably all be amazed if we knew how little effort it would actually take to put an end to things such as state terror, ‘bully boys’ and the likes. RICHARD: Once again ... what ‘little effort’ are you talking of? So far this morality and/or ethics of yours is full of rhetoric and devoid of substance. RESPONDENT: It is almost always the minority that oppresses the majority, in whatever fashion. RICHARD: Yet under your scheme they would rapidly become a majority as they kill off those without ‘a fundamental character flaw’. RESPONDENT: We have been trained not to think in terms of majority power. RICHARD: Yet you are promoting that people be trained to become martyrs ... which will reduce your estimated majority to a minority very quickly. RESPONDENT: I would ask you a question: In your post-enlightened state, is there a source of morality and ethics in the individual, or are they all artificial? RICHARD: All morality and ethics (externally reinforced internal control systems) are artificial ... and are only necessary for those who still nurse the malice and sorrow (born of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire) to their bosom. When one is free from the human condition there is nothing that needs to be controlled by any society’s artificial mores. RESPONDENT: What is the basis of ‘right action’? RICHARD: Twenty four hour a day happiness and harmlessness ... which condition is the result of the total eradication of ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the entire identity who is the product of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire). RESPONDENT: Also, your argument about the propagation of inherent characteristics has an undercurrent to it that intrigues me. Are you suggesting that we kill off those with character flaws, for the good of future generations? RICHARD: Goodness me ... no. I was taking your fantasy to its foregone conclusion so that you might see how silly it is. I like my fellow human beings irregardless of what they do or do not do ... I do not wish that anyone be killed or that anyone be put into the position that they have to kill. RESPONDENT: Are some people inherently flawed from birth (omitting from the discussion those with obvious mental defects), or do they become that way? RICHARD: All people are inherently flawed from birth ... it is called the human condition.
RESPONDENT: Richard, we do not see this idea of character the same way. RICHARD: Indeed we do not ... that is why we are having a discussion. RESPONDENT: I have no desire to try and convince you of my beliefs. RICHARD: I never said that you did ... this Mailing List is set up for the purpose of exploring the human condition and is a place to discuss one’s own experiences, thoughts, feelings and urges with one’s fellow human beings. Thus advances human knowledge. RESPONDENT: I am not here to teach anyone and I do not care if you or anyone sees it the way I do or not. RICHARD: Fair enough ... but do you care about the appalling mess that is the human condition? Do you seek to find a way through all this mess so that there can be peace on earth? RESPONDENT: I may be wrong in my beliefs, but I do not need nor do not want your help in seeing the error of my ways. RICHARD: Then why are you on this list? I am, no more and no less, one among many writing to this list ... therefore you are saying: ‘I do not need nor do not want anybody’s help in seeing the error of my ways’. RESPONDENT: I told you once before that I am not looking for a guru, and if I were it would not be you. RICHARD: It is just as well that you are not ... because I am not a guru. RESPONDENT: Please keep your ‘actual freedom’ and your AUS $29.95 journal, I will find my own freedom, thank you. RICHARD: Are you saying that you want it to be that you can write about your (whatever) but I can not? Are you attempting to muzzle me? RESPONDENT: I am curious why you have chosen to pursue this topic with me. RICHARD: Probably for more or less the same reason you chose to pursue my topics with me this last week ... I am intrigued by your reasoning and wish to explore with you the implications and ramifications of a moral system that kills off those with ‘no fundamental character flaws’ and populates the planet with those who have a demonstrated ‘fundamental character flaw’. RESPONDENT: I do not see how it lends itself to your teachings, and wonder if this is not in some small way a punitive measure for the critical words that I have written to and about you on this forum. RICHARD: No ... this forum serves as a place where peoples pursuing what academia classify as ‘Consciousness Studies’ can submit their experiences, thoughts, philosophies, morality, ethicality and so on for what is called ‘Peer Group Review’. As such it is an excellent facility where one’s conclusions can undergo rigorous and vigorous scrutiny ... which is an estimable process, when all is said and done. RESPONDENT: If so, then that is karma in action and is my just due. RICHARD: Okay ... speaking personally, I have no need for that hypothesis. RESPONDENT: Still, such punitive measures seem incompatible with actual freedom as I understand it. RICHARD: As it was not a ‘punitive measure’ (outside of your mind) then this is an erroneous conclusion drawn from a false premise. RESPONDENT: You said that all ethics are artificial ... RICHARD: Indeed ... eliminate the identity in its totality and all its instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire vanish along with its demise. Hence no more malice and sorrow, therefore no need for ethics or morals or values or principles and so on. There is no one and no thing to need controls (either internal controls or external controls). RESPONDENT: ... and by your seeming endorsement of situational killing you appear to be opening the door to a thousand shades of grey regarding human life that ultimately leads to an Auschwitz. RICHARD: Not so ... it is just that, not only do I not ‘value another person’s life over my own’ but that I do not value their life over mine. Or to put it another way: I experience all people as equal and no one has more value than another ... and that includes me. Therefore ... if they then choose to bop me on the nose I am free to bop them back (or not). RESPONDENT: Is this what actual freedom is all about? ‘Happy and harmless’ indeed. RICHARD: Here is another erroneous conclusion drawn from a false premise. It is good stuff, this peer group review, is it not? After all ... are we not fellow human beings who find ourselves here in this world as it was when we arrived ... a mess? And do we not all seek to find a way through this mess ... and share our findings with one another? And if one has ‘got it wrong’ is it not beneficial that someone else will point that out to one? One can benefit from such interaction as much as the other ... we all benefit. Speaking personally, I make no secret of the fact that I consider that I have discovered the ‘Secret To Life’ and I welcome rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion and invite people to either agree or disagree (those who are neutral on the subject will just ignore it). I have been doing this for eighteen years now and have had the full gamut of scorn and derision and ridicule and flattery and gratitude and compliments ... and indifference. But I would not be where I am now if I had kept it all to myself. All those people who over those years pointed out flaws in my then ‘wisdom’ aided me immensely as far as I am concerned. Why would you want to be treated differently?
RICHARD: I am intrigued by your reasoning and wish to explore with you the implications and ramifications of a moral system that kills off those with ‘no fundamental character flaws’ and populates the planet with those who have a demonstrated ‘fundamental character flaw’. RESPONDENT: Why do you keep omitting from the discussion the aspect of people working to right the wrongs in this world that lead to violence – are you purposely trying to skew the conversation? RICHARD: No ... I am waiting for you to detail what these actions are that these peoples are busy doing. Vis.:
And you never did tell me ... and again:
Still no reply ... and once more:
I simply cannot have a discussion with you about ‘the aspect of people working to right the wrongs’ if you will not tell me what these workings are. RESPONDENT: The actions that would lead to the destruction of those with ‘no fundamental character flaws’ are at the ending of the cycle of violence, not the beginning. RICHARD: As the ‘cycle of violence’ has a 5,000 year recorded history (and maybe 50,000 – 1,000,000 years prehistory) I really do wonder where you imagine the beginning of the cycle was. Therefore, the ‘actions that would lead to the destruction of those with no fundamental character flaws’ is going on all the time – and has been going on all the time – and is not ‘at the ending of the cycle of violence’ at all. Consequently, those who you say have ‘no fundamental character flaws’ and who ‘will not pick up a weapon with the intent to kill another’ are going to continue to get killed off by those who you say do have ‘a fundamental character flaw’ like those martyrs at any given point in time in history. Therefore, you do seem to be promoting a moral system that kills off those with ‘no fundamental character flaws’ and populates the planet with those who have a demonstrated ‘fundamental character flaw’. I am interested to know why? RESPONDENT: If people were to work toward righting the wrongs that lead to violence in the first place, there would be no need to resort to killing in the name of self defence in the last. RICHARD: Once again you do not provide any information as to what these people are doing – or should be doing – to ‘right the wrongs’. And neither do you provide any information as to how they came to not have any ‘fundamental character flaws’ anyway ... other than that they ‘will not pick up a weapon with the intent to kill another’. What did they do to eliminate their ‘fundamental character flaws’ and how does it work? And when? RESPONDENT: Call me a dewy-eyed optimist, but I truly believe that people are generally good. RICHARD: Yet believing something to be true – even ‘truly believing’ something to be true – does nothing to alter a fact. It helps to ignore the fact, gloss over the fact, but the fact never goes away. A fact simply sits there making your beliefs look silly by its very existence. All sentient beings are born with survival instincts ... that is what makes people instinctively ‘pick up a weapon with the intent to kill another’. RESPONDENT: Flawed perhaps, but for the most part good. RICHARD: I do see that, for the most, most people mean well – peoples generally are well-intentioned – it is just that, for all their best intentions, they are hog-tied by the instinctual passions bestowed by blind nature. No one is to blame. RESPONDENT: A lot of the trouble in this world is caused by inequity, where basic needs are not met. RICHARD: It is simple to check as to whether this theory of yours is valid or not: the incidence of domestic violence and child abuse (war at home is a difference in degree and not of kind) knows no distinction betwixt working class or middle class or upper class in any culture. And in the affluent technologically-advanced societies, where every material need is met with a degree of superfluity that staggers the imagination, ‘a lot of trouble’ is as rampant as in the less-technological societies where ‘basic needs are not met’. So, physical violence between human beings is not solved by every material need being met. Inequity is not the root cause of physical violence. RESPONDENT: Solve the problems of inequity in the world, and although you will not solve all of the problems of mankind, you will go a long way towards breaking the cycle of violence. RICHARD: But as the ‘the cycle of violence’ has not abated one jot in the material-rich countries, where is the evidence to substantiate your theory? RESPONDENT: You, and all of the other enlightened or post-enlightened individuals seem unanimous in your belief that the only cure for the ills of mankind is the death of the ego, enlightenment and beyond. That may be, or it may not. RICHARD: This stance (‘that may be, or it may not’) is sometimes known as being agnostic ... and the people I have met personally, over the many years that I have discussed these matters, who embrace this position have invariably been firmly convinced that this ‘I don’t know’ approach is the intelligent approach. Mostly they have been academics or mystics ... is it a variation on that hoary adage: ‘He who says he does not know, really knows’? I guess it makes them feel intellectually comfortable. Do you want to know? Do you want to find out? RESPONDENT: But, when it is exceedingly rare that a person becomes enlightened (I forget the figure, but you posted an estimate of enlightened ones recently) ... RICHARD: It was Mr. Ken Wilber (writing in Mr. Andrew Cohen’s ‘What is Enlightenment’ magazine) who claimed, with some pride, that only about a thousand Enlightened Ones had emerged from 2,500 years of devout effort by millions of Buddhist monks. His estimate was, therefore, 0.0000001 of the population. Whilst the exact figure will never be known it seems to me to be a reasonable approximation to take as a working hypothesis. Whatever the figure, it is a very, very small percentage ... hence spiritual enlightenment is useless as being a practical way to achieve peace on earth. RESPONDENT: ... and there is only one person who has gone beyond enlightenment (as you claim), does that offer mankind much cause to be optimistic about our future? RICHARD: Yes. Because it is now possible for any human being to be totally free from sorrow and malice; the two fundamental elements that prevent one from being happy and harmless. Gone now are the days of having to assiduously practice humility and pacifism in an ultimately futile attempt to become free by transcending the opposites ... the traditional and narrow path of denial and fantasy, negation and hallucination. A wide and wondrous path of blitheness and gaiety is now available for one who wishes to live in the freedom of the actual world. It is very clear, to the discerning intellect, that the ‘Enlightened Beings’ have failed to deliver the goods so readily pledged to a credulous humanity. For thousands of years they have been promising Peace On Earth – which is nowhere to be found – and a specious immortality in some dubious after-life. It is now possible to live freely in this newly emerging post-spiritual epoch, attaining full and mature use of one’s innate cerebral faculty ... and easily superseding all of the revered saints and sages. An actual freedom is a tried and tested way of being here in the world as it actually is ... stripped of the veneer of reality that is super-imposed by the psychological and/or psychic entity within the body. This entity is the sense of identity that inhibits any freedom and sabotages every well-meant endeavour. In an actual freedom from the human condition one finds that the need for the ‘Ultimate Reality’ has vanished along with the ego and soul ... the ‘self’ and the ‘Self’. Thus far in human history one has had only two choices: being human or being divine. Now there is a third alternative ... and it outstrips any Altered State Of Consciousness. RESPONDENT: Why should we believe that you represent something that we all can become, and are not simply some freak that belongs in the Jim Rose Circus? RICHARD: I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. Therefore one can make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and when they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written. The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an altered state of consciousness (ASC). Then ‘I’ as ego – sublimated and transcended as ‘me’ as soul – manifest as a god or a goddess (or that which is ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’) and preach unliveable doctrines based upon their belief that they are ‘not the body’. Doctrines like noble martyrdom, for example. RESPONDENT: How do we know that you, Krishnamurti, Buddha, etc are not really examples of self-induced mental illness? RICHARD: I cannot speak for Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti or Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, but I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists and have been definitively diagnosed as having a ‘mental illness’ ... and a severe psychotic disorder at that. And in my case it was definitely ‘self-induced’ in that the ‘I’ that was deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought psychologically and psychically self-immolated. And now I am this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. * RESPONDENT: If so, then that is karma in action and is my just due. RICHARD: Okay ... speaking personally, I have no need for that hypothesis. RESPONDENT: No, Karma is not a hypothesis. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... or if it be not a hypothesis then it is a metaphysical belief that the force generated by a person’s actions perpetuate transmigration and its ethical consequences determine the nature of the person’s next existence. Karma is the influence of an individual’s past actions on their future lives, or reincarnations and thus what one does in this present life will have its effect in the next life. The doctrine of karma reflects the Hindu conviction that this life is but one in a chain of lives (samsara) and that it is determined by a human’s actions in a previous life. This is accepted as a law of nature and is not open to further discussion. The moral energy of a particular act is preserved and fructifies automatically in the next life, where it shows up in one’s class, nature, disposition, and character. The process is mechanical, and no interference by a god and/or goddess or gods and/or goddesses is admitted, except by some of the later and more extreme theists. Thus the law of karma seeks to explain the inequalities that are observed among creatures. In Hinduism, in the course of the chain of lives, an individual can perfect themselves, until they reach the eminence of the god Brahma himself, or they can degrade themself in such an evil way that they are reborn as an animal. Not only do past acts influence the circumstances of the next life, they also determine one’s happiness or unhappiness in the hereafter between lives, where one will spend a time in either one of the heavens or one of the hells until the fruits of one’s karma have been all but consumed and the remainder creates a new life for one. Buddhism and Jainism incorporated doctrines of karma as part of their common Indian legacy: the Buddhists interpret it strictly in terms of ethical cause and effect and in Jainism, karma is regarded not as a process but as a fine particulate substance that produces the universal chain of cause and effect ... of birth and death and rebirth. Rebirth – also called transmigration or metempsychosis – in both religion and philosophy refers to the rebirth of the soul in one or more successive existences, which may be human, animal, or, in some instances, vegetable. While belief in reincarnation is most characteristic of Asian religions and philosophies, it also appears in the religious and philosophical thought of primitive religions, in some ancient Middle Eastern religions (Orphism, Manichaeism, and Gnosticism) as well as in such modern religious movements as Theosophy. In primitive religions, belief in multiple souls is common. The soul is frequently viewed as capable of leaving the body through the mouth or nostrils and of being reborn, for example, as a bird, butterfly, or insect. The Venda of Southern Africa, for example, believe that when a person dies the soul stays near the grave for a short time and then seeks a new resting place or another body ... be it human, mammalian, or reptilian. Among the ancient Greeks, Orphism held that a pre-existent soul survives bodily death and is later reincarnated in a human or other mammalian body, eventually receiving release from the cycle of birth and death and regaining its former pure state. Mr. Plato believed in an immortal soul that participates in frequent incarnations. The major religions that hold a belief in reincarnation – Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism –
all hold in common the doctrine of karma. In Hinduism the process of birth and rebirth – transmigration of souls – is endless until one
achieves Moksha (salvation) by realising the truth that liberates ... that the individual soul (Atman) and the absolute soul (Brahman) are one.
Thus, one can escape from the wheel of birth and rebirth (samsara). Jainism, reflecting a belief in an absolute soul (‘Siddha’), holds that
karma is affected in its density by the deeds that a person does. Thus, the burden of the old karma is added to the new karma that is acquired
during the next existence until the soul frees itself by religious disciplines, especially by ahimsa (‘non-violence’) Central to the belief in reincarnation is Punna (‘merit’) which is a primary attribute sought by Buddhists, both monks and laymen, in order to build up a better karma (the cumulative consequences of deeds) and thus to achieve a more favourable future rebirth. The concept is particularly stressed in Theravada tradition of South East Asia. Punna can be acquired through dana (‘giving’) such as offering food and robes to monks or donating a temple or monastery; sila (the keeping of the moral precepts); and bhavana (the practice of meditation). Merit can also be transferred from one being to another. This is a central feature of the Mahayana schools, in which the ideal Buddhist is the bodhisattva (‘the Buddha-to-be’), who dedicates himself to the service of others and transfers merit from his own inexhaustible store to benefit others. Until survival after physical death be substantiated and demonstrated ‘karma’ remains a hypothesis ... or belief. RESPONDENT: Our present actions spawn future actions, this is a fact. RICHARD: What you are talking of is known as ‘cause and effect’, and not all ‘present actions’ spawn future actions ... there are literally hundreds of things one does in the daily course of events that have no effect on ‘future actions’ whatsoever. RESPONDENT: If I am hostile in my actions towards others, in all likelihood I will find my hostility returned in the future. This hypothesis is easily verified to be true. RICHARD: Why do you say ‘in all likelihood’ instead ‘without exception’ or ‘inevitably’ or some-such absolute? Is it because you somehow know that if you are hostile in your actions towards a pacifist, for example, they will seize upon it as an opportunity to be ‘loving’ or ‘accepting’ or whatever and not return your hostility? And not only pacifists ... speaking from personal history, the ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body in 1965 was hostile – quite self-righteously aggro in fact – towards someone close to ‘him’ (a fellow soldier) and to this day that person has never returned the hostility. And as that person was killed in combat two years later, he is never going to be able to. The belief in ‘karma’ looks pretty silly when viewed sensibly, eh?
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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 |
