Richard’s Selected Correspondence
RESPONDENT: Muhammad Ali on war: [quote] ‘I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong’.
RESPONDENT: Peace-on-earth is the absence of human disorder. Is this a correct observation? If not, please tell me why? If it is so, what do you think this disorder is?
RICHARD: Peace-on-earth has nothing to do with order or disorder ... order implies compliance to authority, be that authority either external or internal. Who is being ordered ... and by whom? The extinction of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety does away with those ‘tried and true’ methods of disciplining the wayward self.
Peace-on-earth is freedom from the Human Condition. The Human Condition is a term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of so-called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun.
Freedom from the Human Condition is the ending of the ‘self’. The elimination of the ‘self’ is the demise of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ within oneself. Then ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ vanish forever along with the dissolution of the psyche itself ... which is the only place they can live in.
Because there is no good or evil in the actual world of sensual delight – where I live as this flesh and blood body – one then lives freely in the magical paradise that this verdant earth floating in the infinitude of the universe actually is. Being here at this moment in time and this place in space is to be living in a fairy-tale-like ambience that is never-ending.
RESPONDENT: Richard, you are in a serious state of denial.
RICHARD: Pray tell me ... what am I in denial of? I have been very explicit in all my posts about the state of the human species ... just what am I denying?
RESPONDENT: You are tucked in this actual ambrosial world.
RICHARD: Oh, yes ... but not ‘tucked’ ... walking freely in this very ambrosial world.
RESPONDENT: The Bowing Buddha is Peace-On-Earth. And both of you are living on a planet scorched by misery.
RICHARD: Five point eight billion human beings are living on a planet ‘scorched by misery’ ... and scorched by malice, too, do not forget. Yet all malice and misery are feelings and are not, therefore, actual. They may be real – very real at times – but they are not actual. The direct results of having these feelings – these emotions and passions – are acted out in this actual world in the form of wars, murders, rapes, domestic violence, child abuse, suicides and so on ... but all these actions are unnecessary. They all stem from feelings and feelings – emotions and passions – are self-induced (‘I’ am passion and passion is ‘me’) and, as such, can be eliminated.
Then there is peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: Reality is painful but we have got to hang in there and deal with it.
RICHARD: You have the choice to ‘hang in there’ if that is what you want to do ... but you do not ‘have to’. Who told you that furphy?
Only sadomasochists wish to prolong suffering ... are you saying that five point eight billion human beings are sadomasochists? And are you suggesting – or demanding – that I ‘come back’ and join you all? What would that achieve? One more unhappy and malicious person would simply be more fuel for the fires of hatred and pain.
RESPONDENT: Behaving like trauma-stricken kids withdrawn into paradisiacal states of fantasy is dementia.
RICHARD: Behaving like a sulky child and refusing to give up your animosity and anguish is not only personally silly ... but is socially reprehensible. Do you want to perpetuate all these wars, murders, rapes, domestic violence, child abuse, suicides and so on for ever and a day? What is your investment in prolonging suffering? Job security?
RESPONDENT: Is this your idea of changing the world?
RICHARD: Yes. You see, peace-on-earth already is 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 was already here ... as it always has been and always will be. I just happened to discover it, that is all ... and it being so perfect that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence.
RICHARD: Then what baby is it that I am throwing out? The baby that produces the delusion that it exists in a timeless realm, of course. There is no ‘timeless realm’ here, in actuality. Living here, at this moment in time, there is only this moment that is actual. As it is already always this moment, to the unaware it appears to be ‘timeless’ . It is not. This moment is hanging in time like this planet is hanging in space. Just as the universe’s space is infinite, so too is this universe’s time eternal. There is no beginning or end to the infinitude of this universe’s space and time, therefore there is no middle, no centre. Thus, one is always here and it is already now. And here and now is nowhere in particular. This sure beats immortality any day.
RESPONDENT: What happens when your body dies? Does the peace-on-earth that you know goes with it?
RICHARD: Oh no, not at all ... this peace-on-earth is already always here. It always has been and always will be, for it is the utter peace of the perfect infinitude of this physical universe itself. Here is a vast stillness that is everywhere all at once ... being nowhere in particular, we are anywhere at all in the universe’s infinity of space and eternity of time. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from and nowhere to go to ... we are already here and it is always now.
When this body dies, its apperceptive awareness – which is what one refers to by the first person pronoun – dies right along with it, of course, for they are one and the same thing. There is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ lurking around inside this body creating its mischief and dreaming dreams of a glorious – or hideous – immortality in some specious After-Life.
However, when this body physically dies, edified human access to this actual peace-on-earth dies along with it ... which is why I write so prolifically. I have accumulated 250,000 words so far ... subscribing to a Mailing List is one way of getting more words out. Answering all kinds of questions causes me to consider that which would normally not occur to me to write about.
It is only for those who are interested, of course ... and you seem to be interested ... but are you interested enough? In fact, are you vitally interested? And ‘vitally interested’ means that peace-on-earth is the number one priority in your life inasmuch that it amounts to a fascinated obsession with your very being. Is your intention to become free of the Human Condition, in this life-time and as this body, the over-riding factor in all of your day-to-day dealings? If this is not the case, then what are you doing with your life? Why settle for second best when all this while the perfect purity of being alive at this moment in time and this place in space is just sitting here – right under your nose – freely available for anyone with the gumption to proceed on into their destiny.
RESPONDENT: You have posited a ‘new paradigm’ in which sorrow and malice end and one experiences peace on earth in ‘this lifetime’. (I think we agree that ‘this’ and ‘lifetime’ – when put together – are redundant(?).
RICHARD: You are a funny fellow ... but I will roll along with this. Let us do it your way. Vis.: ‘One experiences peace on earth in lifetime’. Hmm ... what do you think?
RESPONDENT: I think that you are a funny fellow too. Why not simply say: ‘One experiences peace’?
RICHARD: Because it is the already always existing peace that is here on this physical earth and not in some mystical transcendental realm ... that is why. And because it is now in this life-time only and not after physical death in some spurious after-life ... that is why. If I just say ‘one experiences pe ace’ then people will automatically assume that I am referring to the ‘Tried and True’ peace which is anywhere but here in space and anywhen but now in time. They rattle on about peace that is ‘Timeless and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Unborn and ‘Undying’ and ‘Formless’ and so on and so on.
RESPONDENT: Are you pointing out that peace is, and we can tune into it/resonate as it if we drop the ‘noise’ of our ‘separate’ selves?
RICHARD: Yes ... peace-on-earth is already always here now. When ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul die so thoroughly that the ‘separate self’ is as extinct as the dodo but with no skeletal remains ... then this peace becomes apparent. One does not have to search for it ... just cease to ‘be’ and as this flesh and blood body only one is the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe personified.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t the savage, brutal, wild tooth and claw view of nature a bit narrow minded? Isn’t it the projection of the fears of the divided from its source mentality?
RICHARD: No. It is that an individual freedom from the human condition could lead to a global freedom from the human condition It is possible for a chain-reaction effect to ripple through all the peoples who inhabit this planet; imbuing the populace with peace and prosperity. And this freedom from the human condition would revolutionise the concept of humanity. It would be a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of like-minded individuals. One would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. Pollution and its cause – over-population – would be set to rights without effort, as competition would be replaced by cooperation. No longer need people lament the futility of trying to escape from the folly of the ‘Human Condition’. Never again would fear rule the earth; terror would stalk its prey no more ... but even if global peace was a long time coming – as is most probable due to stubbornly recalcitrant identities – the most appealing aspect of actual freedom is its instant bestowal of universal peace upon the individual daring enough to go all the way.
RICHARD: Peace-on-earth is something that one has to want like one has never wanted anything before. One has to want it with all of one’s being ... one will never become free of the human condition by sitting around in a deck-chair on the patio sipping a drink and waiting for the ‘grace of god’ to descend whilst pretending not to be goal-driven. If one does not have the goal ‘peace-on-earth’ as a number one priority in one’s life – wherein everything else (husband/wife, children, business, house, car, personal possessions and so on) becomes secondary – then another 160,000,000 will be killed in wars by their fellow human next century.
RESPONDENT: As far as the ‘appealing peace that results from actual freedom’ – are you implying one can ‘attain’ it?
RICHARD: I am stating loudly and clearly that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul must become extinct so that the already always existing peace-on-earth can become apparent. You see, peace-on-earth already is 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 was already here ... as it always has been and always will be. I just happened to discover 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.
RESPONDENT: In other words: ‘the kingdom of the father is spread upon the Earth, and men see it not’.
RICHARD: No ... that is a metaphysical peace (‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’) and is a selfish peace wherein one receives one’s post-mortem reward for humiliating and deprecating oneself like all get-out ... which is why it has failed to deliver the goods for two thousand years.
RESPONDENT: The talk has been talked, may I see you walk the walk?
RICHARD: But the ‘talk’ has not ‘been talked’ yet ... you are still equating what I say with the ‘Tried and Failed’ medicine that the quacks have been dishing out for aeons to those self-centred enough to be sucked into their hallucination. When you read what is being written with both eyes, you will be not only ‘talking the talk’ but ‘walking the walk’ yourself ... and the world will be better off for it.
RICHARD: May I ask? Are you seeking peace-on-earth or the ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’?
RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. Is it some kind of a prayer?
RICHARD: It is what the Christians say when referring to the only place where they are adamant that peace lies. Vis.: after physical death (as do Hindus with their ‘Mahasamadhi’ and Buddhists with their ‘Parinirvana’ and so for all the disciplines).
RESPONDENT: I’m not seeking peace on earth.
RICHARD: Indeed ... that is the impression I had gained from our correspondence. Like virtually all the rest, you are seeking ‘something else’ ... 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 go on for ever and a day.
RESPONDENT: In that respect, what will be, will be ... although I may identify some correlations.
RICHARD: Yea verily ... and what will be will be more wars and more murders and more rapes and more tortures and more domestic violence and more child abuse and more sadness and more loneliness and more grief and more depression and more suicides, eh?
Because that is what ‘what will be, will be’ already looks like.
RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t like to be a priest in your hands.
RICHARD: Is this because the priests (and their ilk) have been actively perpetuating 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 through their desire for the ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ instead of peace-on-earth?
RESPONDENT: Poor Richard, a soul without passion.
RICHARD: There cannot be a ‘soul without passion’ ... a soul is made of passion. No passion equals no soul.
RESPONDENT: Oh God please do not allow me to evolve to that state.
RICHARD: No, never, ever evolve ... hang onto your passion by all the means under your control. Passion like anger, hatred, rage, spitefulness, maliciousness, revenge, jealousy, sadness, sorrow, misery ... and their band-aid solutions like love and compassion and empathy and sympathy and so on. Why, if you did evolve there would be peace-on-earth ... and that is the last thing you would want, apparently.
RICHARD: As my ‘Poor Richard’ condition (a classified psychiatric mental disorder) is experienced by you as something to roll on the floor laughing about, all I can say is I am glad to be the recipient of a sample of your much-touted love and compassion.
It proves my point that love and compassion always fail to bring the Peace On Earth that is promised ... and why they fail. They fail because they arise out of malice and sorrow.
RESPONDENT: Warring, vicious and malicious behaviour is on the decline ...
RICHARD: Yet to alter one’s behaviour – whilst having a civilising effect – does not eliminate that which causes ‘warring, vicious and malicious behaviour’ in the first place. When push come to shove the veneer of socialisation disappears like the mirage it is and all the survival instincts – the passionate drives, urges, impulses and so on – come to the fore ... and ‘warring, vicious and malicious behaviour’ prevails. There has been 160,000,000 people killed by their fellow human beings in wars in the last 100 years (and a further 40,000,000 killed themselves in the depths of despair) which unnecessary deaths bear mute testimony to the fact that any such behavioural change is but skin deep.
RESPONDENT: [Warring, vicious and malicious behaviour is on the decline] in this new millennium ...
RICHARD: As ‘this new millennium’ is but a scant nine weeks old (and it is a ‘new millennium’ for only 1.0 billion people anyway), do you not think it is a trifle hasty observation when viewed against 5,000 years of recorded misery and mayhem, upon sober reflection? What is the guarantee that such feelings of ‘benevolent living, concern for all and quality of life’ will somehow succeed when all 6.0 billion peoples alive today on this otherwise fair earth are nursing malice and sorrow to their bosom?
RESPONDENT: [Warring, vicious and malicious behaviour is on the decline] in this perfectly improving perfect universe.
RICHARD: This universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect: it is neither improving nor ‘perfectly improving’ (whatever that means) as perfection cannot be improved. One can be this perfection personified ... which is an instant end, in one person, to that which provides the potentiality for warring and murdering and raping and torturing and domestic violence and child abuse and suicide. If such an individual outbreak of peace-on-earth were to be contagious, then one will have happily and harmlessly helped to initiate a global peace-on-earth ... with no more need to alter behaviours so as to effect an unstable lifestyle (a pseudo ‘quality of life’) ever again.
Then vigilance is no more.
RESPONDENT: Why? Because it doesn’t work as a life style in most cases.
RICHARD: Indeed, yet rearranging the deckchairs on the ‘Titanic’ is going to achieve ... what?
RESPONDENT: People eventually are learning.
RICHARD: If I may ask? What exactly is it that people ‘eventually are learning’? Apart from a handful of people, all I hear, read and see is objections to be happy and harmless ... and a blanket denial that the instinctual animal passions are the root cause of all the ills of humankind.
And I do not lead a cloistered life ... I have twenty four hour a day access to the Internet (which includes all the world’s major newspapers) and 24 channels of television just for starters.
RESPONDENT: While people are saving lives by the thousands ... life keeps getting better <snip> the world is changing in case nobody notices this wonderful fact.
RICHARD: Hmm ... I am one of those who has not ‘noticed this wonderful fact’. Just where, precisely, is ‘the world changing’ ... and in what ‘wonderful’ way?
RESPONDENT: I evolve with the world as it is and move on ... to crystallise my thinking and doing is to die. Which means anyone can prove all this right or wrong in whatever context they wish to dream up.
RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... the ‘context’ in which I place the only ‘change’ worthy of the name is freedom from the human condition which, as it has not happened anywhere at all that I have noticed, makes it all too easy to ‘prove all this wrong’ . My question then is this:
Is this a context I ‘wished to dream up’ ... or is it a physical context?
RESPONDENT: ‘Death from diseases’, is the main cause in this study (death from ‘all other causes’ in Wales and England has fallen from 35% to 14% of all deaths in 97 years) ... life is not all suicide, war and revenge. From this information I can postulate all kinds of cause and effect scenarios depending on the colour of ‘my’ glasses on the day.
RICHARD: Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene’ major ‘realisation’ was essentially the same: everything material (the heavens and the earth) shall pass away – therefore resist the temptations of the flesh – as his kingdom, which was before the heavens and the earth were, endures (do not even bother looking for peace-on-earth).
RESPONDENT: His realization was the same because there is only reality. The both transcended material plane slavery. Free at last.
RICHARD: Again, is this response not just another way of saying the same as what I wrote? What you are saying, in effect, is that Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene’ paramount ‘realisation’ meant do not even bother looking for peace-on-earth ... peace comes at physical death (‘R. I. P’) and not before?
RICHARD: Their ‘realisations’ and ‘understandings’ (and those of all God-Men and Gurus) does not include peace-on-earth. Therefore, their ‘wisdom’ means that 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 and the such-like will go on forever and a day. And yet you say that it is me who is deluded?
RESPONDENT: You don’t understand earth to think of it as peaceful.
RICHARD: I do not ‘think’ peace-on-earth ... I experience peace-on-earth twenty four hours a day, day after day. When I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day ... and I know that I will wake up to yet another day of perfection. This has been going on, day-after-day, for years now ... it is so ‘normal’ that I take it for granted that there is only perfection.
Plus I can easily put it all into words so as to unambiguously share my experience with my fellow human beings.
RESPONDENT: All beings are evolving to man: plants, animals, bugs. And it will take a beetle (not Beatle) a while before he acquires a human form, then probably a few thousand lifetimes before he attains enlightenment. If you considered all the sentient beings that weren’t in human form that had to attain human form to attain enlightenment you could see how there could be no such thing as ‘peace on earth’. Spiritual truths are very difficult to surrender to, which is what is required.
RICHARD: Aye, yet this is not a ‘spiritual truth’ ... this is a cultural religious belief (not all ‘Enlightened Beings’ believe in metempsychosis).
RESPONDENT: People want to ‘understand’ them, but how can you understand with a mind that is asleep?
RICHARD: I could certainly answer your question, as to how I understand them, from having lived as ‘a mind that is not asleep’ for eleven years ... but as you may very well tell me once again ‘no you haven’t or you wouldn’t talk the way you do’ I may as well not answer.
RESPONDENT: It is this fanatical drive of yours to prove K ‘wrong’ and you ‘right’ that throws such a cloud over your own ‘would be ‘teachings’.’ This constant barrage of attacks on K shows that you have an almost desperate need to be the only one on Earth to know what you know. I’m not saying that ‘know’ isn’t true, but it is quite ‘suspicious’ because of your mean-ness.
RICHARD: ‘Tis no wonder there is very little questioning of these basic issues ... just look at the response when somebody does so (‘fanatical drive’ and ‘would be ‘teachings’’ and ‘constant barrage of attacks’ and ‘an almost desperate need’ and ‘mean-ness’).
RESPONDENT: For example, the evidence you offer above to prove K’s litigious nature in the lawsuit over his own writings reveals that you will jump on what you see as any opportunity to prove that your are something he was not, i.e., free from anger.
RICHARD: If you look again at what I wrote you will see that I was asking a question which could very well elucidate, for some astute person, the distinction between the ideal and the reality ... what is your objection to such genuine questioning based upon?
RESPONDENT: Oh, cut the crap, Richard. On top of everything else, such statements show what a hypocrite you are and reduce your writing to just gossip. The implication that K was an angry man is implicit in your statement of a pretend question.
RICHARD: I asked the question because of the nature of what I was responding to. Vis.:
Generally speaking, the anger that the various saints, sages and seers have come out with from time to time has been designated as ‘Divine Anger’, for example, and I was allowing the possibility that any anger displayed by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti may have thus been exempt from the normal or garden variety.
Specifically written into the question is, basically, that there is the ideal (sitting together as two friends under a tree discussing matters) and there is the reality (taking out several lawsuits to obtain legal possession of a former associate’s documents: of course there is implicit in the question that anger was involved ... it is anger that clouds clarity.
Which is why I suggested that you look again at what I wrote because the issue I was addressing is the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war). I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life ... and a pacifist is a person who changes their behaviour in lieu of eradicating the anger (or aggression, hatred and etcetera) which causes the behaviour in the first place.
As law and order is everywhere maintained at the point of a gun a person that is free of malice and sorrow can both utilise physical force/ restraint (be involved in a war) and take out lawsuits (be involved in litigation) where clearly applicable ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case.
Lastly, what is indeed ‘hypocritical’ is advising others to do what one has not done oneself. Vis.:
And it is the ‘not many people listened’ statement which is the telling comment ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not listen to his own ‘Teachings’. But, then again, he oft-times distanced himself from the ‘Teachings’ ... as do the many and varied saints, sages and seers (popularly phrased as do not look at the finger but look at what the finger is pointing to).
Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti made it very clear where his peace lay ... the ‘answer’ to all the ills of humankind is not to be found in the world:
RICHARD: All I am indicating by saying that the truth is insincere is that, as the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being inside the flesh and blood body (as in ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’), the truth is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about.
RESPONDENT: I see that the ‘truth’ is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth – but it is not clear to me that ‘the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being’. I grant that is often the case, but an easily shown exception would be a child being empathetic before having any beliefs about an afterlife. It is also readily apparent that feeling caring is often done for an earthly reward – so am I to assume you were over generalizing here? If not, then I don’t understand.
RICHARD: I am not even generalising – let alone over-generalising – as the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any flesh and blood body anywhere in its lifetime ... simply because it cannot. Moreover, the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any entity inside any flesh and blood body either ... what it holds out is the promise of an after-death peace (the feeling of eternity is intrinsic to love).
As for a child not knowing about an afterlife: as far as I have been able to ascertain children in all cultures are spoon-fed fantasies about immortality at a very early age ... for example I can recall having a fascinating conversation with a child, not yet four years old, who not only gravely informed me that their newly deceased pet was residing in their particular society’s abode of requiem aeternam, but that they knew the pet’s body was in the ground.
And even if a child somehow escaped such cultural conditioning any feeling of empathy they may express – no matter how earnestly felt – is still not going to bring about peace-on-earth anyway ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about.
RESPONDENT: Which brings me to the question about how Richard’s evaluation is as to the part of the still invisible Mr Osama Bin Laden is playing in this current Human drama.
RICHARD: I usually do not write about current affairs as I can only ever provide a superficial opinion (they are not matters I am fully informed about) ... but as I understand it the basis of the part which Mr. Osama Bin Laden is playing would perhaps be best understood by reading the words of a ‘Fatwa’ which he, and some other people, made public on 23 Feb 1998 at the following URL: http://www.emergency.com/bladen98.htm
This is what it reads in part:
A newspaper article, written on 15 Feb 1999, which provides what seems to be a reasonable account of the relevant background information at that time, can be found at the following URL: http://past.thenation.com/cgi-bin/framizer.cgi?url=http://past.thenation.com/issue/990215/0215hiro.shtml
RESPONDENT: From an Islamic viewpoint the Name of the Game is ‘Jihad’. From a Western point of view it appears that Mr. Bush steadily is pushing for ‘War against Terrorism’.
RICHARD: You seem to be mixing and matching two separate issues here ... it could be better put this way:
RESPONDENT: Well I’d say that it’s a spiritual war anyway and it’s very unholy (unholy because I find some dignity implied with the word holy).
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I can no longer find any of the dignity implied in the word ‘holy’ with which I was inculcated in my child-hood.
RESPONDENT: Currently we have at any place on earth outbreaks of violence and I come to wonder why would not happen outbreaks of enlightenment as we safely can say that participators in these outbreaks are all more or less suffering from psychosis.
RICHARD: Oh, there have been outbreaks of enlightenment happening all over the place ... the following URL may be of interest: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/gurulist.html. And here is another URL: http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Ratings.htm
RESPONDENT: I think this is bare minimum we can do, if you do feel that it is possible to make a difference. So ... [quote] ‘We’ve launched an emergency petition from citizens around the world to the U.N. Security Council. We’ll be delivering the list of signers and your comments to the 15 member states of the Security Council on Thursday, March 6. If hundreds of thousands of us sign, it could be an enormously important and powerful message – people from all over the world joining in a single call for a peaceful solution. But we really need your help, and soon. Please sign and ask your friends and colleagues to sign today at: www.moveon.org/emergency/. In the next week, the U.N. Security Council will likely meet to decide on authorizing a war against Iraq. If the Council votes to accept a second resolution, it’ll be very difficult to avert a war. But if the resolution doesn’t get enough votes, it’ll be a major setback for the Bush Administration’s plans to invade and occupy Iraq. In the United States and around the world, millions of us oppose a war against Iraq. We believe that tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without the loss of a single life. This week may represent our last chance to win without war. The stakes couldn’t really be much higher. A war with Iraq could kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and inflame the Middle East. According to current plans, it would require an American occupation of the country for years to come. And it could escalate in ways that are horrifying to imagine ...’.
RICHARD: I have snipped the circular at this point so as to leave those last words hanging for reasons which will become apparent (further below): I am aware that it may be stating the obvious to say that I never ‘feel’ to do anything – let alone signing a petition supporting the French/Russian coalition’s proposal in opposition to the US/UK coalition’s proposal (or vice versa) in the Security Council of the United Nations – and feelings are a poor arbiter of appropriate action in any situation or circumstance anyway. Moreover I am somewhat bemused that you would ‘think’ that petitioning the current warlords, as they manoeuvre and manipulate for world domination, is the ‘bare minimum we can do’ on a mailing list which is set up to facilitate a sharing of experience and understanding, and to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition, so as to be living in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, sooner rather than later.
To this end it is pertinent to note that the peoples at ‘moveon.org’ are using scare tactics to further their aims – they have resurrected a doomsday scenario TV advertisement from a 1964 US election campaign, for example, which depicts a little girl counting daisy petals along with a missile countdown whilst a voice-over warns of the impending armageddon as her image is replaced by a nuclear mushroom cloud – which aims are made clear by the political arm of their organisation:
Thus, while claiming to be ‘non-partisan’ they are, in effect, seeking support from all over the cyber-world for their cause ... sucking otherwise intelligent people into a domestic political campaign (Democrats versus Republicans).
Just as a matter of interest ... here is a classic piece of wisdom if there ever was (from another of their numerous web sites):
RESPONDENT: Richard, I respond to your message but have chosen to rename the header for reasons that may become apparent as you read on.
RICHARD: What is immediately apparent is that whilst the subject I addressed was being guided by, or run by, the affective feelings when it comes to how to ‘make a difference’ – thinking that signing a petition to prevent one war among many wars was the ‘bare minimum we can do’ on a mailing list set up to share experience and understanding about the elimination of the root cause of war in oneself – your response has been to choose the topic ‘regime change’ instead.
However you do say further below that you are moving in this chosen direction (effecting political change through collective personal power) as a result of carefully made choices so I will make it clear here, up-front and out in the open, that one of the fundamental understandings which enables the actualism method to work its magic is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence.
In other words: global peace and harmony starts at home.
RICHARD: I am aware that it may be stating the obvious to say that I never ‘feel’ to do anything – let alone signing a petition supporting the French/Russian coalition’s proposal in opposition to the US/UK coalition’s proposal (or vice versa) in the Security Council of the United Nations – and feelings are a poor arbiter of appropriate action in any situation or circumstance anyway. Moreover I am somewhat bemused that you would ‘think’ that petitioning the current warlords, as they manoeuvre and manipulate for world domination, is the ‘bare minimum we can do’ on a mailing list which is set up to facilitate a sharing of experience and understanding, and to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition, so as to be living in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, sooner rather than later.
RESPONDENT: It’s not a small thing to be able to observe the cyber world let alone travelling in it.
RICHARD: Did you observe many references to the ubiquity of war whilst travelling in the cyber-world? For example: www.historyguy.com/new_and_recent_conflicts.html
It is a page which lists 24 ‘major’ wars (wars with more than 1,000 casualties) currently occurring and 22 ‘minor’ wars (wars with less than 1,000 casualties) currently occurring ... and 22 recently concluded or suspended wars.
I draw your attention to this so as to highlight the scope and scale of the task you have taken on in choosing the method of importuning warlords (effecting political change through collective personal power) in order to ‘make a difference’.
RESPONDENT: The goal is clear; facilitating an Actual Freedom.
RICHARD: This assertion does seem to be at odds with what you write further below:
Plus your method (effecting political change through collective personal power) has about as much likelihood of facilitating an actual freedom from the human condition as a butterfly flapping its wings in Central America has of effecting hurricane force winds in Southern Asia.
RICHARD: To this end it is pertinent to note that the peoples at ‘moveon.org’ are using scare tactics to further their aims – they have resurrected a doomsday scenario TV advertisement from a 1964 US election campaign, for example, which depicts a little girl counting daisy petals along with a missile countdown whilst a voice-over warns of the impending armageddon as her image is replaced by a nuclear mushroom cloud – which aims are made clear by the political arm of their organisation: ‘Regime Change Begins at Home’. <snip>
RESPONDENT: The organization <moveon.org>0 is marked ‘suspicious’.
RICHARD: What I am referring to, by saying ‘to this end’, is what this mailing list is set up for ... therefore I took the opportunity of responding to your forwarding of a political antiwar circular in a way which makes it relevant to discussions regarding just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition, so as to be living in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, sooner rather than later.
Hence my emphasis on feelings being a poor arbiter of appropriate action in any situation or circumstance ... especially as, in this instance, those very feelings are being deliberately manipulated by an organisation with a stated agenda that will do nothing – nothing whatsoever – to rid the world of war. And their motivation for choosing this course of action may very well be encapsulated in a pithy phrase from one of the many newspaper articles about them which they display on their website:
Whereas the web site which The Actual Freedom Trust maintains – the web site this mailing list is associated with – has the stated agenda of the elimination of the root cause of war itself ... not merely the prevention of war.
RICHARD: Thus, while claiming to be ‘non-partisan’ they are, in effect, seeking support from all over the cyber-world for their cause ... sucking otherwise intelligent people into a domestic political campaign (Democrats versus Republicans).
RESPONDENT: Ok that sounds like a very sensible pointer. <snip> ... while agreeing with the label for the category you suggest to create (otherwise Intelligent) I did not feel insulted, rather encouraged to re-evaluate my situation and previous actions that have led to this event (your reply on the message you sent me).
RICHARD: I often use the phrase ‘otherwise intelligent’ (a search of my part of the website recorded 108 hits) ... what I am conveying in this instance is any person being guided by, or run by, the affective feelings: intelligence, when not crippled by blind nature’s rough and ready survival package, is a truly remarkable phenomenon.
RESPONDENT: One of the reasons I think that is that I now clearly can see that this is neither intended to be a judgement nor a condemnation of me as person.
RICHARD: Hmm ... no unliveable NDA platitudes (as in uncritical acceptance or non-judgemental tolerance) issues forth from this pen.
RESPONDENT: In other words I do not mind to have been temporarily put into the category of otherwise intelligent people. Hence I think it is fair to say that at least anyone who has forwarded my petition can also be safely put in that same category for this one time. So ... I take it that you fit in the category of the more intelligent people (those who have not forwarded it).
RICHARD: No, not ‘more intelligent’ ... simply neither guided nor run by the affective feelings. Vis.:
It would appear that ‘stating the obvious’ needed to be stated after all.
RESPONDENT: First of all I like to notice that I have no idea what the impact of this petition at this point has had in the cyber world let alone the long term consequences only time will tell. So say if over the next days a change in the political weather should happen and if this is a change that I have anticipated on (hoped for) it is fair that say that this me (as a flesh body phenomena) is moving into a chosen direction and the manifestation as such a phenomena is the result of sequential events of which some are the result of carefully made choices to either act or not act. So ... to put It more clearly the action has the intent to explore the possibility of the existence in which a Universe exists where the Agenda of the warlords is effectively destroyed and/or hindered and replaced with an agenda that I think might contain a better selection of options for global change in other words more fun to be in that reality for me and the people I am with and the next generation.
RICHARD: You seem to be using the word ‘warlords’ as a pejorative term for the currently pro-war member nations (those presently advocating the resumption of one specific war) of the Security Council of the United Nations whereas I was being entirely even-handed in my characterisation ... it was a categorical reference to all of the member nations – and particularly the five nations which have a permanent position with the power of veto – which includes those currently proposing an anti-war (presently opposed to the resumption of one specific war) resolution.
And I use the term ‘warlords’ advisedly (since time immemorial the victors of armed conflict have sat around campfires arguing the pros and cons of their next move) and the ... um ... the hereditary five, manipulating and manoeuvring for supremacy in their elite group just as they have done for 50-plus years, are but the victors of the last major conflict which engulfed much of the world.
Technological advancements have changed the setting (central heating renders campfires redundant) but nothing else has changed ... and unless one fully comprehends that the human world, at root, runs on fear and is ruled by physical force/ restraint – anyone who has been a child will know this and anyone who is, or has been, a parent/guardian will know this twice over – one may become drawn into arguing the pros and cons of their next move oneself and thus lose sight of how peace-on-earth is enabled.
This is how I have described the human condition:
It is the human condition which is being displayed on television screens for all the world to see.
RESPONDENT: As to my own part with regard to the possible consequences that this somewhat random action the forwarding of, signing and adding a personal note to a [petition supporting the French/Russian coalition’s proposal in opposition to the US/UK coalition’s proposal (or vice versa) in the Security Council of the United Nations]>0 may have in the future. I think it may be helpful to mention that the petition came from Auz and was by me forwarded to 24 entities including the AF-mailing list and the K-list. On second thought perhaps a bit to generous an action and indeed legitimately questionable as to be sensible or silly.
RICHARD: What I am questioning the motivating factor for forwarding the circular – not the action of forwarding it – with the aim of enabling a self-investigation into the root cause of action in any situation or circumstance ... particularly so now that it may very well have been ‘the remains of my identity’ which persuaded the flesh and blood body into the action of garnering support for its chosen direction.
RESPONDENT: I do not claim omniscience nor am I incapable of making mistakes. So ... as for sending this petition to this list at worst I say I could be accused of having been presenting a form of spam yet at that moment not considered to be as such.
RICHARD: If it came by snail-mail it would be classified ‘junk mail’ (unsolicited mail). That it came on this mailing list instead occasioned me to not consign it to the waste-bin (where all unsolicited snail-mail goes) but to take the opportunity of making it relevant to discussions regarding living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.
RESPONDENT: I for one prefer to evaluate this action as a rather abrupt reappearance on this list (...) with an implicit invitation to reinitiate dialogue again. Furthermore though it may be over my ‘hat’ I think that the S. C. seriously needs to reconsider it’s priorities as well as to redefine the word security. It may be good to mention that previous to my membership of AF I had extensive dialogue exchanges on various other lists; some sannyas-lists and K-lists. I was stunned to hear from my sister that Mr. Mandela actually is supporting the option of war. For all clarity I’m not a pacifist but to even consider war as an option as a ‘quick fix’ to the present world crisis I find too silly to contemplate. So to accredit S.C. with being in charge of my Security at this point is an honour I do not find them capable let alone to acknowledge them as world administrators of Security. So what to do?
RICHARD: I do not seek to advise anybody on what to do, or not do, and I have stated the reason why on many an occasion ... for example:
Which means I have no solutions for governments either ... as all human beings are driven by instinctual
passions war is an essential facility for obtaining/maintaining an imitation of peace – an uneasy truce called ‘law and order’
– at the point of a gun. Just as a police force is a necessary facility for obtaining/ maintaining an imitation of peace within
a country so too is a military force necessary for obtaining/maintaining an imitation of peace between countries ... and this will
continue to be the situation for as long as peoples continue to nurse malice and sorrow to their bosom.
RESPONDENT: Put it all in the hands of God or Allah hence sitting on ones ass while the moment that war is no longer inevitable approaches rapidly with a deadline of 10 days or claiming responsibility for what is happening on my planet. I have been fairly well fed the idea that I should not abuse my personal power yet the difference between using power and being an influence had been rather blur not so anymore.
RICHARD: For what it is worth my companion, upon being asked by another person why she did not join an antiwar street march recently, said it would have been hypocritical for her to do so as she still had war in herself.
There was a short silence ... then the other person changed the subject.
RESPONDENT: No doomsday scenarios I would advertise I saw the face of the pure evil aspect of war this last new years eve.
RICHARD: It was this sentence which occasioned me to select but one quote from among many on the ‘moveon.org’ web site (further above). Vis.:
RESPONDENT: This has twigged me in indeed as well considering Doomsday scenarios as well as Golden Future scenario.
RICHARD: Perhaps if I put in the most simple terms: given that you said ‘I think this is bare minimum we can do’ in your initial post, and that it was your first post since last new year’s eve, how will forwarding a petition supporting the French/Russian coalition’s proposal, in opposition to the US/UK coalition’s proposal, in the Security Council of the United Nations bring about the ‘Golden Future’ scenario?
RESPONDENT: Obviously the intensity of experiencing identity at risk is proportional to the level of risk it is exposed to. The archetype of mass destruction (the nuclear bomb) currently seems now to have been split in new archetypes WM. Also the collective Consciousness of America as feeling oneself to be an American which was temporarily experienced during the event of 9/11 now no longer exists one cannot be an American anymore the only option is feeling oneself to be democrat or republican or citizen of the world. In the US psyche this is the solution to avoid to connect with this collective archetype and experience the full impact as ones own potential to be destructive or in other words to experience the raw instinctual energy of ones own body. Thus the trick to redefine war as pre-emptive action against terrorism is bought rather eagerly by many who mistake western world with America thereby conveniently ignoring the fact that war is terrorism (note I’m not saying it is violence that is too obvious). So ... there is a failure in the neocortex to process new information correctly hence it cannot deal with the phrase ‘war against terrorism’. I admit that it took me a while to figure it out. Now a person that acts from the resulting thoughts that are fuelled by this feeling can not be considered to be capable of sensible action. Thus it is understandable that some organizations will may make use of scare tactics in attempt to support ‘peaceful’ solutions mistakenly offering fuel for what they fear the most hence in avertedly may make things worse rather then better. I’m glad you have pointed that out so clearly.
RICHARD: The whole point of terrorism is to terrify people into submission ... to then obligingly terrify each other with graphic depictions of armageddon if terrorism be confronted is a further twist of the screw (which is why I left those words hanging in the circular you posted). Vis.:
I notice that the horrified imagination now wants peoples world-wide to keep a light burning in their window to show the troops the way home.
RESPONDENT: Recently I heard Mr. Rumsfeld as a spokesman for the Pentagon revealing that already they had a vision of a post ‘Saddam-era’. It was apparent that he made a fair distinction between this ‘us’ and that he is well aware that Mr. Bush is Chief in command of the US army. Mr. Bin Laden was only mentioned briefly as a future possible ‘client’ of Mr. Hussein and still is alleged to be covertly associated with the mentioned Mr. Hussein. Talking about Mr. Bin Laden (be accredited for the 9/11 incident) I watched him on television. He was having tea together with some of his associates while they where laughing while watching the video of the collapse of the WTC. In another video he was mentioning that he would not discriminate between civilians and soldiers. As I understand for most of the western world this was an expression of the most malicious mind ever hence he is demonised.
RICHARD: A person who is a terrorist to some is freedom fighter to others ... there is quite a wide range of nomenclature for different ways of fighting one’s fellow human beings (guerrilla, revolutionary, insurgent, resistance fighter, underground fighter, partisan, militant activist, irregular soldier, and so on) yet to blur the distinction between terrorism and conventional war (as in ‘war is terrorism’ for example) is not all that helpful in regards understanding the part terror plays in guiding, or driving, one’s own actions.
The following link has an extensive article, with multiple links and references, on the subject of definition: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Again it may be stating the obvious but it could very well be worth saying anyway if only for the sake of re-emphasising what this mailing list is set up for: terrorism, by any definition, can only terrify where fear itself exists.
There is no fear in this actual world ... the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum.
RESPONDENT: To contemplate on the question how malicious is Bin Laden? may very well result in a PCE when an actualist takes in account that this one also is a member of the human collective specifically a male character. His way of presenting himself reminded me of how I remember to have seen Mr. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh on videos. At that point I understood that I do not discriminate between so-called spiritual or world leaders. The apparent blatantly misunderstood intertwining of politics and spirituality has become apparent for me and this largely contributes to re-appreciation of the world as it is today with people as they are.
RESPONDENT: So ... I continue to re-examine as I could also fairly hear the alarum and see the lights flashing. How to put it as such that we can find some ‘common ground’ here? The latest ‘realizations’ of mans ‘intelligent’ action with regard to security on this planet, have not left this flesh blood body unaffected.
RICHARD: Which brings this discussion back to the original topic: the affective feelings being a poor arbiter of appropriate action in any situation or circumstance (a flesh and blood body cannot be affected by a realisation unless the affective feelings pump chemicals as the implications and ramifications of the realisation are instinctually felt).
In other words: survival is at stake and the instinctual ‘presence’ or ‘being’ springs into action with a veritable cocktail from the array at its command. It is handy to remember, as one investigates one’s psyche (which is the human psyche) that the instinctive urges can, on occasion, kick-in big time with surging feelings and racing thoughts, and thus the cardinal rule of thumb is this:
Keep your hands in your pockets (do not do anything that you would not ordinarily do).
RESPONDENT: It has become apparent to me that nerves of steal are not enough to observe the magnitude of this kind of stupidly that probably has set something in motion that as I see it will have to be resolved in terms of action reaction and hence the doom machine is ticking on in the real world, thus a heart of steel seems as well a highly recommended attribute to enable an actualist to persist in disassembling programs that emulate any identity.
RICHARD: Have you ever noticed that many an otherwise intelligent person has been afflicted by the doomsday syndrome all throughout human history?
If so, the words ‘all throughout human history’ should speak for themselves.
The doom being felt – and projected onto the world at at large – is, of course, ‘my’ own doom: there is no way out, ‘I’ am doomed. ‘I’ must, inevitably, cease to ‘be’. Instead of bemoaning ‘my’ fate and vainly searching for an escape, ‘I’ can see ‘myself’ for what ‘I’ am. This seeing is the beginning of the ending of ‘me’. The extinction of ‘me’ is the ultimate sacrifice ‘I’ can make to ensure the possibility of peace-on-earth for not only this body but all bodies.
Have you ever desired oblivion?
RESPONDENT: <emulation of a somewhat paranoid identity >0 [malicious voice speaking; wouldn’t it be great if we could blow a few fuses of the Pentagons switchboard; confuse their circuits as it where].
RICHARD: Given the enormous responsibility which inheres in such an action – being the cause of consequences for which you have neither contingency plans nor the capacity to put into effect – are you not well-pleased you do not have that ability?
RESPONDENT: I don’t know about you Richard but frankly speaking I think the aliens have taken over this world.
RICHARD: Ha ... all 6.0 billion flesh and blood body bodies are already inhabited by an alien entity (the identity within).
RESPONDENT: As you were mentioning that the real world has exceeded Monty Python and that nonetheless you are having a ball all the way, I fail yet to get a clear picture of you being also a person or is this perhaps a very subtle touch of black humour that you have introduced into our conversation?
RICHARD: It is this simple: as there is no alien identity in this flesh and blood body you cannot recognise me (it is only in a PCE that another person can relate to me).
RESPONDENT: The movie the ‘body snatchers’ seems to be light entertainment compared to this grossly misconducted over-budgeted ‘Hollywood movie’ that now is unfolding day after day in the actual world with actual guns and actual killing machines; the ‘drones’ of the coalition of the willing are in place. These ‘drones’ will handle the chapter justice of this final? chapter of a collective that has clearly gone berserk.
RICHARD: As there is somewhere in the vicinity of 24 significant armed conflicts currently occurring around the world why is there this morbid fixation on but one among many? Do you even know where these other wars are happening and who is involved and why? For instance: are you as equally concerned about nearly 1,000 people [reported] being killed last week in the Congo, where a cease-fire was signed only a couple of weeks ago, as you are about what is being displayed 24/7 across the television screens?
Further to the point: in the last ten years alone, of the 20th century, 3.6 million people died as a result of civil wars and ethnic violence ... which is more than 16 times the number killed in wars between countries in that same period.
Or, to consider it all in other terms, are you aware that approximately $8.6 trillion a year is allocated, worldwide, on military expenditure?
RESPONDENT: VEPS (very enlightened persons) in the white house and the pentagon assure the rest of us that within a reasonable time span the post-Saddam era will take of and every Iraqi that will survive at last will experience the blessings of democracy as will be ‘dictated’ by the self-proclaimed new order. Anyway the goose is out that is a fact. So what to do?
RICHARD: Seeing that you ask: the first thing to do is to comprehend that one of the fundamental understandings, which enables the actualism method to work its magic, is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence.
In other words: global peace and harmony starts at home.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps expressing my gratitude to the US administration gang because thanks to them all my hopes/expectations with regard to the US population and their so-called allies/friends as to the likeliness that somewhere somehow there might be existing a few grains of common sense in those intoxicated reptile brains, has been destroyed completely and gone up in smoke?
RICHARD: If by this you mean that you have become disillusioned about political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so on, being able to bring about global peace and harmony then, yes, you could indeed thank all the peoples concerned for exposing the illusion for you.
And I mean all ... not just the ones you lopsidedly mention.
RESPONDENT: So ... I think it is fair to say that I may have been as gullible as everyone else generally speaking yet I have reached the limit here and indeed how different is naivety from gullibility.
RICHARD: Have you worked out the difference yet between naïveté and gullibility when it comes to ... um ... to astrology, for example?
RESPONDENT: Apparently the real world is some form of the American dream.
RICHARD: Not specifically, no ... all throughout human history peoples have been endeavouring to bring about peace and harmony through political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so on.
RESPONDENT: ^note in my actualism this dream can be considered as an overlay of concepts on attributes (things/people) in which the predominating quality of the delusionary aspect(s) of that overlay is a distorted value as to what is a fair price tag for a hamburger.^
RICHARD: Whereas the real ‘American Dream’, as expressed early last century by Mr. Woodrow Wilson with his ‘the world must be made safe for democracy’ injunction, is some form of representational democracy (universal suffrage or political enfranchisement) for all 193 nations ... the 20th/21st centuries may come to be known as the centuries of democratisation (multiparty elections are now held in 140 countries of which 82 are full democracies).
As for the cultural values ... defeated tribes/nations generally ape the victors (for obvious reasons).
RESPONDENT: Well I keep doing my little petty Dutch peasant dance and keep on singing silly songs, as I’m safely and sound locked in this somewhat chaotic universe ...
RICHARD: If I may interject? What ‘chaotic universe’ are you referring to? This material universe, the only one there is in actuality, having no opposite, no other, is peerless, beyond compare ... pure and perfect (there is no chaos, no disorder here).
RESPONDENT: ... and respectfully I’ll pass over the madcap to anyone who is volunteering to play for god not without mentioning that god is the devil in disguise.
RICHARD: Aye, just as the ‘good’ is dependent upon the ‘bad’ for its very existence so too does the diabolical underpin the divine.
RESPONDENT: Self-aggrandisement to me is just another word for overconfidence; a men must know his limits.
RICHARD: What is really weird about ‘self’-aggrandisement is that it is entirely unnecessary anyway: as this flesh and blood body only, one is this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
And it don’t come bigger than that!
RESPONDENT: Incidentally it appeared that many actualists (if not all) are still more interested in evaluating old historical documents in which is referred to historical characters difficult verifiable to be having existed as actual flesh blood beings; otherwise then in the fertile human-imagination they may even not ever have been present.
RICHARD: Whether the many and varied deified beings historically existed or not is beside the point ... the wisdom ascribed to them lives on to this very day and gets played out in the morals and values and principles and customs and traditions and so on which fail to deliver the goods. The following web page shows that approximately 5.6 billion people profess adherence to a religion (and thus religio/spiritual mores). http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
For just one instance, the U.S. polls – Gallup, Harris, and other polls, including Kosmin (1990 survey of 113,000 Americans) – consistently indicate that between about 92% and 97% of Americans say they believe in God. (www.adherents.com/adh_faq.html#God).
The sheer scope and scale of mysticism shows that it runs deep ... hence the evaluation you speak of.
RESPONDENT: What my major handicap as a practicing actualist is appears to be a lack of interest to bring the virtual table conversation to a point that our so-called world leaders/administrators can be evaluated on a regular basis like has been done so laboriously and relentlessly precise with the various spiritual teachers and their doctrines (aka strategies to remain ‘superior’ to fellow beings).
RICHARD: Perhaps the following will throw some considerable light on why not:
As an actual freedom from the human condition lies beyond enlightenment whatever it is that the ‘world leaders’ have to say has little relevance, if any, to enabling peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.
These days most of them have expertise in political science, political economics, domestic and international law, business studies, and so on ... to take the current heads of government, of the five hereditary member nations in the United Nations Security Council, as an example: in the USA Mr. George W. Bush (President) has a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from the Harvard Business School and Mr. Dick Cheney (Vice President) has a B.A. and a M.A., both in political science, from the University of Wyoming; in the UK Mr Tony Blair (Prime Minister), studied law at the Oxford University and practiced as a barrister (specialising in employment and industrial law) and Mr. John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister) has a diploma in economics and politics from Ruskin College Oxford and a BSc in economics from the University of Hull; in Russia Mr. Vladimir Putin (President) studied law at Leningrad State University and spent 15 years as foreign intelligence officer in the KGB and Mr. Mikhail Kasjanov (Prime Minister) graduated from the Moscow Automobile Institute and the State Planning Committee’s (Gosplan) Higher Economics Program; in France Mr. Jacques Chirac (President), an Insitut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris graduate, earned a graduate degree from the Ecole Nationale d’Administration and Mr. Jean-Pierre Raffarin (Prime Minister) attended the Paris-Assas Faculty of Law, then graduated from the Paris Ecole supérieure de commerce; in China Mr. Hu Jintao (President) is an engineering graduate from the Tsinghua University and Mr. Wen Jiabao (Premier) has a Masters Degree from the Beijing Institute of Geology.
I do not know if any of the above have published books/articles but the U.S. National Security Advisor Ms. Condoleezza Rice (who has a Bachelors Degree, a Doctorate, and a Masters Degree in Political Science amongst other awards) has the books ‘Germany Unified and Europe Transformed’ (1995) with Mr. Philip Zelikow, ‘The Gorbachev Era’ (1986) with Mr. Alexander Dallin, and ‘Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army’ (1984) to her credit and has also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defence policy.
I for one have no interest whatsoever in reading them so as to find out how to enable peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: Observing how the truth is being advertised these days in fact is watching an ongoing comedy capers of a magnitude hitherto unknown by me in my personal history.
RICHARD: Speaking personally I find it all most informative: the global news networks do present a high quality, high budget, never-ending, soap-opera, which attracts enormous ratings ... nevertheless, despite the houp-la, it is possible to see all aspects of the human condition parading daily across the screen (indeed the houp-la is part and parcel of the human condition).
As such it is an invaluable resource never before available in human history ... the days of parochial ignorance are numbered.
RESPONDENT: Watching it at times making me hyperventilate and I get into a hysterical fit of laughter when I hear so-called experts on WAR strategies and security issues expressing their expert opinions. What a peace of work is humanity. Am I afraid ? Hell no I’m only terrified and in shock and Awe. Ain’t life grant.
RICHARD: The impression conveyed is that unless people take an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, they will ‘stand to be accused as war criminals’ ... hence your ‘thus as I see it there still may be some work to do on this list’ observation. Is this impression correct?
RESPONDENT: I’d say more or less but I’ll rephrase: [Unless people take an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, I will ‘hold them responsible for any damage done resulting from being a supporter of the US-administrator’s scheme to push-advertise their interpretation of Democracy as the new world religion]. Keeping in mind that the above of course needs to be taken as my personal opinion; a reflection of what I am and where I come from.
RICHARD: Sure ... and what position have you taken on each and every one of the other wars (24 major conflicts and 22 minor conflicts) currently occurring elsewhere around the globe?
You must have quite a busy schedule keeping yourself fully-informed so as to come to meaningful decisions?
RICHARD: If so, does not taking an anti-war position, or taking a pro-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, indicate the presence of a ‘dark underbelly’ to you? If not ... then just what do you mean?
RESPONDENT: As to [not taking an anti-war position, or taking a pro-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens]: this seems to be a rather complex matter. It would imply that [not taking an anti-war position] indicates the presence of a ‘dark underbelly’ [taking a pro-war position] indicates the presence of a ‘dark underbelly’. As already mentioned I found the expression ‘dark underbelly’ an obscure expression so concluding that either one of the positions would indicate a ‘dark underbelly’ would be an equally obscure one and not be contributing to clarity.
RICHARD: Aye, I did notice that you had already mentioned it the first time you mentioned it ... and whenever you are ready to use an expression that is not an ‘obscure expression’ – so as to be actually ‘contributing to clarity’ – I will be ready to read it.
RESPONDENT: As to the ‘dark’ aspect of this underbelly it might be appropriate to mention that being God on earth is only one part of the deal, obviously when buying the package of ‘self-aggrandisement’ one also has bought the Devil yet rarely one has done so conscious.
RICHARD: (snipped) ... are you suggesting that because I have not publicly taken an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, I am unknowingly in the grip of the Christians’ anthropomorphisation of the ‘dark’ side of human nature?
RESPONDENT: NO. That would be more or less about the same as suggesting: That because you have not publicly taken an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, you must be in denial. We have had that discussion also in the past and I’m finished with that likewise with the ‘cult issue’.
RICHARD: Okay, then why did you tell me about having ‘bought the Devil yet rarely one has done so conscious’ in reference to ‘the ‘dark’ aspect of this underbelly’ (meaning the suggested ‘dark underbelly’ of an actual freedom from the human condition)?
It simply does not make sense for you to tell me about the diabolical nature of the divine as that observation figures prominently on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... it being something I discovered back in mid 1988 whilst sailing my yacht around tropical islands off the north-east coast of Australia with a choice companion.
RICHARD: Whilst on this ‘God/Devil’ subject: do you recall that doomsday scenario TV advertisement (resurrected by ‘moveon.org’ from a 1964 US election campaign) which depicts a little girl counting daisy petals along with a missile countdown whilst a sepulchral voice-over warns of the impending armageddon as her image is replaced by a nuclear mushroom cloud? I only ask because you did say (as requoted further above) that you are reaching a point where you see that the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens is indeed unlike any war before in history, and that it is an apt opportunity to actually take sides or a position in it, because to simply dismiss that fact (your seeing of that war being unlike any war before in history) as yet another war only just begun is almost akin to spiritual wishful thinking that it will all be hunky dory in the end ... that is, in a distant future.
RESPONDENT: Yes, I remember you bringing to my attention that moveon.org was using ‘scare tactics’ in order to get supporters for their ‘democratic’ agenda I have already publicly acknowledged that I regretted having signed it and that sending it to the list was a not so sensible action.
RICHARD: That is beside the point ... I am drawing your attention to the marked similarity between the two doomsday scenarios: your ‘almost akin to spiritual wishful thinking that it will all be hunky dory in the end’ scenario and the resurrected 1964 US election campaign TV advertisement nuclear armegeddon scenario. Both the scenarios entail seeing the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens as being ‘unlike any war before in history’ ... which is what Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain does when referring to the Third World War (further below).
In case the significance of the words ‘the resurrected 1964 US election campaign TV advertisement’ has twice passed you by maybe it will help to point out that on Friday, 2 September, 1983, Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain made the following prediction:
My high-school arithmetic tells me that 1983 plus 15 makes Wednesday, 2 September, 1998 (four and a half years ago) the end of his 15 year holocaust. When I watch television I see places like Tokyo, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and Bombay still standing – and still expanding – so, unless there is a giant conspiracy going on and it is old footage being replayed to lull me into a false sense of security, he was either scaremongering or hallucinating.
As for the nuclear holocaust scenario of 39 year ago (the 1964 US election campaign TV advertisement) ... it fizzled like a damp squib in Berlin, 1989.
RICHARD: Also, as you have had some prior involvement with Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain, the following may be worth considering: [Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain]: ‘What I am proposing is the only alternative; no other alternative is proposed anywhere. There is no other possibility. (...) It has never happened before that you had to choose a certain way of life or total destruction of all life from the planet. That is why I emphasise that they will have to listen (...) If they don’t choose what I am saying then they have to choose a global suicide. (...) I am the only way out of this mess that their religions and their political philosophies have created in the world’. (Volume 1, Chapter 10, ‘Osho: The Last Testament’; 8 September 1985). And: [Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain]: ‘The Third World War is gathering around. Life seems to be very fragile; it has never been so before. War has always been here – in three thousand years we have fought five thousand wars – so war is not a new thing, but something new has happened. The Third World War will be the last war; it will be total war. It will destroy not only all humanity but all life from the earth, And the clouds are becoming darker and coming closer every day’. (Question 2, Chapter 14, ‘I am That’; 24 October 1980). There is much more on this doomsday theme all throughout his discourses (the search engine recorded 112 hits for the words ‘global suicide’ and 322 hits for the words ‘Third World War’) ... but maybe that sample will do for now?
RESPONDENT: So ... considering your search results together with the 328,000 total results from yahoo on global suicide it is fair to say that it can be considered to be an issue that has drawn some attention. Am I correct that you are suggesting that Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain also was applying ‘scare tactics’ likewise i.e. the people of moveon.org did and that he was doing so in order to scare his followers in such a way that they would accept that [his way is the only way out of this mess that religions and political philosophies have created in the world]?
RESPONDENT: As you have put all your cards on the table I will do the same: [quote] ‘Someone will come along after a while who will speak against my words and the scriptures that will have been made from them. There need be no fear! But a strange thing happens here and that is this: In the future, my work in this world will be furthered by the very person who speaks against me’. (Osho 1970).
RICHARD: As the remainder of that quote shows that he was doing the work of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and saying the same thing as the Vedas said (the Vedas are, loosely speaking, Hinduism prior to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan), he was clearly indicating that someone, someday, would be doing his work, saying the same thing he was saying, by speaking against him.
And, as these are your cards you are laying on the table, are you indicating that you are here to do Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s work (which is, loosely speaking, an admixture of Hinduism and Buddhism)?
RESPONDENT: The WAT-script that I have refused to support from the beginning as you may remember ...
RICHARD: If I may point out? You not only refused to support it you were affectively opposed to it (via an oh-so-easy-to-do cyber-petitioning of the Security Council of the United Nations) ... and there is a marked difference betwixt the two stances.
RESPONDENT: ... thus unless actual freedom is and will be only for a very limited number of individuals there is little or no hope that the course humanity has taken now will result in that there will be an ending of the war against terror.
RICHARD: Unless there be an actual or virtual freedom from the human condition there is no chance that there be an ending of war itself ... given that there be 24 ‘major’ wars (wars with more than 1,000 casualties), and 22 ‘minor’ wars (wars with less than 1,000 casualties), currently occurring around the world why the fixation on just what the UK/US coalition are involved in?
And I use the word ‘fixation’ advisedly.
RESPONDENT: Now if indeed as you have suggested in the past, while responding to a somewhat urgent post of mine, that on a list like this there can indeed be something done, to stop the current Warlords from heading for world domination.
RICHARD: Whereas this is what I actually suggested:
RESPONDENT: Much as I support the Peace-on-earth vs. World-peace as Peace-on-earth being the only sensible way to go, as indeed World peace now translates as War against terror, the mere fact that one is no longer contributing to malice and sorrow (not putting out negative vibes) seems to be not sufficient, that is in my book.
RICHARD: I see that your ‘support’ for (individual) peace-on-earth did not even make it through to the end of your sentence.
RESPONDENT: What I observe in what I assume you referred to as Houpla ...
RICHARD: The term ‘houp-la’ is a slang term for a commotion, ballyhoo, or pretentious nonsense.
RESPONDENT: ... is that manipulation through the media has taken an enormous high flight and unfortunately (though I’m far from omniscient) it can be seen that at this point the direction (how the neocortex is re-programmed) seems to be mainly determined by foolishness/ superstition as the basic script is written in the backrooms of the warlords.
RICHARD: The global news networks do present a high quality, high budget, never-ending, soap-opera, which attracts enormous ratings ... nevertheless, despite all the commotion, it is possible to see all aspects of the human condition parading daily across the screen (indeed all the commotion is part and parcel of the human condition).
As such the world-wide media is an invaluable resource never before available in human history (another first) ... the days of parochial ignorance are numbered.
RESPONDENT: Though there seems to be also a countermovement unfortunately not as strongly backed as the to wit evil scriptwriters push their scenario. As this ‘backing’ apparently seems to be a matter of numbers. As I see it human intelligence seems to try to moderate between the options that are available and it still seems to be making choices between what is the worst and what is a better scenario.
RICHARD: Yet all this while peace-on-earth already always exists ... and is anybody’s, for the very asking, each moment again.
RESPONDENT: Who/what are i.e., those people who come up with the insidious proposition to provide an anti rocket-shield for Japan (costs $24 billion) is this really the course we have set? I’m wondering, as a dreamer that is of course.
RICHARD: In the case you mention it could very well be said that it is the course the current North Korean dictator has set (rather than something the ubiquitous ‘we’ have set) ... in any situation where someone critically threatens to use physical force against their fellow human being it is not all that surprising that a corresponding defence be prepared.
A full democracy not only has a representative government (regular competitive elections for governance) but an accountable jurisprudence (a transparent judicial process), freedom of speech (an uncensored media), freedom of association/ assembly (no proscribed fellowships/ gatherings), freedom of contract (equal rights/ opportunity), the separation of church/ mosque/ temple/ synagogue and state (where humanism, rather than theism, manages human affairs), freedom of religion (including no religion) ... all of which involve issues of public policing (as opposed to secret police).
RESPONDENT: I’m curious if you can name one country/ nation that matches the above criteria. i.e. [where humanism, rather than theism, manages human affairs].
RICHARD: For just one instance: the United States of America has the separation of church and state in its constitution. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has the following to say:
RESPONDENT: As it seems to me to be now a ‘full’ democracy has yet to emerge.
RICHARD: Indeed, I cannot name any country where humanism, rather than theism, *fully* manages human affairs ... Australia, for an example I have first-hand knowledge of, has the speaker of the house of parliament invoke the Christian/Judaic god to guide the politicians’ deliberations, whenever the elected representatives sit to formulate policy, and then recites a Christian prayer.
Howsoever I will make the following observation: capital punishment has been legislated out of the law-book in every state and territory in Australia whereas the god invoked to guide the elected representatives’ deliberations has done no such thing (the Christian/ Judaic law-book still has that statute, if that is the right word, firmly in place with no indication that it will ever be struck out of divine law in regards, for just three instances, homosexuality (Leviticus 20: 13), a non-virginal bride (Deuteronomy 22: 21), and a betrothed virgin who cries not for help whilst being raped in a city (Deuteronomy 22: 23-27).
Thus, to some degree if not a large degree, humanism, rather than theism, does manage human affairs – just as there is, to some degree if not a large degree, an adherence to all the (further above) criteria of a full democracy – and, thus far in human history, not one of those full democracies have ever waged war against another.
‘Tis held that accountability (regular competitive elections for governance) occasions this phenomenon.
RESPONDENT: Thus as alienation is the main source of confusion, that is not strange as 99,99999% of the world population is still inhabited/ occupied/ determined by the alienating entity if – extinguishing is not possible I’d be more then happy to see them being put asleep/being sedated and have humanity controlled through astra by sign language
RICHARD: This may be an apt moment to re-present what I have already re-posted (further above):
RESPONDENT: The computer now has that potential. So ... what you say?
RICHARD: What I say is that one of the fundamental understandings which enables the actualism method to work its magic is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence.
In other words: global peace and harmony starts at home.
RESPONDENT: How (one thump up) Am (stretch the first finger). L>stop. Just an experiment. P.S. If you say quit here I well can understand because this is soo ... beyond the wildest dreams. But then again I assume a freed intelligence, can understand that someone had to make that call.
RICHARD: Nope ... a freed intelligence understands that one of the fundamental understandings which enables the actualism method to work its magic is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence.
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.