Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: The Teachings themselves definitely need to be questioned – and questioned thoroughly. Even a brief study of history would show that the Teachings – which have been around for at least three thousand years – simply have not worked. There is as much war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption now as then. If Love Agapé and Divine Compassion are going to ‘fix things up’ then the question needs to be asked: Why is it taking so long? Is not three thousand plus years long enough to test the efficacy of these Divine solutions to humankind’s plight? The proof of anything lies in the practical working out of it physically, here on earth. It is of no use to propose that fulfilment lies only on the other side of physical death ... there is simply no way to verify this. I have always been concerned about our lot here on earth and am only interested in a practical solution to the Human Condition. How many millions of well-meaning peoples have assiduously put these Teachings into practice only to fail – and then blame themselves for not ‘doing them properly’? I maintain that they have indeed ‘done them properly’ and that it is the Teachings that are lacking, not the diligent devotees. Of course, there are many, many disciples who do not pursue their Spiritual Practice with sufficient diligence, but to suggest that everybody who has ever lived, and those who are still living, are all lazy when it comes to putting the Teachings into practice is stretching credulity too much. Therefore it behoves one to question ... and question deeply.

RESPONDENT: What if it is not gurus fault but people understood them incorrectly once they died.

RICHARD: Are you saying that millions upon millions – if not billions – of otherwise intelligent and/or pious and/or studious and/or devout peoples throughout these thousands of years have all misunderstood what the ‘Teachers’ teach? Does that not stretch one’s credibility somewhat? And given that billions have ‘misunderstood’ , according to you, how come you are so special – in that you fondly imagine that you understand – and they do/did not? Are you outstanding among the millions and millions?

Or are the ‘Teachings’ and the ‘Teachers’ – and the source that the ‘Teacher’s Teachings’ come from – horribly and terribly sick?

RESPONDENT No. 20: In that Krishnamurti was presenting not a philosophy but a commentary on living, notes that are helpful and insightful in terms of the way we live, looking at the way Krishnamurti lived is a valid and legitimate approach to understanding what he was saying. But this must be qualified. For this is valid so long as we also understand that there may be a difference between the man Krishnamurti and what was said, that is, the truth or falsity of what is said is independent of whether the man Krishnamurti lived it.

RESPONDENT: For me it sure takes away from the validity of what he said if he didn’t live it.

RICHARD: Indeed. What is the point of listening to ‘Teachings’ if they cannot be lived? Is it not a case of ‘listening’ and ‘listening’ ... and never being able to be living fully because the ‘Teachings’ get in the way of an actual freedom? Can the ‘Teachings’, in fact, be ever lived by anyone? If Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti cannot live the ‘Teachings’, then who can? Who on earth is living the ‘Teachings’?

It is so great to be living in modern times with the technology of mass communication ... the printed word; the audio-taped word and the video-taped word. People have been getting away with dissimulation for centuries with the inaccuracies of the ‘sacred scriptures’ – being not verbatim transcripts – never being able to be questioned. I am so pleased to be born in this era where we can compare the experience of all peoples from all cultures and all philosophies and from all traditions ... and put the ‘seers’ under public scrutiny. After all, they profess to know the answer.

As far as I am concerned it is a case of ‘put up or shut up’.

RICHARD: If thought can get such rigorous scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ... why not feelings? Are feelings sacrosanct?

RESPONDENT: Hum Richard, what does ‘sacrosanct’ mean?

RICHARD: Off-limits. (Oxford Dictionary: sacrosanct: exempt from criticism; inviolable, sacred; secured from violation or infringement (as) by religious sanction).

RESPONDENT: As long as you ‘show’ your knowledge your ‘Intelligence’ cannot show through (if there is any).

RICHARD: As you are on record as defining ‘Intelligence’ as being ‘love in action’ then am I to take it that you, too, are not going to put it under the microscope? I guess not ... given that you have oft-times proudly explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through, eh?

RESPONDENT: Feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie!! (No. 10, being non knowledgeable).

RICHARD: Aye ... and to think that all this while you have been busily being an ‘empty vessel’ for something that is ‘not real’ to come through. Is this because Love and/or Truth is sacrosanct?

RESPONDENT: Hum. Please tell me anew, what does sacrosanct mean to you, Richard, perhaps using one word? No. 10, an empty vessel, for something that is ‘not real’ (or real) to pass through, unencumbered!

RICHARD: Is it because ‘off-limits’ is hyphenated that it does not constitute one word for you? Why is it important that it be a single word? But, okay then ... how about these: ‘unchallengeable’, ‘untouchable’, ‘unalterable’, ‘interdicted’, ‘exempt’, ‘precluded’, ‘taboo’, ‘forbidden’, ‘prohibited’, ‘banned’, ‘proscribed’, ‘vetoed’, ‘outlawed’, ‘embargoed’, ‘excluded’, and/or ‘inalienable’?

How about that, eh ... not a hyphen in sight? Now, what about two words? Vis.: ‘sacred cows’, ‘ruled out’, ‘not permitted’, ‘not acceptable’, ‘frowned on’, ‘beyond the pale’ and/or ‘it is not the done thing’ (oops, more than two words).

So, to re-run the question: ‘Why will nobody put love and compassion and beauty under a microscope? If thought can get such rigorous scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ... why not feelings? Are feelings ‘off-limits’ as in being unchallengeable and untouchable and unalterable and interdicted and exempt and precluded and tabooed and forbidden and prohibited and banned and proscribed and vetoed and outlawed and embargoed and excluded and inalienable ‘sacred cows’? Are feelings ‘ruled out’ of scrutiny as in being not permitted and not acceptable and frowned on and beyond the pale to examine because it is not the done thing to be iconoclastic?’

In a word: are feelings sacrosanct?

RICHARD to No. 4: May I suggest, as a starting point of an examination into your deeply held belief, reading again what I demonstrated (with accredited quotes) in my last post to you? That is: Mr. Buddha’s ‘freedom’ is only attainable after physical death? Is this not why there is no peace on earth?

RESPONDENT: Richard, it is not clear to me that, according to you ...

RICHARD: Oh, it is not ‘according’ to me ... the example I provided (with the accredited quotes) was according to Mr. Sayagyi Thray Sithu U Ba Khin (Mr. S. N. Goenka’s acknowledged Master). He wrote in 1981: [quote]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and Arahants, pass into Parinibbana, reaching the end of suffering’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Whether: a) Buddha left a legacy to his community (Bhikkhus and others), a legacy under which freedom is attainable only after physical death.

RICHARD: He did indeed (if he ever lived at all). This is because his ‘freedom’ is a metaphysical freedom; that is, a ‘freedom’ from samsara, the endless round of birth and death and rebirth. The Buddhist ‘Parinirvana’ (the same as the Hindu ‘Mahasamadhi’) is an after-death ‘freedom’ ... just the same as the Christian’s ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. The same holds true for all religions – all spiritualism and all mysticism – and their blatantly self-seeking words will leap out at one, upon reading the hallowed scriptures with both eyes open, and speak for themselves.

RESPONDENT: And hence this legacy is responsible for no peace on earth.

RICHARD: Yes, peace-on-earth is sacrificed for a spurious after-death ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless Peace’. It is their post-mortem reward of ‘Immortality’ ... which is arrant selfishness by any description.

RESPONDENT: Or: b) Buddha in some way personally responsible for no peace on earth because he ‘postponed’ freedom until the physical death.

RICHARD: Aye (and this is according to me); the blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient courage to proceed into the ‘Unknown’, stopped short of the final goal ... the ‘Unknowable’. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the ‘Self’ or ‘Spirit’ or ‘Soul’ or ‘Atma’ (by whatever name) ... and an ego-less ‘Self’ or ‘Spirit’ or ‘Soul’ or ‘Atma’ (by whatever name) is still an identity, nevertheless. In spite of the glamour and the glory of the Altered State Of Consciousness, closer examination reveals that these ‘Great’ persons had – and have – feet of clay. Bewitched and beguiled by the promise of majesty and mystery, they have led humankind astray. Preaching submission or supplication they keep a benighted ‘humanity’ in appalling tribulation and distress. The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the identity in its entirety is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over all and everyone.

RESPONDENT: Or: c) Some other possibility which I have not thought of.

RICHARD: It is not only you that has ‘not thought of’ it ... nobody I have met or read about (presumably 6.0 billion living and maybe 4.0 billion peoples having lived) have ever thought that these revered peoples could be so alarmingly wrong. An actual freedom is entirely new in human history.

It is self-centredness (to the utmost degree) to sacrifice peace-on-earth for the ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’.

RESPONDENT: The second way being the assumption of a higher force power that can be asked for assistance to improve the quality of experience of a human being or even through a personal effort like for instance in Zen meditation.

RICHARD: In this context ‘spiritual’ means being ‘divine’, being ‘supernatural’, being a ‘theist’, being a ‘mystic’ and so on.

RESPONDENT: Historically it can be verified that here have been people who followed that second path and some of them claim that the achieved result in doing so (the following of that path) has been highly beneficial to themself if not generically speaking a goal to realise for everybody’s benefit (in other words something goooooood).

RICHARD: Yet, despite their claim, it has not been ‘highly beneficial to themself’ (they are still subject to anger and anguish, for example, from time-to-time) ... nor has it been to ‘everybody’s benefit’ . All the religious wars, murders, tortures, rapes and destruction that have eventually followed the emergence of any specially hallowed religiosity or spirituality attests to this. Also, all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that has ensued as a result of following any specifically revered religious or spiritual teaching renders its mute testimony to anyone with the eyes to see. Culpability for the continuation of animosity and anguish lies squarely at the feet of the Masters and the Messiahs; the Avatars and the Saviours; the Gurus and the God-Men; the Saints and the Sages and the Seers.

And their feet – upon close inspection – are feet of clay. They lacked the necessary intestinal fortitude to go all the way ... they stopped at the ‘Unknown’ by surrendering to the ‘Unmanifest Power’ that lies lurking behind the throne instead of proceeding into the ‘Unknowable’. To stop at dissolving the ego and becoming enlightened is to stop half-way. One needs to end the soul as well, then any identity whatsoever becomes extirpated, extinguished, eliminated, annihilated ... in other words: extinct. To be as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. To vanish without a trace ... there will be no phoenix to rise from the ashes. Finished. Kaput.

Then there is peace-on-earth.

RICHARD: To clarify the situation: (1) I am not enlightened. (2) I do not want to be enlightened. (3) I never will become enlightened. (4) Enlightenment is worthless.

RESPONDENT: So despite the fact that most religions and philosophers often define enlightenment as the ultimate state of being at the same time as saying that don’t know what it is because they haven’t got there, you know what it is so well (without being there) that you say it is worthless.

RICHARD: But I have been there, so I am well positioned to say that it is worthless. You do not think that I would come onto this list and make these apparently outrageous statements without knowing what I am talking of, surely? For many years I sought a genuine exploration and discovery of what it means to live a fully human life and in October 1992 I discovered, once and for all, what I was looking for. Since then I have been consistently living an incomparable condition which I choose to call actual freedom – and I use the word ‘actual’ because this freedom is located here in this very material world, this actual world of the senses. It is not an affective or mental state of being; it is a physical condition that ensues when one goes beyond Spiritual Enlightenment.

In September 1981 I underwent a monumental physiological transformation into an Altered State Of Consciousness which can only be described as Spiritual Enlightenment. I became Enlightened as the result of an earnest and intense process which commenced in the January of that year. At approximately six o’clock on the morning of Sunday, the sixth of September 1981, my ‘ego’ disappeared entirely in an edifying moment of awakening to an ‘Absolute Reality’. I lived in the Enlightened State for eleven years, so I have an intimate understanding of the marked difference between Spiritual Enlightenment and actual freedom.

For the next eleven years I travelled the country – and overseas to India – meeting with people from all walks of life in an attempt to discover why Spiritual Enlightenment, which has been within the human experience for thousands of years, had not delivered the Peace On Earth it seemed to promise. As the process of becoming Enlightened is an extreme test of one’s mettle, requiring nerves of steel, it seemed that only a rare few humans were destined to become Self-Realised. The question that commanded my attention was why this was so.

I was looking beyond the superficial and questioning even the most closely held ideas and beliefs. Was there something more to discover ... something that lay beyond Enlightenment that would usher in the beginning of a genuine possibility of peace for all? Some Masters hinted at and alluded to ‘going beyond Enlightenment’ ... yet their Teachings remained exactly the same. Some disciplines suggested that such a condition existed after physical death: when the soul ‘quit the body’. The Hindu Mahasamadhi and Buddhist Parinirvana are two examples of this kind of thought. No useful information could be gained from there.

Over the eleven years I had numerous experiences of a condition that seemed so extreme that one must surely physically die to attain to it. To go beyond Enlightenment seemed to be an impossibility whilst still alive and breathing. Then at midday on Friday, the thirtieth of October 1992, a curious event occurred, due to my intense conviction that it was imperative that someone evince a final and complete condition that would ‘deliver the goods’ so longed for by humanity for millennia. Just like my ego had dissolved, back in 1981, my ‘soul’ disappeared. I was no longer a ‘Self’ existing for all Eternity and transcending Time and Space. I no longer had a feeling of being – or ‘Being’ – any sense of identity whatsoever had vanished without a trace ... and I could thus no longer detect the presence of The Absolute. There was no ‘Presence’ at all. The identity had generated the entire edifice.

Since that date I have continued to live in a condition of complete emancipation and utter autonomy ... the condition is both permanent and actual. This is different to Enlightenment in that it is most definitely substantial: there is no longer a transcendence, for I have neither sorrow nor malice anywhere at all to rise above. They have vanished entirely, leaving me both blithesome and benign – carefree and harmless – which leads to a most remarkable state of affairs. The chief characteristics of Enlightenment – Union with the Divine, Universal Compassion, Love Agapé, Ineffable Bliss, The Truth, Timelessness, Spacelessness, Immortality, Aloneness, Oneness, Pacifism, Surrender, Trust, Beauty, and Goodness – being redundant in this totally new condition, are no longer extant.

Herein lies the unmistakable distinction between this condition, which I call actual freedom and the Enlightened State: I am no longer driven by a Divine Sense Of Mission to bring The Truth, Universal Love and Divine Compassion to the world. I am free to speak with whomsoever is genuinely interested in solving the ‘Mystery of Life’ and becoming totally free of the Human Condition.

This is an actual freedom, here in the world as-it-is, as this body, in this life-time.

RESPONDENT: As far as the Jesus stuff goes; it all began when you made the ‘flat earth’ statement, proceeding to attempt to disqualify him by virtue of some silly argument that went something like ... Well if Jesus knew so much why didn’t he tell his disciples ... I thought this was a foolish thing for one to say since it should be obvious to the average mind that not all Jesus said and did was passed on to us. So I went ahead and mentioned, as politely as I could, how foolish a statement it was. And I went on to deduce that perhaps it came about as a result of what I see clearly to be strong negative feelings. But of course you dispute that, and I know you will also dispute that it was a plainly foolish thing to suggest. In any case, this is the truth and the reality of how the logic of the discussion progressed, so when you accused me of making a ‘ploy to stifle sensible discussion’ (my words used here) you were way off the mark. It’s kind of difficult for sensible discussions to follow nonsensical implications such as the one you made. Are you following here? So perhaps you can accept your part in this just as I am willing to accept my part.

RICHARD: Oh dear ... ‘silly argument’, ‘foolish statement’ and ‘nonsensical implications’ eh? Is that all my ‘flat earth’ statement came across as? What a pity, for I found this discovery to be particularly useful in my own understanding many years ago. Look, Christians state unambiguously that Mr. Jesus is God ... and the ‘Creator God’ at that. If anyone knew that the earth was round and not flat it would be him that created it. Given all the problems that this lack of knowledge provided people with up until Mr. Christopher Columbus’ epic voyage of discovery, I consider that was remiss of Mr. Jesus not to have mentioned it. I am not being flippant or frivolous here ... look also at the difficulties Mr. Galileo Galilei went through to convince the Church that the earth went around the sun despite the Church’s stance that the Bible – the word of God – said it did not.

However, what I was actually putting across was not whether it was important enough, or not, to be included in Mr. Jesus’ teachings, but rather as being an indication that Mr. Jesus was but a man – and thus a deluded man at that – and not a god ... especially a ‘Creator God’. Stripped of his divinity, his words then had to stand or fall on their own merit ... and, given the test of time, they have fallen ... his ‘Teachings’ have failed abysmally.

To repeat: we do not have peace on earth.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless