Richard Listacorrespondence

========FILENAME========
lista21.htm
Richards Correspondence
On Mailing List A with Respondent No. 21
Some Of The Topics Covered
sarcasm death of ego it is obvious that fear is transcended and not eliminated w
ith the death of the ego instincts the nature of a cow
| 01 | 02 | 03 |
No. 01
RESPONDENT: I think what Richard means is things falling is a fact. Gravity is o
nly a concept that gives us insight into the behaviour of falling things. It may
seem a trivial distinction to you, but it has profound implications on how you
approach the subject of reality.
RICHARD: This one has become a trifle out of hand, for I was discussing how male
and female parts so obviously fit together that it seems silly to deny oneself
the delight and joy of doing so. I called this a given (as they say in scientific
circles) meaning that, as it is observably evident, it is an indisputable fact.
As I am not a scientist, I am rather wishing I had not used the term, but as I h
ave already done so and it appears I am in for a keel-hauling on matters scienti
fic I may as well pursue the matter.
Yes, it does seem a trivial distinction to me. How can gravity, being only a conc
ept that gives us insight into the behaviour of falling things, have profound impl
ications on how I approach the subject of reality?
*
RICHARD: Apart from that, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
RESPONDENT: Youve obviously never watched Beavis and Butt-head.
RICHARD: No, I have never even heard of them. To be sarcastic is to obtain amuse
ment at anothers expense ... it is a particularly cutting form of teasing, with m
alicious undertones, and thus qualifies for the lowest rating on the humour scal
e.
No. 02
RESPONDENT: What I meant was, understanding the difference between things fallin
g (an observation) and gravity (a theory) has implications.
RICHARD: Okay. So would I be correct if I had said: Things falling is a given, as t
hey say in scientific circles?
RESPONDENT: Yes, that would sound more correct to me. Im sorry if you dont appreci
ate my humour.
RICHARD: To be sarcastic is to obtain amusement at anothers expense ... it is a p
articularly cutting form of teasing, with malicious undertones, and thus qualifi
es for the lowest rating on the humour scale.

RESPONDENT: Oh, thank you so much for explaining that to me, Richard. I dont know
what poor ignorant me would do without your profound observations. By the way,
where does irony fall on your wit-o-meter?
RICHARD: As I do not have any feelings your attempt at a put-down is totally was
ted.
I do not have a wit-o-meter ... the lowest form of wit phrase was simply an expres
sion. Just as sarcasm is designed to make the recipient feel ridiculed, irony is
designed to make the recipient feel rueful. They are thus both pathetic wit, by
definition. As the word pathetic is derived from the root pathos which indicates so
rrow then the giver of either sarcasm or irony wishes the recipient to feel the
incipient sorrow that is endemic among humans. Sorrow is a sickness that can lea
d, in extreme cases, to depression and suicide ... which I would not wish upon a
nyone. Thus sarcasm and irony are not what I, for one, consider fun.
It is a subtle form of verbal abuse.
No. 03
RICHARD: Essentially, when a person becomes enlightened they say that their ego
has dissolved this is termed Death of the ego. I concur fully in this very valid d
escription of what has happened. However, the ego is only one half of the self .
.. the other half being the soul. Then there is a sense of identity overlaid on
top of the self. The enlightened person switches their sense of identity from th
e ego (which is now non-existent) to the soul and in their own words realise tha
t they are The Self existing beyond Time and Space and that they are Immortal and Ete
rnal and that they are Unborn and Undying. In other words they identify as being Tha
t by whatever name. (Also The Void, Emptiness, Beyond Form and so on and if they are
eally astute Beyond Form and No-Form). This is the second I of Mr. Venkataraman Aiye
r (aka Ramana) fame. So where I wrote: [quote] Psychologically, I would cease to be at
all, I would have no presence. This was more than death of the ego, which is a ma
jor event by any definition; this was total annihilation. No ego, no soul no Self
[unquote], this second I is what I was referring to. I was very clearly not saying
: this experience revealed that you had even further to go, that you had to go on
and annihilate the ego completely as you attempt to make out that I was saying.
As for fear and trembling ... I deliberately and accurately used the word dread as i
t was an existential experience of the end of being entirely not just the fear and
trembling produced by the contemplation of the death of the ego (wherein I go on
under a different disguise) but a complete and utter annihilation of everything,
including The Absolute or The Void or The Whatever. As a youth in 1966, I served my t
ime in the military in a war-torn foreign country, so I knew the full gamut of n
ervousness, apprehension, anxiety, fear, terror, horror and dread ... and they g
o in that order of severity. This was a dread of the likes of which I had never
experienced before ... perhaps it would be handy to call it pure dread, for emphas
is. Pure dread is the worst nightmarish feeling one can possibly experience. And
as I clearly explained that: I was living in a state of Divine Bliss and Love Ag
ap which protected me from all sorrow and malice, with its attendant fears and hat
es, I consider that it is obvious that fear, for example, is transcended not elim
inated with the Death of the Ego. Consequently, where you say: If your ego had trul
y dissolved in 1981, then Im afraid it would have been impossible for you to have
... experienced fear and dread towards anything at all, you are simply airing yo
ur understandable ignorance of matters transcendent in public.
RESPONDENT No. 4: Recognising that ones self is not merely limited to the body or p
ersonality, but that it in fact encompasses the infinity of Nature is just the f
irst step of a very long journey. It is still a long way short of enlightenment.
It all depends on the quality of the realisation. There is a certain threshold
one must cross before one can consider oneself enlightened. A person crossing th
is threshold suddenly realises the true nature of all things and recognises its
immortality, but he also recognises the fundamental error of becoming attached t
o it. It is only those people who fail to cross this threshold who attach themse
lves to crude notions of a Higher Self which is Unborn, Undying, Immortal, Eternal,
etc. These people are still firmly bound by the ego. In truth, enlightenment can
not be described at all, not even to the slightest degree. This is because enlig
htenment is not anything in particular and so there is really nothing at all to
describe. The best we can do is simply suggest to others what it is like I somet
imes describe it as utter freedom, for example; others call it the Unborn and so o
n. But at bottom, all these descriptions are infinitely way off the mark. Im conf
used about your supposed attainments, not about the real attainment of enlighten
ment. Again, if it were truly the case that you identified yourself with a self
that was eternal and immortal, then there is no way you could have experienced f
ear or dread. Only an ego which perceives a threat to its well-being can experie
nce these things, and only an ego which is limited and mortal could possibly per
ceive such a threat in the first place. The very fact that you experienced fear
and dread is proof that your previous attainment was minor, just as your current
belief that you are beyond all emotions is proof that your attainments since th
en have been equally insignificant. I do not believe you have experienced enligh
tenment in the first place, let alone gone beyond it. All you have merely done is
descended into the animal realms. To be quite honest, I can barely distinguish y
ou from a cow.
RESPONDENT: The question is: Does a cow have Buddha-nature? Sorry, times up. The
answer I was looking for was woof. I would have given partial credit for mu.
RICHARD: The nature of a cow because it is a sentient being is one of fear and a
ggression and nurture and desire.
RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARDS CORRESPONDENCE INDEX
RICHARDS HOME PAGE
The Third Alternative
(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)
Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlight
enment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philoso
phy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogon
y), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theol
ogy. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeo
ns, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the Tried and True and enabl
es anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual livi
ng in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richards Text The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity========FILENAME===
=====
lista01.htm
sex drive and sexuality emotions instincts are not set in stone not a who, I am wh
at I am no outside to infinity for there to be an opposite
RICHARD: Fear and aggression are built into the Human Condition; it is intrinsic
and known as the instinct for survival. The self is born out of the instincts.
RESPONDENT: But is not the sex drive an instinct? Where do you draw the line bet
ween the instincts, and the emotions you enjoy? Forgive me if Ive missed these poin
ts previously.
RICHARD: Yes, the sex drive is an instinctual drive ... and, along with other in
stinctual urges, can be eliminated entirely. Then one is free to act appropriate
ly according to the circumstances and not out of an instinctual reaction. Instin
cts are not set in stone, they are simply blind natures way of ensuing survival. Wi
th our thinking, reflective brain we can improve on nature in this respect, as w
e have done in so many other ways. Any instinctual drive can be eradicated.
Then one is free to enjoy the sexual act as a physical, sensual pleasure (not as
an emotional or passionate solution to loneliness and sorrow via love) or free to
enjoy celibacy as an idiosyncratic celebration of singularity (not as a dispass
ionate or detached way to dissolve the ego via craftiness). It is then an act of
free choice to have sex, or not have sex, just as easily in either alternative.
No drive means no urge. With no urge there is nothing to have to deny, nor anyt
hing to have to indulge. Thus it is neither Asceticism nor Hedonism ... this is an a
ctual freedom.
I do not have any emotions to enjoy (or to dislike) as all feelings emotions and
passions are no longer extant. And, yes, you may have missed out as I have writ
ten elsewhere on this list:
[Richard]: I do not experience feelings per se because I do not have any anywhere
in this body at all ... this body lost that faculty entirely when I became extinc
t. Thus to use the jargon: no one can press my buttons as I do not have any button
s nor any feelings under them to be activated. Literally I feel nothing at all.
Even when, say, watching a magnificent sunrise where some lofty clouds are shot
through with splendid rays of golden light, transforming the morning sky into a
blaze of glory ... I feel nothing at all. These eyes seeing it delight in the ar
ray of colour, and this brain contemplating its visual splendour can revel in th
e wonder of it all ... but I can not feel the beauty of it in the emotional and
passionate sense of the word feel. Just as when a person becomes physically blind
all their other senses are heightened, so too is it when all feelings vanish en
tirely. This body is simply brimming with sense organs which wallow in their own
sensual delight. Visually, everything is intense, vivid, brilliant; sensually e
verything is dynamic and alive with an actuality ... a matter-of-fact actualness
. Everything is endowed with a purity that far exceeds the now-paltry feeling of
beauty ... and an intimacy that surpasses the highest feeling of love. Love is
actually a pathetic substitute for the perfection of actual intimacy. Actual int
imacy is the direct experience of the pristine actuality of another, unmediated
by any I whatsoever. [end quote].
I did not arrive here in this condition by either denying or indulging in sexualit
y ... I did not do anything at all for I have always been here. It was I/me, the psy
chological/psychic entity residing within this body, that did all the work. He sel
f-immolated, psychologically/psychically speaking ... and only he could do that (I
did not realise myself ... I am not a Self-Realised Being). I am not an enlightened
being any more, nor will I ever be again ... that hazard is over forever for I do
not exist. I am this living, breathing body being alive at this moment in time.
By being here, as an actuality, I am the universe experiencing itself as a thin
king, reflective human being.
Because the universe is infinite, it is perfect. Infinity is perfection it can n

ot be otherwise because there is no outside to infinity for there to be an opposit
e. Thus there is no outside to perfection. Consequently, it is all perfect and has
always been thus. Any imperfection was but a nightmarish fantasy created in the
fertile imagination of I, the fictitious alien supposedly residing within. I, the sel
am comprised in two parts: the ego (as a generalisation, located in the head) a
nd the soul (as a generalisation located in the heart). Over-riding this self is a
sense of identity ... the who that I think and feel that I am when I ask the questio
ho am I? Whereas Richard is not a who: I am what I am ... these eyes seeing, these
ears hearing and so on. Hence my immutable stance:
Do not, ever, ask the question who am I? for one may be in danger of accidentally
realising who one is and, by thus becoming enlightened, continue to perpetuate all
the appalling misery and suffering that has endured throughout the centuries be
cause of the Enlightened Beings well-meant but fatally flawed Teachings.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista14.htm
death logic here perfection instincts (brain-stem) Buddhism fact rid of self
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 |
No. 01
RICHARD: Enlightenment has been held to be the Summum Bonum of human existence f
or at least three thousand years ... if not more.
RESPONDENT: Having been on the cancer ward it is my observation that a lot of pe
ople manage to get to a condition that looks and sounds a lot like Enlightenment.
And if they do in fact die it makes them and their going more pleasant that it m
ight otherwise be. Those of us who get over it, get over it. I mean enlightenmen
t. The living know they are less than perfect and that awareness has a considera
ble survival value. On the other hand if you are dying no reason not to put a pl
easant spin on life and go sweetly.
RICHARD: But if the living know they are less than perfect then why do they not do
something about it? Perfection is possible, here on earth, in this lifetime, as
this body only. However, the whole concept of Enlightenment has seduced people
away from the possibility of achieving perfection here and now ... the perfectio
n of Enlightenment is predicated upon there being a permanent self an I called the
Self that exists for all Eternity. Thus they look to an After-Life wherein one
becomes Immortal. This is selfishness taken to the extreme. It is the perpetuati
on of self in whatever form that is the sole cause of suffering.
Could I paraphrase you comment above? If, on the other hand you are living, there
is no reason not to put a pleasant spin on being here and live sweetly.
The dead are dead, and death is the end. Finish. It is us who are still here who
must deal with suffering ... and it is possible for suffering to be eliminated
now ... and not have to wait for physical death for reprieve.
No. 02
RESPONDENT: A lot of the debate on this list seems to be about the question of s
eeing the truth and approaching the truth. Im not quite sure why that is so. No.
12 and No. 4 have a logically correct way of being able to assert they see the u
ltimate truth. Ive no problem with their logic do you?
RICHARD: Logic is abstract, not actual. I have no interest in some logically con
structed ultimate truth a mental exercise which has no basis in fact and actuality
.
RESPONDENT: Do you see your Web-pages as an alternative ultimate truth. Just ask
ing.
RICHARD: No. I see them as an alternative to the ultimate truth.
RESPONDENT: The problem with someone asserting they are perfect (enlightened) is
that if they are then what have they left to do? I respect the view but for me
at least enlightenment is best to be something to be approached in the sense of
a mathematical approach to zero. You know, a limit. Ill be almost there but by to
morrow Ill be half again nearer. I think Camus was saying something like this is
his story about the guy pushing the rock.
RICHARD: You must be referring to that adage about life being a journey ... and
that the journey is it. I do not concur with this erudition. I am not actually g
oing anywhere, I am already here. And here lies a magical perfection, where it a
lways is. Although the journey itself is thrilling it is utterly blithesome to a
rrive. It is funny at times, for I often gain the impression when I speak to oth
ers, that I am spoiling their game-plan. It seems as if they wish to journey for
ever they consider arriving to be boring. How can unconditional happiness, twent
y-four-hours-a-day, possibly be boring? Is a blithesome life all that difficult
to comprehend? Why persist in a sick game and defend ones right to do so? Why ins
ist on suffering when blitheness is freely available here and now? Is a life of
perennial gaiety something to be scorned?
The persistence of the belief that suffering is good for you decries the accolade m
ature adult attributed wrongly to the proponents of this bizarre creed. A belief
system that condemns human beings to a life-time of grief which, in some obscure
way is good for one whilst eschewing happiness which in an equally obscure way
is bad for one is simply institutionalised insanity. Some religious groups even
go so far as to issue the edict that if one is perpetually happy here on earth o
ne must have sold ones soul to their devil! The fascinating thing to realise is t
hat neither their soul nor their devil has any existence outside of their fertil
e imagination. They have fallen prey to the beguiling belief, so prevalent among
humans, that an I exists inside this flesh and blood body. Any I is only a psycholo
gical entity ... it is not actual, it has no substance whatsoever outside of fee
lings, thoughts and instincts. All their heavens and hells are but a nightmare t
rip that seems to suit the macabre and perverse character of humanity at large.
RESPONDENT: It is better to try to improve oneself than to assert that one is pe
rfect. The first case suggests action or striving. Certainty in most cases I kno
w the people who could claim to be the best (because they are the top of what th
ey do) seem to spend more time improving and training than in asserting they are
perfect.
RICHARD: The whole point of achieving perfection is that there is nothing left t
o improve. No more training or striving ... a lifetime of ease and enjoyment is
yours for the asking.
No. 03
RESPONDENT: I guess in a Nutshell Richard the difference between us is that I am n
ot yet perfect to which I can only say with reference to Nietzsche that in the gam
e of we who hold ourselves higher cause we despise ourselves you seem by the above
no contest. Which is not meant to be unkind. To be unkind would be: bad form. H
ell, maybe you are perfect. I dont know you. You say you are perfect. Okay: you a
re perfect. I know me and Im not perfect. Ive still got a couple exams to go. Then
Ill be perfect. So you see. Im not accusing you of anything to which I do not see
k. I just know that in my case Im not there yet have a lot more to do before I Am
!
RICHARD: Trying my best to disregard the obvious sarcasm in your response, I puz
zled over whether to take your post seriously or not. What are you trying to say
? Why does it bother you that perfection is possible here on earth? Do you not w
ish to live a life of ease and enjoyment? And it is of no use to quote Mr. Fried
rich Nietzsche at me because he knew naught of what I talk about. I most certain
ly do not despise myself ... and I do not hold myself higher, either. Only Enlight
ened people do that, and I am not Enlightened, I am a fellow human being.
Apart from the obvious benefits of personal ease and enjoyment by eliminating so
rrow in oneself, there is the social benefit of ridding oneself of malice. All t
he wars, murders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence and child abuse stem from t
his root cause.

This is surely worth thinking about before rushing to the keyboard, with the low
est form of wit eagerly in hand, to dash off a missive castigating someone with
the necessary integrity to do something about the appalling suffering of ones fel
low human beings ... did you know that over 160,000,000 people have been killed
in wars this century alone? Not to mention all those countless millions maimed,
tortured, raped and otherwise having their lifes work destroyed ... yet all the w
hile perfection is freely available here and now for anyone who dares to dedicat
e their life to ensuring a peace-on-earth for themselves, as this body only, in
this life-time.
Just thought I would mention it.
No. 04
RESPONDENT: Richard, in the sense that bad monie drives out good on this list yo
u are Richard and I am StarBadger. I respect your point and I am sorry if it see
med to you unkind. Now if you can get that jack off your rear-axle and your whee
ls on the ground maybe you can become a MCSE or MCSD or CNE until which youre jus
t another Hyena to be given a fatal injection (ask Motoridge to explain or go to
the New Yorker and read: I was eaten ...).
RICHARD: I am not too sure what a bad monie is when it is at home ... maybe you me
ant bad money? Anyway, I gather you are implying that I am bad and that you are go
od.
By getting that jack off your rear-axle and your wheels on the ground I presume yo
u mean that I am making a lot of noise and not getting anywhere?
I have no idea what a MCSE is. Or a MCSD, for that matter. Not to mention a CNE.
By referring to me as being another Hyena to be given a fatal injectionI assume y
ou want me dead. And I will not (ask Motoridge to explain)... if you want me to un
derstand you, you explain yourself. I live in a small village in Australia, not
the USA, therefore the New Yorker is not readily available for me to read I was e
aten ....
Altogether, your post contributes nothing to two-way discussion and a sharing of
experience. It appears to me that you have allowed what started out as a promis
ing thread to degenerate into a name-calling collection of insults. Just what is
your problem?
All I can do is repeat my earlier questions ... which you did not answer. Or is
the above collection of scintillating wit your answer?
What are you trying to say? Why does it bother you that perfection is possible h
ere on earth? Do you not wish to live a life of ease and enjoyment? Apart from t
he obvious benefits of personal ease and enjoyment by eliminating sorrow in ones
elf, there is the social benefit of ridding oneself of malice. All the wars, mur
ders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence and child abuse stem from this root cau
se. Did you know that over 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this cent
ury alone? Not to mention all those countless millions maimed, tortured, raped a
nd otherwise having their lifes work destroyed ... yet all the while perfection i
s freely available here and now for anyone who dares to dedicate their life to e
nsuring a peace-on-earth for themselves, as this body only, in this life-time.
I have no objection to a robust and vigorous debate ... even name-calling and in
sults if so desired. But surely you can at least contribute something constructi
ve amongst the verbiage.

I look forward to an intelligent discussion.
No. 05
RESPONDENT: If you cant walk the talk ... youre just talking.
RICHARD: But I can walk the talk... I am not just talking.
The questions I raised two posts ago are as follows: What are you trying to say?
Why does it bother you that perfection is possible here on earth? Do you not wi
sh to live a life of ease and enjoyment? Apart from the obvious benefits of pers
onal ease and enjoyment by eliminating sorrow in oneself, there is the social be
nefit of ridding oneself of malice. All the wars, murders, tortures, rapes, dome
stic violence and child abuse stem from this root cause. Did you know that over
160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone? Not to mention a
ll those countless millions maimed, tortured, raped and otherwise having their l
ifes work destroyed ... yet all the while perfection is freely available here and
now for anyone who dares to dedicate their life to ensuring a peace-on-earth fo
r themselves, as this body only, in this life-time.
I look forward to an intelligent discussion.
No. 06
RICHARD: What are you trying to say? All the wars, murders, tortures, rapes, dom
estic violence and child abuse stem from this root cause. I look forward to an i
ntelligent discussion.
RESPONDENT: I think what you mean Richard is a discussion on your terms. Since you
have introduced the idea that all the horrors of the world can be reduced to th
is root cause please define (in a screen) what this root cause is and how it may b
e reduced so the horrors cease. Thanking you in advance for your attention to th
e root cause.
RICHARD: I do not mean a discussion on my termsat all ... it was you who started t
his exchange by buying into a thread on Perfection between me and another list mem
ber with a post about being on a cancer ward and, watching people die peacefully
, you likened their condition to Enlightenment (Perfection). You went on to explai
n that, in your opinion, perfection is something never achieved here on earth, b
ut approached like the approach to the mathematical Zero. That is, never getting t
here. I responded by stating that perfection here on earth was not only possible
but highly desirable as it resulted in, not only a life of ease and enjoyment for
the achiever, but ensured an eventual peace-on-earth. Our discussion was, I con
sidered, progressing famously.
Then you took off on a tirade about me being bad and you being good ... and that
by getting a jack of my rear axle I could become unknown things like a MCSE or M
CSD or CNE... and that I was to rush about looking up obscure references in searc
h engines and the New Yorker ... and I was to ask Motoridge something or another
... and then a hyena came into the story which in some way related to you wanti
ng to give me a fatal injection ... and goodness knows what else!
And all because I had written something germane to the discussion, vis: [Richard
]: What are you trying to say? Why does it bother you that perfection is possibl
e here on earth? Do you not wish to live a life of ease and enjoyment? Apart fro
m the obvious benefits of personal ease and enjoyment by eliminating sorrow in o
neself, there is the social benefit of ridding oneself of malice. All the wars,
murders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence and child abuse stem from this root
cause. Did you know that over 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this c
entury alone? Not to mention all those countless millions maimed, tortured, rape
d and otherwise having their lifes work destroyed ... yet all the while perfectio
n is freely available here and now for anyone who dares to dedicate their life t
o ensuring a peace-on-earth for themselves, as this body only, in this life-time
.
And you say I want the discussion on my terms? No, I only want to continue what st
arted out as an intelligent and meaningful exchange of views. Is that too much t
o ask for?
The root cause so far was your reluctance to examine the possibility that perfec
tion was achievable here on earth, in this life-time, as this body resulting in
peace on earth ... instead of holding on to your mathematical model of never get
ting there, as in approaching Zero.
This is achieved through the elimination of the self ... and the malice and sorr
ow that is intrinsic to it.
No. 07
RICHARD: The root cause ... is achieved through the elimination of the self ...
and the malice and sorrow that is intrinsic to it.
RESPONDENT:
do not want
the Buddha
efer giving
Richard, you are the reason I changed to the handle StarBadger as I

to be confused with someone who gets hot and bothered repeating what
said as if his own original thoughts. Whether I quote Nietzsche I pr
credit. Alas you seem not to do this.
RICHARD: But, of course, I did not write what you say I did ... you had to resor
t to cut and paste to make it look like that. What I actually wrote (before you
chopped it up) was: The root cause so far was your reluctance to examine the poss
ibility that perfection was achievable here on earth, in this life-time, as this
body resulting in peace on earth ... instead of holding on to your mathematical
model of never getting there, as in approaching Zero. This is achieved through
the elimination of the self ... and the malice and sorrow that is intrinsic to i
t. And what did you make of it? Allow me to cut and paste too:
[Respondent]: I understand how one can take the statement above in the best way a
nd then Buddha reads wise. What the Buddha had to say makes sense (not you, you
are simply a thief of ideas).
Just for context, here is where it comes from:
[Respondent]: I understand how one can take the statement (The root cause ... is a
chieved through the elimination of the self ... and the malice and sorrow that i
s intrinsic to it) in the best way and then Buddha reads wise ... but tell me Doe
s a fatal injection not eliminate self? Try it then tell me more. Here I do not
wish to be cruel nor do I suggest you take a fatal injection. What the Buddha ha
d to say (not you, you are simply a thief of ideas you dont appear to quite gronk
) makes sense but it has been said by Bobbie Burns or Adam Smith or any number o
f people. Its just a clich without p-value. If the Hyena is given a fatal injectio
n what happens to the Hyena? And be careful. If you say nothing and go off about t
he eternal hyenas then by logic we can forgive the Holocaust as not only did it no
t eliminates Jews it made them greater. More eternal. See Primo Levi. Who are we
to challenge him? He was there. I was not at Dachau (a true p-statement).
RESPONDENT: It is by the way a nice saying. With all the bah, bah dross removed,
its as good as any. No p-value of course ... but if it makes you feel better: y
oure perfect. You say you are. Perfect. Youre perfect.
RICHARD: You do seem to have a problem with the possibility of perfection here o
n earth do you not? Because it is more than just a nice saying even with all the ba
h, bah dross (whatever that is). Personally, I would like to agree with you ... n
o p-value at all. But then again, I like what you write ... I think that your st
atements have a lot of bs-value.
Not content with cutting and pasting my paragraph to suit your own nefarious pur
pose, you then falsely attributed something to me, vis:
[Respondent]: True or False. An example of a statement (quite typical here on thi
s List) that is neither is. If I believe something is true it is true for me. (see
Richard on Perfection). Such a statement is absurd.
I typed If I believe something is true it is true for me into my computers search f
unction and sent it back through all my posts to this list and it did not find i
t at all. Perhaps you would care to send me your copy of the post wherein I wrot
e the above statement? Or else, of course, you can retract your mendacious accus
ation.
I also skimmed through some of your posts to other list members, and all have th
e same quality of content as the above. Here I must ask: Have you lost your marb
les completely ... or are you on some type of illegal medication? And to think t
hat all I have to do to achieve these fascinating responses is to continue to re
-post my earlier paragraph: What are you trying to say? Why does it bother you th
at perfection is possible here on earth? Do you not wish to live a life of ease
and enjoyment? Apart from the obvious benefits of personal ease and enjoyment by
eliminating sorrow in oneself, there is the social benefit of ridding oneself o
f malice. All the wars, murders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence and child ab
use stem from this root cause. Did you know that over 160,000,000 people have be
en killed in wars this century alone? Not to mention all those countless million
s maimed, tortured, raped and otherwise having their lifes work destroyed ... yet
all the while perfection is freely available here and now for anyone who dares
to dedicate their life to ensuring a peace-on-earth for themselves, as this body
only, in this life-time.
I can hardly wait to see how you react this time.
No. 08
RESPONDENT: In my defence I cut but I did not paste or mean to change the core m
eaning. Sorry if I did (change the meaning) my sense was and is that the words c
ut were extra or explanation or expanding on the core statement (above) about ho
w malice and sorrow are intrinsic to it (sic: self).
RICHARD: Okay, so you cut but did not paste cut and paste is merely an expression I u
sed and you did not mean to change the core meaning but you did. My point was that
the root cause so far was your reluctance to examine the possibility that perfec
tion was achievable here on earth, in this life-time, as this body resulting in
peace on earth ... instead of holding on to your mathematical model of never get
ting there, as in approaching Zero. The correctness of my point is born out by wh
at you go on to write in this post, vis:
[Respondent]: surely you are aware that the assertion that any real thing (like y
ou and I or a 767) is perfect is well: not real (help: anyone, explain to Richar
d about Plato and his perfect circles).
Thus, to you, it is obvious that perfection here on earth, as this body, in this
lifetime, is not possible. This has been the thrust of our correspondence from
the beginning. I maintain that perfection is possible and I do not, under any ci
rcumstances, mean Mr. Platos ideal perfection, for he was an ideas man and I am n
ot at all concerned with ideas or ideals ... I am only interested in facts and a
ctuality.
I live in the actual perfection that is located here and now at this place in sp
ace and this moment in time. This perfection is apparent only when one is perfec
t oneself which is when one has eliminated malice and sorrow and is thus happy a
nd harmless. Malice and sorrow are intrinsic to the self one was born with (what
the Christians call being born in sin or the Hindus and Buddhists describe as bei
ng immersed in Maya) and rise mainly out of the instinctual fear and aggression th
at all animals, including humans, have been endowed with by blind nature. To liv
e without the instinctual self with its fear and aggression is to be perfect ...
then the perfection of the universe its infinitude becomes apparent. Mr. Plato
knew naught of all this ... and neither did Mr. Gotama the Sakyan.
It has been demonstrated that the basic passions originate in the brain-stem (po
pularly called the reptilian brain) of all sentient beings ... even those without
a cerebral cortex. Did Mr. Gotama the Sakyan (if there ever was such a flesh and
blood person anyway) know about the reptilian brain being the seat of the instinc
tual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire? Is this why Bu
ddhism has been ineffective in bringing about Peace On Earth despite two and a h
alf thousand years in which to do so? Because there is as much suffering now as
back then.
This is why it is of no avail to compare Mr. Gotama the Sakyans revered wisdom to
the actual freedom what I am living, because he was oblivious to these matters
that I write of ... it is a well known fact, for example, that out of compassion
he would not take the final step while a single sentient being was still sufferin
g. Which is why, for Buddhists, their ultimate state of perfection Parinirvana lie
s on the other side of physical death. Thus his identity indubitably remained in
tact ... for compassion rises out of sorrow. To become actually free not just En
lightened the opposites are eliminated, not merely transcended. The self that he
referred to was but the ego-self. If you had been following this thread you wou
ld have already known that I have written probably ad nauseam about eliminating
not only the ego-self but the soul-self as well. In other words, any identity wh
atsoever. Nothing metaphysical will survive the death of this body, nor was ther
e anything metaphysical before this bodys birth. Buddhism maintains a belief in r
e-incarnation and an after-life which requires a metaphysical entity that is ind
ependent of this body even though they cleverly deny that any self exists. Perha
ps a quote from the Encyclopaedia which came with this computer will help explai
n:
The ultimate goal of the Buddhist path is release from the round of phenomenal ex
istence with its inherent suffering. To achieve this goal is to attain Nirvana,
an enlightened state in which the fires of greed, hatred, and ignorance have bee
n quenched. Not to be confused with total annihilation, Nirvana is a state of co
nsciousness beyond definition. After attaining Nirvana, the enlightened individu
al may continue to live, burning off any remaining karma until a state of final
Nirvana (Parinirvana) is attained at the moment of death.
Please note the not to be confused with total annihilation bit ... actual freedom
is only about total annihilation ... extinction ... extirpation. As for what sur
vives the body at death in Buddhism, another quote from that same source might h
elp:
Trikaya is the doctrine of Buddhas threefold nature, or triple body. These aspects
are the body of essence, the body of communal bliss, and the body of transforma
tion. The body of essence represents the ultimate nature of the Buddha. Beyond f
orm, it is the unchanging absolute and is spoken of as consciousness or the void
. This essential Buddha nature manifests itself, taking on heavenly form as the
body of communal bliss. In this form the Buddha sits in godlike splendour, preac
hing in the heavens. Lastly, the Buddha nature appears on earth in human form to
convert humankind. Such an appearance is known as a body of transformation.
It will be seen from the above that a metaphysical entity remains in existence .
.. do you see now why chopping up my paragraph to make it sound like I was quoti
ng Mr. Gotama the Sakyan without acknowledging him was rather foolish? His wisdom
is not worth the paper it was printed on ... and it was not printed until so man
y years after his alleged life/death that there is serious dispute about the aut
henticity of anything he purportedly said and did anyway. There is also thoughtf
ul scholarly debate as to whether these archetypal religious/spiritual teachers
historically existed. Most of these sacred texts were cobbled together by pundits
and pedants over the centuries, added to commentary by commentary until they are
but a collection of half-baked inanities masquerading as Truth. Humankind has bee
n held in mythical thralldom for far too long it is high time humans all came of
age and started thinking and discovering for themselves. And, after all is said
and done, if that is not what genius is a person with the ability to think and
discover for oneself then what is? The postings on this list are mainly psittaci
sms.
RESPONDENT: Yet you do assert we can be perfect: right? But then I guess youd add
the Coda that you mean have a perfect soul or spirit.
RICHARD: Oh, so you have not been following this thread ... because I have writt
en of nothing else but the elimination of soul or spirit ... not trying to perfect
it.
RESPONDENT: One thing I want to be clear on is that admitting one is not perfect
does not preclude trying to be better, nicer, whatever. Nietzsche calls this th
e pride of the self-despiser. It (self-despising) is the greatest pride and as y
ou assert: a pride you lack. It (self-despising) is the greatest pride and as yo
u assert: a pride you lack. It (self-despising) is the greatest pride and as you
assert: a pride you lack. It (self-despising) is the greatest pride and as you
assert: a pride you lack. It (self-despising) is the greatest pride and as you a
ssert: a pride you lack. It (self-despising) is the greatest pride and as you as
sert: a pride you lack.
RICHARD: Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche, eh? So this is another example of his wisdom ...
and you thought it so wise that you felt it worthwhile repeating umpteen times
... methinks you have been out in the sun too long. It is of no use to quote Mr.
Friedrich Nietzsche at me because he knew absolutely nothing of what I talk abo
ut. I most certainly do not despise myself ... and I do not have any pride nor h
umility. Only Enlightened people do that, and I am not Enlightened, I am a fello
w human being. What are you trying to say? Why does it bother you that perfectio
n is possible here on earth? Do you not wish to live a life of ease and enjoymen
t?
Apart from the obvious benefits of personal ease and enjoyment by eliminating so
rrow in oneself, there is the social benefit of ridding oneself of malice. All t
he wars, murders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence and child abuse stem from t
his root cause ... did you know that over 160,000,000 people have been killed in
wars this century alone? Not to mention all those countless millions maimed, to
rtured, raped and otherwise having their lifes work destroyed ... yet all the whi
le perfection is freely available here and now for anyone who dares to dedicate
their life to ensuring a peace-on-earth for themselves, as this body only, in th
is life-time.
Just thought I would mention it.
No. 09
RESPONDENT: I am quoting you to ask you to explain or enlarge on matters I do no
t or have not yet understood. You say at the onset that you are only interested i
n facts and actuality. I feel it is understanding this quote that will lead me to
understanding you. What do you mean? Are you at odds with No. 12 and No. 4. To
the extent that you are posting actively on this thread that is to some degree t
he creature of No. 12 and No. 4 ... would you say that you (your position) are l
ike them or are you an alternative. What do you mean when you say you are intere
sted in facts but not ideas. Or have I again (sorry) misread you.
RICHARD: I am interested in facts but not ideas because only thus is there somethi
ng that can not be erroneous or incorrect. A fact is actual, not a dream, an ill
usion or a delusion. A fact is patent, obvious, apparent, evident, tangible, pal
pable, substantial, tactile, verifiable and indisputable. The marvellous thing a
bout a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belief, an
opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny a fact
pretend that it is not there but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice a
nd decision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom having the f
reedom to choose but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvious, a
nd in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising over
the Right and Wrong judgment. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only action
, and that action is the movement into perfection. A fact and the seeing of actu
ality and living in it brings freedom from imperfection.
Ideas never do ... they lead to delusion ... and to war or suicide in extreme ca
ses.
RESPONDENT: Are you the same as No. 12 and No. 4 or do you see yourself as diffe
rent. I sense the answer is different. So how different?
RICHARD: You sense correctly: I am different. They, and some others on the list,
are of the school of thought that stipulates that logic is the way to an Ultimat
e Truth ... which has been the way of most philosophers for aeons. As far as I am
concerned, judicious and expedient logic is useful inasmuch as it is a practica
l, matter-of-fact, down-to-earth logic ... as in reasoning out the implications
of something according to the facts. Logic must be actual to be worthwhile, not
abstract. Nor must it stray into the realm of belief and ideas. Any Ultimate Trut
h is a belief, an idea ... and thus not actual. It is not liveable.
Nowhere have I read any of the followers of the abstract logic school of thought
on the list or anywhere in the world or in history ever use words like: My life
has changed radically, fundamentally, entirely, completely and absolutely since
I discovered the Ultimate Truth. These people do not say: Since I discovered the Ulti
mate Truth I have become happy and harmless; I am rid of malice and sorrow; I now
have an individual peace on earth; my life is marvellous twenty four hours a da
y; each moment again is packed full of joy and delight; I am so glad to be here
as my life is wonderful to the nth degree; I can not want for more ... and so on
and so on.
Methinks it speaks for itself.
RESPONDENT: It has been my experience that when I E-Mail to addresses that E-Mai
l to the List that I get a response where the other gets out from behind the dog
ma or position that they are posing on the List and emerges as a person.
RICHARD: But I do not have any dogma which means a doctrine, a creed, an ideolog
y, a faith, a principle, a canon, a belief for I deal only in facts and actualit
y. Thus I do not have a position to come out behind of ... I am up front, out in
the open, obvious and apparent all the time. I have nothing to hide for there i
s no-one to do any hiding. I can not emerge as a person, if by person you mean I am o
nly human, because my person annihilated itself some years ago. There is no I inside
this body in any way, shape or form to do any emerging.
RESPONDENT: You say: focus on the one and most important culprit that you can lay
your hands upon yourself. Again I agree with you that self is the best place to
start and dont we wish that any number of people would do that. Where I and I thi
nk most of us have a problem with that point ... is that while it is a starting
pt. It is the starting point of a journey. We still have to learn how to earn a
living, get along in the society in which we find ourselves (or move to another)
and so on.
RICHARD: The self is not just the best place to start, it is also the only place t
o start. I the ego and soul, am the root cause of all the misery of humankind and m
y demise (psychological self-immolation) is the only thing that I can do that is be
st for this body in particular and for all bodies at large.
When one sees actually sees with both eyes that I am the root cause, one indeed st
arts on a journey. It is a journey of not only seeking, but finding; not only ex
ploring, but discovering; not only questing, but uncovering; not only examining,
but unearthing; not only travelling but arriving. You would have heard of that
adage about life being a journey ... and that the journey is it? I have written
to you before that I do not concur with this erudition. I am not actually going
anywhere, I am already here. And here lies a magical perfection, where it always
is. Although the journey itself is thrilling it is utterly blithesome to arrive
. It is funny at times, for I often gain the impression when I speak to others,
that I am spoiling their game-plan. It seems as if they wish to journey forever
they consider arriving to be boring. How can unconditional happiness, twenty-fou
r-hours-a-day, possibly be boring? Is a blithesome life all that difficult to co
mprehend? Why persist in a sick game and defend ones right to do so? Why insist o
n suffering when blitheness is freely available here and now? Is a life of peren
nial gaiety something to be scorned? Finding and arriving is the whole point of
life.
Then earning a living and getting along in society is a breeze.
RESPONDENT: I dont want to say too much more while saying enough. You seem to too
quickly take offence (my impressions following your exchanges). But allow me on
e question to which I will volunteer an answer regards myself. How do you make a
living? Without knowing Id guess you are either rich or on the Dole. Which by th
e way I do not prejudge. Im more rich than on the Dole and will volunteer the two
conditions are more alike than different from the poor blokes who have to 9 to
5 or worse.
RICHARD: Contrary to the impression you have gained, I do not take offence ever
... I am having so much fun bashing away at peoples belief systems that my words
may, in their verve, come across as being offensive. I make no apologies for my
style as experience has shown me that people will defend their right to be sorro
wful and malicious to their last breath, if they are allowed to get away with it
. Tolerance has not worked ... there are still as many wars, murders, rapes, inc
idents of domestic violence and child abuse as centuries ago ... not to mention
all the loneliness, sadness, grief, depression, despair and suicide that is ende
mic in humanity. I do not beat about the bush ... your peace and harmony and hap
piness is at stake ... which then flows on to humankind as a whole.
As to how I make a living. You see, this is where I look askance at you regardin
g your sincerity at wanting to know about the possibility of perfection here on
earth, for this question has been answered at least twice in my posts to the lis
t in the preceding few weeks. Do you actually read what is written? Why ask the
same question over and over again? I personally keep a copy of all the posts tha
t are the ones wherein people respond to mine or that I find interesting I have a
ll of your posts to me on file in my word processor and your other posts to othe
r people in my E-Mail archives. Before I write back, I refresh my memory about t
he particular person by referring to what they have already taken the trouble to
write.
But nevertheless, since you have asked, I will copy and paste from a previous po
st to No. 5: I happen to be a married man with four adult children and seven gran
dchildren. I am retired and living on a hard-won pension in a brick veneered, th
ree bedroom suburban house, in a mini-suburbia ... with a colour TV and VCR in t
he lounge room.
And, anticipating your further enquiry, although I worked at many jobs throughou
t my life, my main career was as a practicing artist although I am also a qualif
ied art teacher. I also spent six years in the military, as a volunteer, and ser
ved my time in a war-torn foreign country in 1966. So I know of war at first han
d.
Peace on earth is possible, in this life-time, as this body.
No. 10
RICHARD: I happen to be a married man with four adult children and seven grandch
ildren. I am retired and living on a hard-won pension in a brick veneered, three
bedroom suburban house, in a mini-suburbia ... with a colour TV and VCR in the
lounge room. And, anticipating your further enquiry, although I worked at many j
obs throughout my life, my main career was as a practicing artist although I am
also a qualified art teacher. I also spent six years in the military, as a volun
teer, and served my time in a war-torn foreign country in 1966. So I know of war
at first hand. Peace on earth is possible, in this life-time, as this body.
RESPONDENT: Thank you, Richard, finally I understood you, youre OKAY, maybe Perfe
ct! Richard, you dont know, well maybe you do, how pleased I found your answer th
is time. I understood what you were saying and it made sense. Thank you. What yo
u said made a lot of sense this time. Anyway I am pleased to finally understand
your position. Without picking a fight with you I can see why No. 5 gets upset w
ith you: you arent expressing yourself in an academic way but between us who care
s. Now I understand your position and in its essence you are 100% right. We have
to begin with ourselves and when we do that everything else does indeed sort of
fall into place. Ive still got I guess another 10 yrs. or so to go before I can
back away Ive got a last daughter 13 and she would not be pleased to see me retir
e. Again please forgive me for any unkind words in past posts. I have seen and y
ou made clear what you mean and I have understood you by not doing philosophy but,
Richard, that is what we do on this List albeit in a wise guy sort of way.
RICHARD: People can and do involve themselves in doing philosophy until the moon t
urns blue, but it will not reveal the meaning of life to them. When one rids one
self of any identity whatsoever the I as the self and the Self (the ego-self and the
oul-self) one is then living the meaning of life twenty four hours a day. Then a
ll is out in the open, obvious and self-evident. I am only concerned with the pr
actical, not the abstract, use of thought. I would call this actual sagacity, an
d of far more worth than any amount of mental masturbation ... would you not agr
ee with this?
RESPONDENT: Your insight makes sense for you and without resorting to cheap shot
s, you can do, as you are retired and living among a family who loves you.
RICHARD: Sorry to disappoint you, but being retired has nothing to do with perfe
cting oneself. I was 34 years of age when I deliberately triggered off my major
break-through into another dimension to life by dissolving the ego-self. I was r
unning my own business; working 10 to 12 hour days, six or seven days a week; ra
ising a family of four school-age children; paying off a mortgage and a car and
juggling bill payments; leading a busy social life ... all in all, a normal huma
n existence.
I was 45 years of age when I dissolved the soul-self and managing a property in
the country for an absentee landlord.
As for living among a family who loves you my nearest family member is living two
thousand miles away and I have not seen any of them for years. Love has nothing
to do with perfection here on earth ... in fact it detracts from it and leads pe
ople into all kinds of delusions.
RESPONDENT: It makes sense for you but does it make sense.
RICHARD: It makes a lot of sense ... and maybe that is what the problem is for y
ou as in regards understanding what is being said.
RESPONDENT: Richard, Perfection, if youll stop being so abrasive, you can be a wi
se guy but give up on the idea youve gone through it all. Its a lot more biologica
l than that Richard. Im starting to mellow too.
RICHARD: May I then non-abrasively suggest that you stop mellowing and start livin
g keenly ... your individual peace and harmony and happiness is dependent upon y
our own vital input ... not to mention the social benefits of ridding yourself o
f malice and sorrow. A mellowed identity is still an identity, nevertheless, wre
aking its havoc among the near and dear and the far and wide.
RESPONDENT: Nature is very kind, you might even say it is Perfection. Youve just
mellowed out, it happens to lots of us as we age. Dont mistake it for perfection.
I mean when last did you rape or kill anyone?
RICHARD: Nature is not perfection ... it is red in tooth and claw, as the well-kno
wn adage goes. Also, it would appear that it is you who is mistaking mellowing-ou
t for perfection here on earth, not me.
As for raping or killing never. I can not muster the requisite anger at all ...
I have not even thought ill of anyone for seventeen years. Living in the perfect
ion of being here as a body only at this moment in time and this place in space
is ambrosial, to say the least.
RESPONDENT: Well, Richard, youve just got older.
RICHARD: I am not all that old ... I am just on 50 years of age. I started livin
g life whilst still young ... waiting for old age to mature one is like waiting
for Godot it never happens. One earns maturity via application and diligence bor
n out of a pure intent to actualise the optimum ... whereas by sitting around pr
ocrastinating one merely gets older and a little bit wiser, but not sagacious. W
hen all is said and done, it is your own situation which shines through in this
post ... it is full of justifications, protestations ... and resignation. May I

suggest that you come to your senses?
You will be glad that you did.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista13.htm
education genuine education thrilling quest wide and wondrous path the adventure
of a life-time
RESPONDENT: Reading your response as a beginner has made me understand a little
more clearly about the meaning of this list. Im educationally disadvantaged by bein
g partially deaf, hence a crap education, so my desire to learn and improve my c
onsciousness and become as important to me as eating my meals. My note to you ma
y come across as seeming-less rubbish, but at least I enjoyed and was inspired b
y your ramblings on perfectionism.
RICHARD: Thank you for your note ... and I do not think it seeming-less rubbish as
I am always interested in corresponding on subjects related to life, the univer
se and what it is to be a human being. I do wonder about your dig at yourself ab
out crap education though. Personally, I left school at age fifteen and have been
giving myself a genuine education ever since ... which basically meant un-learni
ng all that I had been coerced into believing and then starting again. I have al
ways found life to be a thrilling quest of exploration and discovery, of investi
gating and uncovering, of seeking and finding. It is the adventure of a life-tim
e to enter onto the wide and wondrous path that leads to perfection here on eart
h, in this life-time, as this body.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista17.htm
description of the Pure Consciousness Experience pure intent death the extinctio
n of me is the ultimate sacrifice beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in al
l directions
RESPONDENT: I am writing because I wanted to say that I feel your experiences mi
rror my own, so I would like confirmation. Although I was only there for I think a
few minutes (quite difficult to gauge given that time is somehow compressed), I
would describe it as complete immersion in the prime substance and mind. I must
say here that the experience came after a swift coming to terms with life as so
mething filled with hopelessness, suffering and samsaric purposelessness, someth
ing that rather than be ruled by, I felt compelled to remove myself from with, o
nce decided, the suddenness of a knife thrust.
RICHARD: Yes, this is exactly the case. People can spend a life-time cleansing t
hemself, purifying themself, abstaining from all kinds of things ... to no avail
. The way to freedom is by removing oneself from the real world and stepping swift
ly into the actual world ... and leaving your self behind where it belongs. Life i
s a grim business in the real world with only scant moments of reprieve ... and it
is I who creates the real world reality over the top of the actual world. In a vali
ant, but ultimately futile attempt to stay in existence, I can realise myself as bei
ng the Transcendent Self existing for all Eternity ... Deathless, Unborn, Undying,
s, Spaceless, Immortal ... and so on. This has been the way of humans for millennia:
to escape from reality by creating a Greater Reality ... this is the wisdom of the S
ages and the Saints, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours
and is but a delusion created out of an illusion. It is all predicated upon the
persistence of an identity existing through into an After-Life.
RESPONDENT: I could hear the moving of the ripples, the glorious blue constantly
wavering was somehow closer to my face than had I been an inch away from it. Th
e light reflecting off the water was everywhere and I could see it was travellin
g, see its speed. The insects were audible in the minutest detail as if I had ac
quired the hearing of a bat.
RICHARD: This is a very accurate description of what I call the actual world the
world of the sense organs unmediated by a who within the body. For the sake of cl
arity, I call this apperception. Apperception which the Oxford Dictionary define
s as: The minds perception of itself is when I temporarily vacate the scene and I exp
erience myself as being these eyes seeing, these ears hearing ... and so on. All
the senses are heightened and all is vivid, intense, vital and dynamic. Everywh
ere and everything is already perfect as-it-is and nothing more needs to be done
other than to live this experience, every moment again, for the term of ones nat
ural life. There is no need for a sense of identity, a sense of self, a sense of
I ... in fact, I have been standing in the way, all these years, of this actual wor
ld being apparent. It is actually as simple as this to be free. And with the end
ing of I, which was only an illusion, and by not falling prey to becoming the seco
nd I, which is a delusion (I am God, I am The Supreme, I am That, I am The Absolute
ven just I am), one has eliminated both sorrow and malice forever. There is no evi
l in the actual world; evil exists only in the human psyche ... and in the real w
orld which I create. Likewise there is no sorrow in the actual world; suffering exi
sts only in the human psyche also. The actual world is a world of benignity and
benevolence.
RESPONDENT: The realisation that the I that I employed to go about in the world wa
s absent, a mere illusion, was quite a shock for obvious reasons. In a way I thi
nk I tried to invite it in as there was a fear about moving in the world without
a distinct I.
RICHARD: It is usually fear which prevents one from entering into actuality, for
after all, it means the end of you ... which is everything that you think and fee
l yourself to be ... every single bit of you. It means extinction, the end of bein
g anyone at all; it is the end of being itself. I do not exist in any way, shape or
form. Fear can become terror and terror can become dread. It requires nerves of
steel to go all the way ... but the rewards for doing so are beyond price.
RESPONDENT: I remember looking at that I just before I left this garden of Eden as
something so alien to the real me, something with absolutely no connection to w
hat I am, a completely lost, forsaken, deluded, ignorant false entity that had t
aken over my life for 22 years at that point and was about to conquer me again.
RICHARD: I have written elsewhere: The way of becoming actually free is both simp
le and practical. One starts by dismantling the sense of identity that has been
overlaid, from birth onward, over the innate self until one is virtually free fr
om all the social mores and psittacisms. Virtually free from all the beliefs, id
eas, values, theories, truths, customs, traditions, ideals, superstitions ... an
d all the other schemes and dreams. One can become aware of all the socialisatio
n, of all the conditioning, of all the programming, of all the methods and techn
iques that were used to produce what one thinks and feels oneself to be a waywar
d identity careering around in confusion and illusion. A mature adult is actually
a lost, lonely, frightened and very cunning entity. However, it is never too lat
e to start in on uncovering and discovering what one actually is. One can become
virtually free from all the insidious feelings the emotions and passions that f
uel the mind and give credence to all the illusions and delusions and fantasies
and hallucinations that masquerade as visions of The Truth. One can become virtu
ally free of all that which has encumbered humans with misery and despair and li
ve in a state of virtual freedom ... which is beyond normal human expectations a
nyway. Then, and only then, can the day of destiny dawn wherein one becomes actu
ally free. One will have obtained release from ones fate and achieved ones birthri
ght ... and the world will be all the better for it.
RESPONDENT: Just before I took the final leap
would find only death, once my inner world of
ly heard within a rush of many what seemed to
r it, as if it was the only thing truly worth
into this Realm (fully thinking I

samsara was extinguished) I actual
be spirits spurring me on to go fo
doing, which indeed it is.
RICHARD: This was my experience also, seventeen years ago. I have since ascertai
ned that, of course, these spirits are born out of the Human Condition ... comin
g from what is coined The Collective Unconscious. It matters not, the main thing i
s that you were spurred on, because it is indeed the only thing worth doing. Jus
t so long as you do not believe in the spirits as actually existing you will be sa
fe from the delusions that have beset other human beings in similar situations.
If you make the mistake of believing in them you may very well fall into surrend
ering to some Higher Power, some Ultimate Authority and miss out on the magnificence
of living as a free and autonomous human being in this actual world of people,
things and events.
RESPONDENT: People should not innately have to suffer the constant cyclic pain o
f attachments that forever bear no solid fruit, and thoughts that merely lead on
e in meaningless perpetual circles. I felt that me as a person was not deserving
of that fate either now, before, or any longer, and I was prepared to sacrifice
all I had if thats what was required, even if it meant death, I wasnt content to
lead a dishonest life of subservience to unfulfilling desires.
RICHARD: I echo your sentiments: I was prepared to sacrifice all I had if that is
what is required even if it meant death . Back in 1981 the I that I was then was p
repared to do whatever it took (provided it broke no legal law of society). I fo
ndly call it the boots and all approach; it was a task that I dedicated my life to.
I would like to finish of with something I wrote some time ago: The peak experien
ce provides an objective standpoint to view I from. It is easily seen from here th
at I stand in the way of ultimate fulfilment ... of my destiny. Pure contemplation i
s the means to provide one with repeated opportunities to make this examination
thorough; all doubt is removed and only surety remains. This is the only way one
will be convinced that I must vanish altogether. This is why I can say, confident
ly, that the death of the ego is not sufficient, for it only means substituting an
impersonal I now called Being for the personal I. Being, whether it goes with a
to denote Divinity or not, means an I is still in existence. Therefore the death o
f the ego peoples discoveries about the fate of humanity are questionable, to say th
e least, and their solutions to lifes problems are equally suspect. Unless there is
an end to being, which is what death is, one can not say one has penetrated into
the Mystery of Life, one has not found ultimate fulfilment, one has not achieved p
eace-on-earth. One is only fooling oneself and some other gullible people if one
is so easily satisfied.
This death of the ego is only for the orthodox-minded people; it is for those who a
re easily seduced by the Glamour and the Glory and the Glitz of the much-touted
Altered State. This is why pure intent is an essential prerequisite to ensure a
guaranteed passage through the psychic maze. With pure intent one will not rest
until one has gone all the way. One will not be bewitched by the psychic Power a
nd Authority, either. All these allurements are but welcome food for the cunning
ego, which wanting only its own survival, readily sublimates itself into the Sp
irit. With the clarity born of pure intent one can see this play for what it is
and move on freely and willingly to what lies at the end of the wide and wondrou
s path ... the end of

for it has been seen
re on earth. One sees
ce, no transmutation,
l the way, no phoenix
ll remain. There will
being. With pure intent one will not settle for second best,
in the peak experiences that the very best is possible, he
that I must disappear entirely. There will be no transcenden
no metamorphosis ... not any of these. For one who goes al
will exist to arise from the ashes nothing Metaphysical wi
be no being at all. I will become extinct.
I use the word extinct deliberately for it carries a definitive meaning. Physical
ly, death is the end of an individual member of the species, whilst extinction i
s the ending of the species itself. The psychological annihilation of I in its ent
irety is the psychological ending of the species known as humanity. It is the end
of being and the end of an illusion. It is also the end of Being and the end of delu
sion. The Human Condition, with all its appalling sorrow and malice, has come to
an end in me. All those would-be wise people who state smugly: You cant change hu
man nature are, fortunately, wrong. Because it is possible for me to become extinct
, thereby releasing the body from the being within, I can walk freely in the world
as-it-is this actual world. I, as this body only, am living in that perfect pur
ity twenty-four-hours-a-day. I live in a state of benignity, which means a kindl
y and harmless disposition. Life is a playful game and I am free to enjoy it all
, every moment again.
Humanity, which gave birth to me, was being sustained by me remaining as a being. I
ver fettered by the Human Condition. The species known as humanity has searched fo
r an Ultimate Fulfilment within the arena of the Human Condition for all of hist
ory. Such a search is endless and futile, for it is a search within an illusion.
Only further illusions further states of being can be found there ... or delusion
s. Becoming Divine is a delusion a state of Being that is an insult to intelligenc
e. I will never find the ultimate fulfilment for I am standing in the way of the Myst
ery of Life being revealed. There is no way out, I am doomed. I must, inevitably, cea
se to be. Instead of bemoaning my fate and vainly searching for an escape, I can see m
self 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-ear
th for not only me but for all humankind.
I find myself here, in the world as-it-is. A vast stillness lies all around, abou
nding with purity. Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions,
imbuing everything with unimaginable fairytale-like quality. For me to be able
to be here at all was a blessing that only I could grant, because nobody else coul
d do it for me. I am full of admiration for the me that dared to do such a thing.
I owe all that I experience now to me. I salute my audacity. And what an adventure i
t was ... and still is. These are the wondrous workings of the exquisite nature
of life who would have it any other way? (pages 103-104: Richards Journal, The Actual
Freedom Trust 1997)

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista04.htm
Ancient Wisdom emotion sex actual/spiritual enlightenment ASC delusion immortal

ty right/wrong Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 |
No. 01
RESPONDENT: Richard, you remind me of U.G. Krishnamurti in many ways (note: not
J. Krishnamurti). Youre not a disciple of his by any chance ?
RICHARD: No, I am not a disciple of Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti ... I only came ac
ross him a couple of months ago via your article about him. I had typed Atheist in
to a search engine (I am new to computers and the Internet only started this yea
r) and, among other titles, the Atheist Society Newsletter came up. This led me to
your article and thus to this mailing list. Along the way I accessed the Mr. Up
paluri Krishnamurti page and read all the information with rapidly diminishing i
nterest. Something fundamental happened to him that I can relate to the total an
nihilation of any psychological entity whatsoever but he clearly states that he
himself does not know what it was that happened, unfortunately. He makes it clea
r that he has nothing to offer to advance humankinds knowledge about itself, whic
h makes his a hapless condition. He makes no bones about considering himself as
being a sport of nature, which is not about to be repeated, so therefore he conclu
des that no good will be obtained by talking with him. Of course, I am in accord
with his oft-repeated statements about Spiritual Enlightenment, but it is one t
hing to speak out against something whilst offering nothing in its place and ano
ther thing entirely to propose a viable, liveable and delightful alternative to
what one is knocking down. I did not read him saying anything about how deliciou
sly enjoyable it is to be finally free of the Human Condition; what a pleasure i
t is to be alive at this moment in time; how life is an adventure in itself by t
he simple fact of being here; what a felicitous experience it is to be the unive
rses experience of itself as a human being; to be able to fully appreciate the in
finite nature of being alive ... and so on. In short, what I read sounded existe
ntialist and nihilistic and negative.
Since this E-Mail of yours arrived, I asked around among my friends for any vide
os of him and I was able to watch three of them last night. I stopped watching h
alf-way through the third one as I had had enough and it was getting late. He ac
knowledges that there are still emotions ... but that it is the body that is hav
ing them ... fear and anger were two that I heard him say. I can not relate to t
his at all. Also, on one video, he says that he looks at a clock and wonders wha
t it is; someone asks him what the time is and he answers A quarter past three or
whatever and then falls back into wondering what it is that he is looking at. I
know perfectly well what a clock is. Apparently he has to knock his head against
a wall to know that he is here; he slams kitchen doors shut for the same reason
; he goes to a doctor who examines him and says that he is indeed alive ... wher
eas I know that I am alive and well and thoroughly enjoying myself ... and will
continue to do so for the term of my natural life. It is a strange situation he
is in and he seems to be very much on his own in it. I would guess and this is o
nly my opinion that the reason that he goes around the world talking to people i
s that he can thus experience himself as being alive by the feed-back ... and ma
ybe because he has nothing else to do with his life.
In a way it is all a bit dismal.
RESPONDENT: Like you, U.G. Krishnamurti did the following things: (1) He claims
he underwent a transformation experience, which even changed his cellular struct
ure, during which he totally lost his self. From that moment on, he claims, he liv
ed in total perfection, without any kind of ego at all.
RICHARD: Yes, I have totally lost self ego, soul, spirit, atman, skandhas, Self, w
hatever ... plus any sense of identity at all. Without an I there is no past or fu
ture nor a present, which was but a psychological reality sandwiched betwixt the
two. That leaves this moment in time bare of any periodicity. It is always this
moment: it is never not this moment ... and the perfection of the infinity of t
he universe is apparent only at this moment. Thus I am living in total perfection
as is stated by Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti. I do not claim a change in cellular s
tructure, although there was a physiological that is, structural change in the b
rain-stem, just under the base of the brain. With the aid of my extensive medica
l reading after the event, I propose that this change, which I experienced as a
physical turning over, happened in what is known as the Substantia Nigra held by s
ome to be the organ of consciousness which is located in the Reticular Activatin
g System. However I am willing to be wrong in this as the emotions and passions
disappeared also, which scientific research suggests being located in what is po
pularly known as the Lizard Brain.
RESPONDENT: (2) He dismisses all the wise men and gurus of history as total frau
ds, claiming they were little more than snake-oil salesmen .
RICHARD: I have been known to use the expression snake-oil ... it is irresistible
as it is so expressive! However, when questioned sincerely, I say they were well
-meaning but misguided ... which is the facts of the matter. Thus I never say th
ey were total frauds, but victims of the culture that nurtured them ... except t
hose that are total frauds, like Mr. Sathyanarayana Raju (aka Sai Baba).
RESPONDENT: (3) He lived with a female companion for many years (and possibly st
ill does) yet claimed he was totally unattached to her. I dont know if ever exper
imented in group sex, but no doubt he would have been above it all if he had.
RICHARD: He did, but he does not any more as she is dead now. I have no idea abo
ut group sex but on one of the videos he said that he had not had sex for the last
seventeen years as sex is pleasure and that he wouldnt use another person for grati
fication . I thoroughly enjoy physical sensual pleasure and mutual pleasure is a
delight. We use each other by agreement ... after all, our parts fit together so w
ell ... and so deliciously.
RESPONDENT: (4) He too stood on his soap-box and preached against the preachers.
He taught that he had nothing to teach and that all teachers were charlatans. U
nfortunately, he was happy enough to have disciples looking after him.
RICHARD: I do not experience myself as standing on a soap-box preaching against t
he preachers . The way I see it I wrote elsewhere:

[Richard] We are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as
it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence
and corruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the human con
dition ... we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, s
orrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we gather
that it is also inherent to the human condition ... and we want to know why. We
all report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well
-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether
one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life f
or the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and t
he adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to e
xplore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and
we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or no
t, we are all still doing it. [end quote].
No disciples are looking after me ... I have a hard-won pension to meet my few n
eeds.
RESPONDENT: To my mind, the most revealing thing about U.G. Krishnamurti, and ab
out you, is his broad-sweeping dismissal of all the great sages of the past. Whe
n a person attains to true wisdom, he can readily recognise the wisdom of others
. Jesus, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Lao Tzu, and a good many others, embodied the high
est wisdom to a very large degree and this is reflected in many of the writings
which were either from their own hand or which were about their own lives. To si
mply dismiss them all as a bunch of frauds indicates a deep insecurity and a des
perate need to validate the significance of ones I.
RICHARD: You say when a person attains to true wisdom, he can readily recognise t
he wisdom of others. Right on! I do not claim true wisdom ... I am only interested
in facts and actuality. I have not discovered The Truth (which is where true wisdom
comes out of), therefore, of course I do not give any credence to the wisdom of
others at all. To me, The Truth is but a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out o
f an illusion. Therefore any true wisdom is spurious and detrimental to the well-b
eing of humankind. It is why there is so much warfare that is religiously and sp
iritually based.
I cannot agree with your diagnosis that I am suffering from a deep insecurity and
a desperate need to validate the significance of ones I . Anyone can find out abou
t security and insecurity, as an actuality, by triggering off a peak experience.
I have written elsewhere:
[Richard] When one learns the trick of having peak experiences, what one discover
s, time and again, is that the personal boundaries that I, the psychological entit
y, feel so safely protected by, are made up of my accrued beliefs as to who I am. Th
is is my outline, as it were, shaped by other peoples description of me a construct w
hich gives me asylum in each different group into which I wish to enter. Yet the out
line of this construct creates, simultaneously, an enormous distance between me an
d the world outside. At those times of peak experience, the distance disappears
all of a sudden as I vanish and this world is right here, so close that there is n
o distance any more. This is closer than any intimacy I have ever longed for. This
is a direct experience of actuality ... and I have always been here like this .
.. so safely here. The outline, the boundary that created the distance, was all
in my reality. I created a substitute security for this original safety a safety whi
ch has never known any threat, nor ever will. This genuine safety has no need fo
r precautions. [end quote].
As any I whatsoever has entirely vanished, I hardly see how I could have a desperat
e need to validate the significance of ones I. How on earth would going public with
a statement like there is no I whatsoever in this body validate ones I? I am saying: I

am not only human, I am the perfection of the stillness of infinitude personified.
I know, from personal experience, that it is possible to change ... and change
radically, fundamentally, completely and utterly. I have been without an ego sin
ce 1981 and without a soul since 1992. So I know what I talk of: it is not theor
etical idealism ... actual freedom is no pie in the sky. It is possible for one hu
man being to state, honestly and factually, that perfection is not only highly d
esirable but it is essential. This is not an idle claim, nor is it a vain boast
... who would be so silly as to do such a thing? I would be found out in a very
short time and exposed for being a stupid charlatan. I consider it would, rather
, invalidate ones I , would it not?
It is impossible to fake perfection, for my behaviour, my attitude, my responses
, my general demeanour, is impeccable at all times, both easy and trying. I do n
ot have a dark side ... nor do I have a good side. There is no battle betwixt Good and
Evil raging inside this body, for there is simply purity abounding in all directi
ons. The ego that died all those years ago has never reappeared and the extirpat
ion of the soul that persisted for another eleven years after that event, made t
he extinction of the identity final. I have never been here before, I am perpetu
ally new. I appear as this moment appears. As each moment is fresh, new, so too
am I novel, artless and innocent. I can never gather dust, as it were, for I cas
t no shadow. I have no presence, no being, no spirit. I do not exist, psychologically
or psychically speaking. With no entities within to mess things up, I am actuall
y living pure perfection through no effort at all.
I can take no credit for my unimpeachable character, it all happens of itself as
the universe intends it to.
No. 02
RICHARD: He [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti] acknowledges that there are still emotio
ns ... but that it is the body that is having them ... fear and anger were two t
hat I heard him say. I can not relate to this at all.
RESPONDENT: Let me ask you this, Richard. Suppose one day that you visit your wi
fe in the expectation of a little mutual pleasure. You arrive there, but instead
of your wife assenting to some harmless hanky-panky, she instead tells you that
she doesnt want to see you any more because she has finally worked out that you
are a fraud. She says that she had been blindly following you all these years, b
ut now realises the error of her ways and doesnt want to participate any longer i
n the sham. What do you think, Richard?
RICHARD: For a start I would not visit my wife in the expectation of a little mut
ual pleasure for I have no expectations at all ... to have expectations of other
people is to set yourself up for disappointment again and again. It is the same
with trust: to trust someone anyone at all is to invite betrayal (or what is per
ceived to be betrayal by the one who is doing the trusting) from the one who is
trusted. Also, to trust someone is to impose a demand upon them that they may no
t be able to live up to (or want to) ... and I never do that.
Secondly, she has gone through stages wherein she has finally worked out that [I
am] a fraud ... that she has been blindly following [me] all these years ... and
doesnt want to participate any longer in the sham (or words to that effect) so I
can speak from personal experience. As I am not at all affected by other peoples
opinion of me, I treat the occasions where she has praised me to the skies in th
e same way as when she criticises me for fraud. Her praise or blame impresses me
not at all. What would impress me and I would be delighted to be affected then if
I could be would be her attainment of an actual freedom. I would be dancing dow
n the hall with joy and delight!

Until that day happens, I remain unperturbed by anything that anyone says about
me ... be it complimentary or condemning.
RESPONDENT: Furthermore, she also tells you that she is about to go off on an ov
erseas holiday with her new boyfriend and wont be back in the country for a month
. Would you feel no emotions at all in this scenario?
RICHARD: No. And to forestall any further queries about feelings emotions and pa
ssions and calentures it would be useful for me to explain that not only do I ha
ve no feelings about this scenario, but I have none about any other you might li
ke to propose. I do not experience feelings per se because I do not have any any
where in this body at all ... this body lost that faculty entirely when I became e
xtinct. Thus to use the jargon: no one can press my buttons as I do not have any b
uttons nor any feelings under them to be activated. Literally I feel nothing at
all. Even when, say, watching a magnificent sunrise where some lofty clouds are
shot through with splendid rays of golden light, transforming the morning sky in
to a blaze of glory ... I feel nothing at all. These eyes seeing it delight in t
he array of colour, and this brain contemplating its visual splendour can revel
in the wonder of it all but I can not feel the beauty of it in the emotional and
passionate sense of the word feel.
Just as when a person becomes physically blind all their other senses are height
ened, so too is it when all feelings vanish entirely. This body is simply brimmi
ng with sense organs which wallow in their own sensual delight. Visually, everyt
hing is intense, vivid, brilliant ... sensually everything is dynamic and alive
with an actuality ... a matter-of-fact actual-ness. Everything is endowed with a
purity that far exceeds the now-paltry feeling of beauty ... and an intimacy th
at surpasses the highest feeling of love. Love is actually a pathetic substitute
for the perfection of actual intimacy. Actual intimacy is the direct experience
of the pristine actuality of another, unmediated by any I whatsoever.
*
RESPONDENT: He lived with a female companion for many years (and possibly still
does) yet claimed he was totally unattached to her. I dont know if ever experimen
ted in group sex, but no doubt he would have been above it all if he had.
RICHARD: He did, but he does not any more as she is dead now. I have no idea abo
ut group sex but on one of the videos he said that he had not had sex for the last
seventeen years as sex is pleasure and that he wouldnt use another person for grati
fication . I thoroughly enjoy physical sensual pleasure and mutual pleasure is a
delight. We use each other by agreement ... after all, our parts fit together so w
ell ... and so deliciously.
RESPONDENT: Let me ask you this, Richard. Suppose you and your wife are living t
ogether, and you come home one day to find thirty men in your living room. Upon
inquiry you find out that these men are all there to have sex with your wife, an
d that she is already in the bedroom busily engaging herself with three strappin
g young men. When you try to see her, she calls out that youll have to wait your
turn, before resuming her attention upon the activity at hand, one which involve
s certain parts of the young men fitting very nicely into various parts of her b
ody. I assume that this wouldnt bother you, since (a) all parties are using each
other by agreement, and (b) their parts are fitting together so deliciously well
.
RICHARD: My word, you do have a vivid imagination! You say thirty men ? Really? An
d strapping at that? My companion did her best not to roll about the floor laughin
g when I described your lurid little sex-saga to her ... but I will forgo passin
g on her comments to you as you were asking the question of me and not her.
As I have no imagination whatsoever, I can not suppose ... [that I] come home one
day to find thirty men in [my] living room. I can not envisage such a scenario a
s I am unable to visualise anything at all in my minds-eye ... I lost that faculty
as a result of becoming free of I. I can not generate images at all because the im
age-maker does not exist. However, he would have probably been: Incredulous? Upset
? Embarrassed? Disappointed? Jealous? Hurt? Enraged? Sickened? Envious? Somethin
g like that, I guess, because I actually can not remember in detail, but I do kn
ow that he was ruled by these type of emotional and passionate thoughts. I do reme
mber that he was possessive ... he foolishly thought that he could own another person
... but he had an experience of actuality one day and consequently self-immolated,
psychologically.
Hence I am able to be here at this moment in time where only purity and perfecti
on exist.
*
RESPONDENT: When a person attains to true wisdom, he can readily recognise the w
isdom of others.
RICHARD: Right on! I do not claim true wisdom ... I am only interested in facts an
d actuality. I have not discovered The Truth (which is where true wisdom comes out o
f), therefore, of course I do not give any credence to the wisdom of others at a
ll. To me, The Truth is but a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusi
on. Therefore any true wisdom is spurious and detrimental to the well-being of hum
ankind. It is why there is so much warfare that is religiously and spiritually b
ased.
RESPONDENT: Im afraid that you are merely engaging in empty semantics here. After
all, you are here on this forum preaching a message, which basically reads: I ha
ve reached perfection and virtually everyone else is deluded. Thus you have a True
Wisdom. You may think that it is a completely unreligious and unspiritual kind o
f wisdom, but it is still a True Wisdom of sorts nonetheless. Thus, you would do w
ell to recognise that you are no different to anyone else in this regard. We are
all bound by words in our attempts to communicate.
RICHARD: I beg to differ: The words are not empty semantics an accusative phrase w
hich, by the way, is the catch-cry of those who do not understand the reality th
at underlie words for true wisdom describes the very real experience of apparent s
agacity that people have upon discovering The Truth. I espoused true wisdom for elev
en years for I, too, had discovered The Truth. These days I speak only of facts an
d actuality, hence it can not be still a True Wisdom of sorts nonetheless ... and th
e fact that you were impelled to add of sorts implies that you recognise this. And
I do not think that it is a completely unreligious and unspiritual kind of wisdom,
for I know that it is, as a fact.
RESPONDENT: Words can either be used wisely or foolishly. What a wise person mea
ns by a particular word is completely different to what an ignorant person means
by it. Words like wisdom, Truth, ego-less, perfection, etc., each have entirely diff
nt meanings, depending on who is using them.
RICHARD: I know that what a wise person means by a particular word is completely
different to what an ignorant person means by it ... and this is the whole point
of me writing and speaking about it. I know that I have written this elsewhere,
but it bears repeating:
[Richard] Actual freedom is a tried and tested way of being here in the world as
it actually is ... stripped of the veneer of reality that is super-imposed by th
e psychological entity within the body. This entity is that sense of identity an
d self that inhibits any freedom and sabotages every well-meant endeavour. Thus
far one has had only two choices: being normal or being spiritual. Now there is
a third alternative ... and it supersedes any Mystical Altered State. Philosophic
al wisdom, Psychological knowledge and Spiritual enlightenment have had their da
y and are proving themselves to be inadequate to meet the requirements of this m
odern era. For thousands of years maybe tens of thousands of years humankind has
known of no alternative manner of living life on this verdant planet. The passi
ng parade of Philosophers and Preachers, Masters and Sages geniuses and thinkers
of all description have failed abysmally to deliver their oft-promised Peace On
Earth ... in fact, instead of their much-vaunted love and virtue, they have left
in their wake much hatred and bloodshed, the likes of which beggars description.
Millions of well-meaning followers have diligently put their Teachings into prac
tice, prostrating and belittling themselves like all get-out in a hopeful attemp
t to live the unliveable. Yet no-one, it seems, dares to question the Teachings
themselves; instead the humiliated penitents obligingly blame themselves for fai
ling to achieve release from the human condition. To seek freedom via profound a
nd lofty thought or sublime and exalted feelings is to blindly perpetuate all th
e horrors and sufferings that have plagued humankind since time immemorial. The
time has come to put to an end, once and for all, the blight that has encumbered
this fair earth for far too long. It behoves one to question all of the receive
d wisdom of the centuries, all of the revealed truths ... all of the half-baked inan
ities that pass for understanding. Then, and only then, there is a fair chance t
hat one can come to an actual freedom a freedom the nature of which has never be
en before in human experience. The blame for the continuation of human misery lie
s squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient c
ourage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of the final goal the Unknowab
le. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilli
ng to relinquish the Self ... and an ego-less Self is still an entity, neverthel
ess. 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. B
ewitched and beguiled by the promise of majesty and mystery, they have led human
kind astray. Preaching submission or supplication they keep a benighted humanity
in appalling tribulation and distress. [end quote].
The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the self in its entire
ty is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over all and ev
eryone.
RESPONDENT: Thus, it would be foolish to judge people simply on the fact that th
ey use words like God or Truth. Rather, they should always be judged on their unders
tanding of these terms. To dismiss people purely on a semantic quibble is ludicr
ous to the extreme, as is dismissing all the words of the wise men in history si
mply because foolish people use them to justify war and slaughter.
RICHARD: I do not consider it foolish to judge people simply on the fact that the
y use words like God or Truth for I know that judging them is the only sensible thin
g to do. The Truth is simply the philosophers term for God; thus any wisdom designate
d True Wisdom translates easily as Gods Word. The trouble with people who discard the
god of Christianity is that they do not realise that by turning to the Eastern
Spirituality they have effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. E
astern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in
the West have been raised to believe in. Eastern philosophy sounds so convincin
g to the Western mind that is desperately looking for answers. The Christian con
ditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible
to the insidious doctrines of the East. At the end of the line there is always
a god of some description, lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its Teach
ings.
As you so aptly said (in a different context): Foolish people use them to justify
war and slaughter .
No. 03
RICHARD: To put it into a physical analogy, it was as if I was to gather up my m
eagre belongings, eradicate all marks of my stay on the island, and paddle away
over the horizon, all the while not knowing whence I go ... and vanish without a
trace, never to be seen again. As no one knew where I was, no one would know wh
ere I had gone. In fact, I would become as extinct as the dodo and with no skele
tal remains. Psychologically, I would cease to be at all, I would have no presence. Th
is was more than death of the ego, which is a major event by any definition; thi
s was total annihilation. No ego, no soul no Self. No more Heavenly Bliss, Love Ag
ap or Divine Compassion. Only oblivion. It was not at all attractive, not at allur
ing, not at all desirable, yet I knew I was going to do it one day because it wa
s the ultimate condition. Herein lay the secret to the Mystery of Life.
RESPONDENT: An interesting story [about fear and trembling], Richard. Im a bit co
nfused, though, about a couple of things: First off, you say that your ego dissol
ved in 1981, but then you go on to say that in 1985 you experienced fear and drea
d at the perception of the Great Beyond. Furthermore, you said that this experienc
e revealed that you had even further to go, that you had to go on and annihilate t
he ego completely. Is there a difference between dissolution and annihilation? Surel
y not. If your ego had truly dissolved in 1981, then Im afraid it would have been
impossible for you to have either (a) experienced fear and dread towards anythi
ng at all, and (b) perceived that you still had yet to annihilate your ego. For
correct if Im wrong, it is impossible to annihilate something which no longer exi
sts.
RICHARD: It is indeed unfortunate that you are a bit confused because I have alrea
dy explained this matter clearly in more than several posts previous to this. Bu
t, never mind, I will re-capitulate:
[Richard]: Essentially, when a person becomes enlightened they say that their ego
has dissolved this is termed Death of the ego. I concur fully in this very valid
description of what has happened. However, the ego is only one half of the self
... the other half being the soul. Then there is a sense of identity overlaid on
top of the self. The enlightened person switches their sense of identity from t
he ego (which is now non-existent) to the soul and in their own words realise th
at they are The Self existing beyond Time and Space and that they are Immortal and Et
ernal and that they are Unborn and Undying. In other words they identify as being Th
at by whatever name. (Also The Void, Emptiness, Beyond Form and so on and if they are
really astute Beyond Form and No-Form). This is the second I of Mr. Venkataraman Aiy
er (aka Ramana) fame. [endquote].
So where I wrote: [quote] psychologically, I would cease to be at all, I would have n
o presence... this was more than death of the ego, which is a major event by any d
efinition; this was total annihilation ... no ego, no soul no Self [unquote], this
second I is what I was referring to. I was very clearly not saying: this experienc
e revealed that you had even further to go, that you had to go on and annihilate t
he ego completely as you attempt to make out that I was saying.
As for fear and trembling ... I deliberately and accurately used the word dread as i
t was an existential experience of the end of being entirely not just the fear and
trembling produced by the contemplation of the death of the ego (wherein I go on
under a different disguise) but a complete and utter annihilation of everything,
including The Absolute or The Void or The Whatever. As a youth in 1966, I served my t
ime in the military in a war-torn foreign country, so I knew the full gamut of n
ervousness, apprehension, anxiety, fear, terror, horror and dread ... and they g
o in that order of severity. This was a dread of the likes of which I had never
experienced before ... perhaps it would be handy to call it pure dread, for emphas
is. Pure dread is the worst nightmarish feeling one can possibly experience. And
as I clearly explained that: I was living in a state of Divine Bliss and Love Ag
ap which protected me from all sorrow and malice, with its attendant fears and hat
es, I consider that it is obvious that fear, for example, is transcended not elim
inated with the Death of the Ego. Consequently, where you say: if your ego had trul
y dissolved in 1981, then Im afraid it would have been impossible for you to have
... experienced fear and dread towards anything at all , you are simply airing y
our understandable ignorance of matters transcendent in public.
RESPONDENT: My prognosis, then, is that your ego didnt really dissolve in 1981, b
ut that you simply fooled yourself into thinking this was the case. Most likely
what had happened was that you had a powerful altered state of consciousness whi
ch empowered your ego, transforming it, so that you ceased to experience certain
kinds of fears and worries which were gripping you beforehand. It was a relativ
e awakening, if you will, not an absolute one. But in your particular case, your
ego became stronger for the experience, not weaker. It certainly didnt dissolve.
RICHARD: In light of what I have explained above it will be seen that your progn
osis is not valid, as it is based upon in inaccurate premise.
RESPONDENT: Now, I had said in a previous post that I believed all youve had is a
minor realisation of Truth and that it had simply gone straight to your head. T
he above description of your experience doesnt alter this judgment of mine. What
really happened was this: In 1985 you experienced an inkling of what it really m
eans to be perfectly truthful and it deeply frightened you. This is entirely und
erstandable, for it is truly an awesome insight. However, this experience scared
you so deeply that you immediately turned your back on the Great Beyond and re-en
tered the world (of pleasure) as quickly as possible. To be sure, a good deal of
your ego was shattered by the experience, but like before, it wasnt annihilated
completely, but simply transformed. Your ego became even more empowered by it, a
nd you became even more fearless (towards ordinary, everyday things) than ever b
efore. But note that this fearlessness was (and still is) driven by a very deep
fear of Truth.
RICHARD: Unfortunately you are building a more and more complex prognosis based
upon the inaccurate premise.
RESPONDENT: What has happened to you sounds very much like what often happens to
people who have a near-death-experience in a car accident or something like tha
t. When a person has a brush with death, his life can be radically altered. Sudd
enly, previous worries and concerns, which once seemed so important, now seem so
trivial and banal. One begins to appreciate the little things in life and redisco
vers the open curiosity that one used to have as a child. One appreciates each m
oment as if it were truly precious and fresh, knowing all the while that these m
oments could so easily have been denied one, had one died in the accident. In sh
ort, one becomes like a child again happy, fearless, open to new experiences, et
c.
RICHARD: Your more and more elaborate prognosis is reaching rather frantic propo
rtions here. It was, most definitely, not like what happens to people after a Nea
r Death Experience. Nor does my description remotely sound like that, to any disc
erning reader.
Really, the quality of your critique is slipping, in this post.
RESPONDENT: The only problem with this is that it has nothing to do with wisdom
or true ego-lessness, something which can only be found by swimming over the hor
izon and disappearing into the Great Beyond. People like Kierkegaard and Hakuin
faced this awesome task squarely and didnt flinch from making steady progress int
o it, despite the tremendous suffering involved. They didnt turn away as you did,
Richard, and become ordinary hedonists, which is what you have become.
RICHARD: I was wondering when someone would introduce the label Hedonist into this
list and who it would be. As Hedonism is merely the opposite of Asceticism, (which,
I understand, is your current path to obtain enlightenment) it is but an exampl
e of dualistic thinking.
Also, I would hardly say that Mr. Soren Kierkegaard has been acknowledged as bei
ng an enlightened being (as in dissolution of the ego) has he? If he has, then I
have missed that in all my reading.
No. 04
RICHARD: The enlightened person switches their sense of identity from the ego (w
hich is now non-existent) to the soul and in their own words realise that they a
re The Self existing beyond Time and Space and that they are Immortal and Eternal and
that they are Unborn and Undying. In other words they identify as being That by what
ever name. (Also The Void, Emptiness, Beyond Form and so on and if they are really as
tute Beyond Form and No-Form). This is the second I of Ventkataraman Aiyer (aka Rama
na) fame.
RESPONDENT: Well, I personally dont consider this to be enlightenment, but merely
a minor realisation or insight. Recognising that ones self is not merely limited t
o the body or personality, but that it in fact encompasses the infinity of Natur
e is just the first step of a very long journey. It is still a long way short of
enlightenment.
RICHARD: So being Unborn and Undying, Immortal and Eternal and existing Beyond Ti
me and Space is not enlightenment? It is merely a minor realisation or insight ? If
that description is not a description of the enlightened state then I would lik
e to know what is. If that is the kind of thing you get from reading Mr. Soren K
ierkegaards books, then it clearly demonstrates that his wisdom was not True Wisdo
m.
RESPONDENT: Unfortunately, you still havent cleared up my confusion for me. To re
cap, you said that your ego was dissolved in 1981 and that you consequently iden
tified with a Higher Self which exists beyond space and time, and which is eternal
, immortal, unborn, undying, etc., etc. Now I ask you again, how could a self wh
ich is eternal and immortal possibly experience fear or dread? It is simply impo
ssible! An immortal self cannot experience fear or dread, since by definition no
thing can ever harm such an entity.
RICHARD: Where you say: now I ask you again, how could a self which is eternal an
d immortal possibly experience fear or dread? It is simply impossible! An immort
al self cannot experience fear or dread, since by definition nothing can ever ha
rm such an entity , you are in direct contradiction of your definition (in the pr
evious paragraph) of such a state as being merely a minor realisation or insight .
You seem to be very confused about your own understanding of enlightenment ...
let alone having confusion about what I am saying.
If you do not know what constitutes enlightenment, then how can you begin to und
erstand what is involved in going beyond enlightenment into the actual world?
RESPONDENT: And so I put it to you once more that your ego hadnt really dissolved
at all in 1981; all that had happened was that one small part of your ego had d
issolved. The core of your ego remained, just as it remains today. What happened
in your crisis in 1985 was that your attachment to this so-called Higher Self (wh
ich in reality was the core of your ego) no longer sustained you emotionally and
your ego floundered because of it.
RICHARD: And I will put it to you once more also: Your prognosis is not valid, a
s it is based upon in inaccurate premise.
No. 05
RESPONDENT: At the very least, enlightenment (as opposed to perfection) is very
achievable and there have been quite a few men in the past who have achieved it.
An enlightened person is one who manages, for short periods at least, to elimin
ate every shred of falseness from his being (thus opening his mind to full consc
iousness of God), while a perfect person is one who effortlessly maintains this
magnificent purity twenty-four hours a day.
RESPONDENT No. 15: I wish I had your faith! If we accept for the moment that wha
t you are saying is for real, then Im inclined to conclude that you have been the
re, to know as you do about it. If so, what can you tell us about the experience
, the total letting-go. Was is both freeing and frightening?
RESPONDENT: It is like shedding ill-fitting clothing and relaxing in ones natural
state. As such, it is very tranquil, yet also very alive. The mind is infused w
ith enormous power and can penetrate profound mysteries with ease. Nothing binds
or constrains one, and there is no urge to be anywhere or to know anything in p
articular. At the same time, there is nothing static about enlightenment, for on
e is fully in tune with the endless process of the Universe reinventing itself a
t each moment. The mind experiences a steady stream of insights and intuitions.
The experience of enlightenment itself is neither freeing or frightening, for it
is truly beyond such things. However, as soon as the ego rears its ugly head (a
s it invariably does), then yes, it is here that one can experience feelings of
freedom or fear, depending on the circumstances and also on ones mood. At other t
imes, I feel extremely free. Especially whenever I observe other people getting
so emotionally tangled up in the world married men, for example. Also, the more
enlightened one becomes, the more one is free from things like boredom, anger, d
espair, depression, and so on. Enlightenment can be described as a temporary ver
sion of perfection.
RICHARD: Enlightenment can in no way be
ction ... because Enlightenment is not
ate of ego-lessness wherein the ego has
htenment the ego will never again rear
ction is known as a peak experience.
described as a temporary version of perfe

a temporary anything. It is a permanent st
dissolved forever. In the state of Enlig
its ugly head. A temporary version of perfe
If you attempt to rewrite definitions to suit your own needs you will only confu
se the issue for yourself and remain ignorant by believing that you have achieve
d something that you have not ... and make a fool of yourself in public into the
bargain with your notoriously dogmatic assertions.
RESPONDENT: I sometimes feel frightened when I sense that it is all too much for
me. During these times, I regard enlightenment and the demands it makes upon me
to be a huge burden and my fears revolve around the conviction that I cannot po
ssibly live up to the high standards set before me. Here I sometimes feel a stro
ng urge to want to escape the whole thing altogether.
RICHARD: If you are genuine about wanting to escape the whole thing altogether you
may be interested in actualising a condition that surpasses any Altered State O
f Consciousness (such as Enlightenment) and is not at all frightening or demandi
ng. There is an actual freedom wherein high standards are not a huge burden as they
come effortlessly and freely. In actuality there is no unenlightened self or Enligh
tened Self present to prevent an on-going perfection happening spontaneously. It
is essential to understand that, just as the self is an illusion, in a like manner
the Self is a delusion born out of that illusion.
Enlightenment is a fantasy that has led humankind astray for aeons.
No. 06
RICHARD: Enlightenment can in no way be
ction ... because Enlightenment is not
ate of ego-lessness wherein the ego has
htenment the ego will never again rear
ction is known as a peak experience.
described as a temporary version of perfe

a temporary anything. It is a permanent st
dissolved forever. In the state of Enlig
its ugly head. A temporary version of perfe
RESPONDENT: Theres no real point in arguing over labels. Labels clearly have no i
nherent meaning to them and are simply tools for practical usage. The important
factor involved in deciding what labels to use should be whether or not they aid
the communication of our understandings to others. I personally would never use
the term peak experience as it can be a very misleading label. It could easily ca
use people to think that I was merely referring to the religious or mystical experie
nce or some other similarly limited attainment. But what I call enlightenment ha
s nothing in common with altered states of this kind.
RICHARD: Yet you wrote, in a previous post: An enlightened person is one who mana
ges, for short periods at least, to eliminate every shred of falseness from his
being (thus opening his mind to full consciousness of God) . Not religious? Not myst
ical? Who are you kidding? And let us include spiritual, transcendental and metaphysic
al experiences in the list too, for they are all of the same package.
Enlightenment is most definitely a consistent Altered State Of Consciousness whe

rein one realises an abiding Union with God (by whatever name ... Reality, Nature, Th
e All, Ultimate Reality, The Infinite, Truth, Tao, The Totality and so on). None o
a temporary version of perfection. You are wrong in that your assertion has no ba
sis in fact. Unless, of course, all of the Enlightened Beings that have ever exi
sted are wrong in saying that their state (Enlightenment) is won only when it is
permanent and that only you are right in allowing people who have had temporary
experiences to enter into their fold. Enlightenment is an enduring condition in
which the ego never again rears its ugly head ... as yours does, by your own admi
ssion in a previous post. May I suggest that you cease using the word Enlightenme
nt to describe yourself, as it has a definitive meaning. That meaning is that Enl
ightenment is reached only when one has dissolved the ego permanently. A temporar
y version of perfection is not Enlightenment.
And if you object to the western term: peak experience, then try substituting the
Zen equivalent: Satori experience, or the Hindu term: Samadhi experience or the Budd
hist phrase: Nirvanic experience. These people are learned enough to apply the nec
essary humility to not fool themselves into believing that they have achieved En
lightenment no matter how many temporary experiences of Enlightenment they have
had. Quibbling over labels, I have noticed, is your second-favourite ploy to sti
fle sincere discussion.
RESPONDENT: I believe Im justified in using the word enlightenment to describe my a
ttainment because it tallies with the traditional use of the term .
RICHARD: It does not tally at all, of course, but even by your own words you can n
ot be justified in using the word enlightenment to describe your attainment because
it tallies with the traditional use of the term, as you have just stated that: La
bels clearly have no inherent meaning to them. Make up your mind, please.
RESPONDENT: What I call enlightenment involves a tremendous breakthrough in cons
ciousness in which ones intellectual understanding of Reality reaches perfection,
leading one to directly experience Reality itself. In this moment, the nature o
f the spiritual path is grasped, the scriptures are understood, the Zen Koans ar
e solved, and one passes beyond all doubts, there being nowhere further to go. I
f the word enlightenment is to have any meaning at all, it can only mean this.
RICHARD: Precisely. There is no further to go . If, however, as you wrote about yo
urself the ego rears its ugly head again, then you do have further to go. Therefor
e, you are not Enlightened. Wake up and smell the coffee.
RESPONDENT: However, this is only the beginning of a very long journey. For the
rest of his life the spiritual person strives to deepen his realisation, allowin
g it to permeate the whole of his being.
RICHARD: For the rest of his life ? But you have just said: There being no further
to go . My word, you are confused.
RESPONDENT: The eventual goal is to have all parts of himself in perfect harmony
with the Ultimate Truth. This is what I call perfection. Unfortunately, this is
not something which can be successfully accomplished overnight. In other words,
it is simply not possible for us to suddenly eliminate the whole of our egos in
one foul swoop. The ego is essentially a conglomeration of deeply ingrained fal
se habits which have formed since the day of our birth, and possibly even earlie
r in the womb.
RICHARD: Strange indeed that all of the Enlightened Masters that I have read abo
ut, in their own words, point to a single edifying moment wherein their ego dies.
*
RICHARD: If you attempt to rewrite definitions to suit your own needs you will o
nly confuse the issue for yourself and remain ignorant by believing that you hav
e achieved something that you have not ... and make a fool of yourself in public
into the bargain with your notoriously dogmatic assertions.
RESPONDENT: Are you so certain that it is not you who is making the fool out of
himself?
RICHARD: I would venture to say that your response to my post is demonstrating w
ho is the fool. You claim to be Enlightened yet all the while your ego rears its
ugly head (as it invariably does). You are digging yourself deeper and deeper int
o a mire of your own making ... and on your own list, too!
RESPONDENT: For the benefit of those list-members who have joined more recently,
Richard believes that he has attained perfection and is totally without ego.
RICHARD: Please get your facts right. Not only the ego, but the soul as well. No
t only the self but the Self also. There is no sense of identity whatsoever. Thus God,
by any name, has also ceased to exist. Any God is clearly a projection of the self
... a fantasy, in other words. Unlike others who make false claims about their a
vowed atheism, I am a thorough-going atheist through and through.
RESPONDENT: I, on the
common fallacy called
shallow insight into
to mean that there is
other hand, believe that he has merely fallen victim to a

The Empty Pit of Perfection. This occurs when a person has a
the truth that everything is perfect and misinterprets it
no spiritual path and no enlightenment. We are already perf
ect, these people exclaim. There is no need to strive for anything. Enlightenment
is a sham and all the gurus who preach it are charlatans ... and so on.
RICHARD: I have never said that Enlightenment is a sham. I have invariably stated
that it is a delusion born out of the illusion of self. I have never said that Gur
us are charlatans ... I describe them as well-meaning but deluded people ... tha
t they have feet of clay. And I have never said: There is no need to strive for a
nything. In fact, I have written consistently about the intense level of patience
, perseverance, application and diligence required in eliminating the root cause
of all the wars, the murders, the tortures, the rapes, the domestic violence, t
he corruptions, the sadness, the loneliness, the sorrows, the depressions and th
e suicides ... ad infinitum.
It therefore follows that people are not perfect. You certainly know how to mani
pulate a clearly written paragraph to suit your own convenience. The we are alrea
dy perfect phrase describes what is seen, with apperception, in a peak experience
. I am sure that anyone else who has read what I have written understands that t
his seeing is a goal to be achieved by eliminating both the ego and the soul the
self and the Self. Why do you find this simple statement so difficult to comprehend
? In case you can not read plain English unless the words are repeated over and
over again, I will re-post what I wrote earlier in the rather pointless expectat
ion that you actually read what people write to you:
In a peak experience everything is seen, with unparalleled clarity, to be already
always perfect ... that humans are all living in purity ... if only one would a
ct upon ones seeing.
Please note the if only one would act upon ones seeing bit.
RESPONDENT: The freedom that Richard experiences is a freedom from consciousness
and purpose. He attains a type of consistency, not by eliminating everything th
at is false and contradictory with respect to the Truth, but simply by insisting
that everything is already perfect. For example, the deeply ingrained habits th
at I talked about earlier the ones caused by decades of deluded behaviour magica
lly cease to be deluded habits. For how can they possibly be deluded when everyt
hing is already perfect?
RICHARD: More of the same obfuscation. Blurring the issues convinces nobody but
yourself that you know what you are talking of. Are you deliberately being disin
genuous in order to appear to win an argument? Or are you as I am beginning to c
onsider actually ignorant?
*
RICHARD: Enlightenment is a fantasy that has led humankind astray for aeons.
RESPONDENT: Deluded concepts of enlightenment continually lead humankind astray,
yes. But a wise understanding of enlightenment can never do this, by definition
.
RICHARD: By definition? Once again, when it suits you, you conveniently ignore you
r own advice. I will repeat it here for your own edification: Well, theres no real
point in arguing over labels. Labels clearly have no inherent meaning to them.
Touch. You are going to have to do a lot better than this to earn the appellation
wise or genius ... let alone Enlightened.
No. 07
RESPONDENT: You know, one of the things which disturbs me about you, Richard, is
a lack of flexibility in the way you handle concepts. One only has to mention t
he word God, for example, and you go all into a flutter as if some great crime has
been committed. This is very strange to see in a person who claims to be perfec
t. It is a very obvious point, once grasped, that words like God or spiritual have n
o inherent meaning to them whatsoever. They mean whatever we want them to mean.
Hence, when reading the words of another it is important to discern the meaning
given by the author to words of this kind and not get distracted by the fact the
y are using them in the first place. A perfect person should have no trouble doi
ng this at all. Words like God and Truth are very useful in that they press home the
point that becoming enlightened is tremendously important, not only to the indi
vidual but to society as a whole. An enlightened person is perfectly capable of
making use of these words without himself being fooled by them, for he is in com
plete control of the process. He is extremely flexible and adaptable in this reg
ard. As I say, the apparent lack of adaptability in you is not a good sign at al
l.
RICHARD: It is unfortunate that you are disturbed by my handling of concepts bec

ause that disturbance will exacerbate your patent inability to perceive the fact
icity of what I write. Words like God, Spiritual and Truth despite your denial do i
ed have inherent meaning inasmuch as they describe and convey a particular exper
ience that one can have. What else are words for if not to validate meaning for
oneself and communicate same to another? I do not go all into a flutter but, yes,
great crimes have been committed because of peoples believing in these very conc
epts that you treat in such a cavalier fashion. Just exactly how many wars, murd
ers, tortures and rapes have been carried out by fervent believers we will never
know ... but it runs into the hundreds of millions. That it is all unnecessary
is what makes it so silly.
And I have read enough of your words over the previous months to satisfy myself
that I can discern the meaning that you give to them ... I have no trouble at al
l in doing this as I have passed through that territory myself experientially, n
ot just intellectually. You are wrong in saying that an enlightened person is no
t fooled by them for enlightenment blinds a person to facts and actuality they h
ave surrendered their will and their chance for integrity to The Truth and to the G
reater Reality and are thus ruled by the Supernatural Power and Authority that li
es hidden within the psychic world.
As for your statement that becoming enlightened is tremendously important, not on
ly to the individual but to society as a whole ... I must demur. It is a catastro
phe for society ... not to mention what it does for the individual. Living in a
state of institutionalised insanity, I, the enlightened Self, am driven by That, the p
sychic Power and Authority behind the throne, to procure intermediaries in the f
orm of believers to disseminate My Word, to spread My Message and to propagate My Teac
hing. Little do I realise the bloody ins and outs of founding yet another religiou
s group of fervent believers. Somehow, enthralled by the bewitching enchantment
of My divine station, I do not take the trouble to examine the chronicled history sp
ecifying the circumstances of the bloodshed and horrors of the Religious Wars th
at have come in the trail of My illustrious forerunners: the Awakened Ones from the
most Ancient Of Ancients. Somehow I am blinded by the Glory, the Glamour and the Gli
tz of the Supernatural Promise never fulfilled and fail to behold the Diabolical s
ub-stratum that is fundamental to sustaining My sublime disposition. One has to re
alise that I have merely transcended the opposites ... not eliminated them.
So yes, I am incredibly inflexible when it comes to pandering to this Post-Moder
n nonsense about words having no inherent meaning. I have no tolerance in me wha
tsoever towards anything that causes such monstrous suffering.
*
RICHARD: Enlightenment is most definitely a consistent Altered State Of Consciou

sness wherein one realises an abiding Union with God (by whatever name ... Realit
y, Nature, The All, Ultimate Reality, The Infinite, Truth, Tao, The Totality a
f this is a temporary version of perfection .
RESPONDENT: One can also say that perfection (or Enlightenment as you call it) i
s an altered state of consciousness in that it differs from ordinary deluded con
sciousness, albeit a permanent alteration. This is not to say, of course, that a
perfect person is attached to any view, belief, concept or indeed any particula
r state of consciousness at all.
RICHARD: I wonder if you are in agreement ... you appear to be saying that enlig
htenment is a permanent altered state ... or are you? I note the conditional cod
icil (or Enlightenment as you call it) so my question is this: Do you yourself now
call Perfection (as defined by yourself) Enlightenment? That is, do you still c
laim to be Enlightened? Remember, you have just written albeit a permanent altera
tion ?
RESPONDENT: Enlightenment (as I define it) is fundamentally different to Satori or
Samadhi. In my schema, these terms refer to blissful, heavenly states of consciou
sness in which a limited insight into the nature of Reality is gained. Enlighten
ment, on the other hand, is infinitely more subtle and profound. It involves see
ing through utterly everything in the Universe; one perceives the true nature of
all things completely and directly. In this way, it wholly transcends the bells
and whistles and glamour of the Satori experience. Also, the effect of enlighte
nment is much more powerful than that of Satori. Ones entire ego is fundamentally
altered by enlightenment; one comes out of it an entirely new person. Although
the experience of Satori can also have a major impact on a persons life, it doesnt
reach down to the very depths of ones being like enlightenment does.
RICHARD: You see, here is why I have reason to consider that you know naught of
what you write about. You say: Ones ego is fundamentally altered by enlightenment.
Sorry to disappoint you but it is not altered ... it is dissolved ... finished ...
ended ... the self dies. Enlightenment, as you define it, includes having the ego
rear its ugly head (as it invariably does). Given this, how on earth one can come
out of it an entirely new person given that the word entirely means completely, tot
ally, fully or wholly? Having ones ego rear its ugly head does not indicate entire
ly to me.
It does not sound to me that you have seen through utterly everything in the Univ
erse . You do not write like one who perceives the true nature of all things compl
etely and directly.
*
RESPONDENT: Theyre simply kidding themselves. A part of the ego dies with enlight
enment, but not all of it. One cannot overturn millions of years of bad karma ov
ernight!
RICHARD: Millions of years of bad karma ? So you believe in the Eastern metaphysic
al concept of karma and re-incarnation too? But you have just said that: Enlighte
nment (as I define it) is fundamentally different to Satori or Samadhi ... in wh
ich a limited insight into the nature of Reality is gained . This belief in the t
raditional Hindu and Buddhist religious doctrine that you hold is an example of
how you have not exceeded their limited insight into the nature of Reality . It is
the same old-same old.
So, you have lived before this incarnation as No. 4, eh? Well, well, well ... it w
ould appear that you were dissembling all those weeks ago when you denied what I
wrote about the delusion of Enlightenment being that one took oneself to be som
ething other than this flesh-and-blood body ... Spaceless and Timeless ... Unborn a
nd Undying ... beyond Form and No-Form ... beyond Self and No-Self. Who is the I that
e-incarnates over millions of years? What happens to you when this flesh-and-blood
No. 4 dies?
Well, well, well ... perhaps now that your real beliefs have been flushed out in
to the open we can have a genuine discussion about the Buddhist belief in an Aft
er-life. Your running-mate No. 12 tried to convince me that there was no substan
tial difference between Nirvana and Parinirvana. Where do you stand on this issu
e?
RESPONDENT: Incidentally, who, other than yourself, is Enlightened (or perfect)
in your view? Is there anyone from history whom you consider to have reached thi
s supreme level?
RICHARD: But it is not a supreme level because I am not Enlightened. I am in a con
dition I call actual freedom. I call it actual because it is located in this sen
sual world of physical phenomenon. It is not metaphysical at all as it is here o
n earth as this body only. I am this flesh-and-blood body minus any identity at
all. No ego or soul; no self or Self; no God or Truth ... simply the moment-to-m
oment apperception of myself as being this physical universes experience of itsel
f as a sensate, reflective human being.
Nobody that I have read about from history has reported this condition.
*
RICHARD: I am a thorough-going atheist through and through.
RESPONDENT: Not thorough-going enough for my liking. You still treat words as go
ds, for example. Furthermore, keep in mind that the non-existence of God is also p
rojection of the self. From all appearances, you are as much attached to this pr
ojection as a fundamentalist is to his own wrathful deity.
RICHARD: You astound me! How on earth can the non-existence of God be a projection
of the self ? This is such convoluted reasoning that it beggars description. Also
, once again you are using your favourite ploy to stifle discussion ... that is,
where you use the accusation that someone other than yourself, of course is atta
ched to something or another. You have used it and over-used it until it does not
work any more ... not on me, at least.
And I am not a thorough-going atheist because I treat words as gods ? Here it is you
who is clutching at straws.
No. 08
RICHARD: Do you yourself now call Perfection (as defined by yourself) Enlightenm
ent? That is, do you still claim to be Enlightened? Remember, you have just writ
ten albeit a permanent alteration ?
RESPONDENT: An enlightened person is indeed permanently altered
ment in that his vision of life has been radically changed. All
ual delusions have disappeared and his values have been given a
-up. The difference between being unenlightened and enlightened
by his enlighten
of his intellect
tremendous shake
is like the diff
erence between hesitantly groping around in a dark foreign room and striding con
fidently about ones own room with the light on. With the onset of enlightenment,
one can see clearly what needs to be done and is placed in a strong position to
be able to do it. This doesnt mean that one is perfect, for the work involved has
only just begun.
RICHARD: I would like to try re-writing your paragraph so that what you are sayi
ng can be understood in the context of how other people use words: A person who h
as had a temporary enlightenment experience has had their perceptions altered by
this experience in that their experience of life has been radically changed. So
me of their intellectual delusions have disappeared and their values have been g
iven a tremendous shake-up. The difference between not having had a temporary en
lightenment experience and having had this enlightenment experience is like the
difference between hesitantly groping around in a dark foreign room and striding
confidently about ones own room with the light on. With the onset of entering th
e spiritual path, after having had a temporary experience of enlightenment, one
can see somewhat clearly what needs to be done and is placed in a reasonably str
ong position to be able to do it. This doesnt mean that one is Enlightened, for t
he work involved has only just begun.
Hey ... now I can agree with you wholeheartedly! Why did I not think of this bef
ore? If you wish, I can translate all of your posts so that anyone can easily un
derstand where you are really at.
*
RICHARD: Enlightenment, as you define it, includes having the ego rear its ugly h
ead (as it invariably does) . Given this, how on earth one can come out of it an e
ntirely new person given that the word entirely means completely, totally, fully or
wholly? Having ones ego rear its ugly head does not indicate entirely to me.
RESPONDENT: An entirely-altered ego rears its ugly head, but it is still an ego
nonetheless. In other words, attachments still remain, but the things that one i
s now attached to and the nature of these attachments itself have changed. Ones i
nner relationship with all things in the Universe is fundamentally altered. Its b
een described in Zen as having your whole world turned inside out or consciousness
doing a 180 degree flip, which are pretty decent descriptions of it. The flip is pe
rmanent, and one is now in a position to begin travelling down the spiritual pat
h.
RICHARD: Oh, I see ... foolish me. Enlightenment means having an entirely-altered
ego does it? And you seriously think that Zen supports this view? When I read Ze
n all those years ago it was very clear to me that they consider Enlightenment t
o have happened only after ego death that is: No ego at all. But, of course, you
would say they got it wrong.
RESPONDENT: The word karma is like the word God. There is a wise way of understandin
g it and many deluded ways. Needless to say, the populist views of karma and rei
ncarnation are wildly off the mark.
RICHARD: No. 4s method number five of stifling serious discussion: Calls anything
challenging his view a populist or popular view. Only he (and Mr. Soren Kierkegaard
and Mr. Otto Weinginger) has the inside dope.
*
RICHARD: So, you have lived before this incarnation as No. 4, eh?
RESPONDENT: I dont even live now as No. 4, for I am literally without beginning or
end.
RICHARD: Translation: I, No. 4, am God ... literally.

*
RICHARD: Who is the I that re-incarnates over millions of years?
RESPONDENT: It is Nature itself.
RICHARD: And we all know from previous posts that Nature (with a capital N) means Go
d. Just as well that any god is a fantasy born out of an illusion otherwise this
would be classified as delusions of grandeur.
*
RICHARD: Your running-mate (No. 12) tried to convince me that there was no subst
antial difference between Nirvana and Parinirvana. Where do you stand on this is
sue?
RESPONDENT: Apart from the obliteration of consciousness, there is no difference
at all between the two. A perfect person (i.e. one who is permanently free of a
ll attachments) cannot experience death. He is immortal. He cannot lose his life
because he no longer possesses any life to lose. Death is incapable of taking a
nything away from him. Consciousness disappears at death, but since he has long
since abandoned any attachment to consciousness the loss of it means nothing to
him.
RICHARD: He is immortal , eh? I suggest that this is a very selfish and self-centr
ed approach to life on earth something that all religions and spirituality are g
uilty of. The quest to secure ones place in Eternity is unambiguously selfish ...
peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagi
ned soul after physical death. So much for the humanitarian ideals of peace, goo
dness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All Religious and Spiritual Quests
amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever
and a day. All Religious and Spiritual Leaders fall foul of this existential dil
emma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice weeping crocodile tea
rs at noble martyrdom whilst selfishly pursuing Immortality. The root cause of a
ll the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the ove
rriding importance of the survival of self on into an After-Life.
If it were not for all the suffering; the wars, the killings, the tortures, the
rapes, the degradations, and the such-like, it would be entertainingly amusing,
for the self does not exist in actuality. All this monstrous behaviour is about
something fictitious. The self and the Self are only psychological entities ...
phantasms in mundane reality and in a super-charged Reality. It is all much ado
about nothing. However, it is no laughing matter it is far too serious when appa
lling suffering is concerned. It behoves one to put aside the selfish ego-driven
and soul-driven will to survive and look again at what exactly is occurring. On
e will no longer be entranced by the bewitching promises proffered so alluringly
by these self-appointed guardians of virtue and morality all self-serving, mind
you. It is a must that one establish ones integrity and set about ridding onesel
f of any psychological entity whatsoever.
*
RICHARD: I am this flesh-and-blood body minus any identity at all.
RESPONDENT: If you are without identity, then why do you continue to identify wi
th this flesh-and-blood body? After all, a true sage doesnt identify with anythin
g at all, apart from what he makes up for practical purposes. Despite your prote
stations to the contrary, you still seem very caught up in metaphysical illusion
s. The fact that you place so much emphasis on this flesh-and-blood body and speak
so vehemently and rigidly against all talk of God is a clear indication of this.
Youve merely swung to the opposite end of the spectrum to Christians and therefor
e still bound by the same fundamental delusions as them.
RICHARD: But I do not continue to identify with this flesh-and-blood body . If you
had taken the trouble to read my previous posts on this issue you would already
know my answer to that hoary question. And as I am not a true sage , I could not
care less what they make up for practical purposes , for they are living in a mass
ive delusion.
What metaphysical illusions am I caught up in? I am an atheistic, down-to-earth,
practical pragmatist who eschews anything supernatural whatsoever. You guys inv
ent God and cry foul when someone suggests that your fantasy is just that a fantas
y. Of course I speak so vehemently and rigidly against all talk of God because of
the incredible suffering this ridiculous belief has caused over the centuries.
Rather than having merely swung to the opposite end of the spectrum to Christians
, I have dissolved the opposites altogether by ridding myself of any I whatsoever.
*
RICHARD: I have no ego or soul; no self or Self; no God or Truth ... simply the
moment-to-moment apperception of myself as being this physical universes experien
ce of itself as a sensate, reflective human being.
RESPONDENT: This is commonly called living in the moment. Women and children are p
articularly good at this, while cows and dogs are even better.
RICHARD: I beg to differ. This is not called living in the moment . No. 12 tried t
hat accusation on me weeks and weeks ago. And cows and dogs have a self, albeit a
rudimentary self at that. They are ruled by instincts such as fear and aggressio
n just like humans are. I have eliminated these instinctual urges, so your attem
pt at a put-down by comparing me to animals again just does not work. Sorry abou
t that.
Now you had written in an earlier post: [Respondent]: Furthermore, keep in mind t
hat the non-existence of God is also projection of the self. From all appearances,
you are as much attached to this projection as a fundamentalist is to his own w
rathful deity. To which I had replied: [Richard]: You astound me! How on earth can
the non-existence of God be a projection of the self? This is such convoluted reaso
ning that it beggars description. Also, once again you are using your favourite
ploy to stifle discussion ... that is, where you use the accusation that someone
other than yourself, of course is attached to something or another. You have used
it and over-used it until it does not work any more ... not on me, at least. An
d you, undeterred, had tried again: [Respondent]: As I say, you are as attached t
o the non-existence of God as Christians are to the existence of God. Both are two s
ides of the one coin. You have yet to throw away the coin altogether. Youve not y
et flipped.
Goodness me, you love repeating yourself ... As I say, you are as attached ... . D
ont you get it? Telling me that I am attached does not work on me. There is no I to
be either attached or detached. It is all over. Finished. There is no I to throw
anything away. Annihilation. There is no I to flip anything. Extinction. All that
remains is this flesh-and-blood body ... and with no I there is an utter absence o
f malice and sorrow. With no animosity or anguish I am happy and harmless. Being
happy and harmless, I experience an on-going peace-on-earth.
It is a most estimable condition to be in.
No. 09
RICHARD: It is a popular misconception that one can do away with a bad emotion whi
lst hanging on to the good one.
RESPONDENT: Yes .
RICHARD: I am glad that we can finally agree on something ... for a while there
I thought that we were going to take the record for having the longest lasting d
issension on everything under the sun. Who knows what we might find in the futur
e.
*
RICHARD: In actual freedom the third alternative always applies. Good and Bad, R
ight and Wrong, Virtue and Sin, Hope and Despair, Gratitude and Resentment, and
so on, all disappear in the perfection of the purity of the actual.
RESPONDENT: No. For example, you yourself say that chasing enlightenment is Wron
g, while giving up all spirituality in favour of living in the actual is Right. Ev
en a perfect person, it seems, cannot escape Right and Wrong. To the degree that
he has a conscious mind and has to make decisions, he must necessarily differen
tiate right from wrong. A perfect person still has values and indeed spends his
life promoting them. But he doesnt get fooled by these values. He sees them exact
ly for what they are and harbours no attachment to them.
RICHARD: Actually, it is not a case of Right and Wrong with me about anything. B
eing pragmatic as I am, I am only interested in what works when it comes to maki
ng decisions. Thus I base my determination upon something being either silly or
sensible and never upon moralistic injunctions ... which is what all values like
Right and Wrong or Good and Bad are. Consequently, I have indeed escaped and ho
ld no values whatsoever ... I do not have to waste my valuable time incessantly
avoiding being fooled by or being detached from anything moralistic at all.
For example: It is sensible to be happy and harmless and silly to be sorrowful a
nd malicious.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista19.htm
Kundalini Richards story ASC universe here now (not transcending the concept of t
ime/space in imagination)
| 01 | 02 |
No. 01
RICHARD: Over the eleven years this flesh-and-blood body had numerous experience
s of a condition that seemed so extreme that this flesh-and-blood body must sure
ly physically die to attain to it.
RESPONDENT: Tell us more about this. Are you referring to Kundalini or whatever
it is called when the nervous system is seriously challenged by mystical experie
nce? What is that K-thing, anyway?
RICHARD: No, it has nothing to do with Kundalini, for they were not mystical exp
eriences. Perhaps it would serve better if I was to give one specific example in
detail instead of briefly describing the numerous experiences over the eleven y
ears ... they only served to strengthen my conviction that an actual freedom was
possible whilst this body was alive and breathing anyway.
I was living on an uninhabited island of the tropical coast to the far north of
this continent in a time I call my puritan period. I was doing a Vipassana type of l
ife-style (I guess that is how I could describe it) in that for three months I l
ived in silence, on my own, speaking to no one at all. I had whittled my worldly
possessions down to three sarongs, three shirts, a cooking pot and bowl, a knif
e and a spoon, a one-person tent to live in and an open canoe. I possessed nothi
ng else anywhere in the world and had cut all family ties. No one knew where I w
as, let alone what I was doing, for I had no contact with anyone at all. Four ne
arly four years I had been homeless, itinerant, celibate, vegan, (no spices; not
even salt and pepper), no drugs (no tobacco, no alcohol; not even tea or coffee
), no hair cut, no shaving, (and now no washing other than a dip in the ocean) .
.. in short: whatever I could eliminate from my life that was an encumbrance and
an attachment, I had let go of.
I was already in an altered state of consciousness (this was in 1985 and my ego
had dissolved in 1981) and living in what has been described as the Unknown. I had
had some serious reservations about the validity of this as an ultimate state a
nd had been to India the previous year to see if I could ascertain why. My disco
veries there had led me to consider the possibility that Enlightenment was not t
he final stage, so I was ripe and ready to plunge into the Unknowable. The first o
f these numerous experiences occurred at maybe three in the morning (I had no wa
tch) and was accompanied by a sense of dread the likes of which I had never expe
rienced made all the more acute because I had not experienced fear for four year
s. (I was living in a state of Divine Bliss and Love Agap which protected me from
all sorrow and malice, with its attendant fears and hates). The condition I exp
erienced was of the nature of some Great Beyond (I have to put it in capitals beca
use that is how I experienced at the time) and It was of the nature of which has a
lways been ascribed, in all the spiritual writings I had read, as being That which
one Merges With at physical death when one Quits the body. Sometimes known as The Oc
ean of Oneness or Mahasamadhi or dare I say it on this list Parinirvana. This is why
I said that it seemed so extreme that this flesh-and-blood body must surely physi
cally die to attain to it.
To put it into a physical analogy, it was as if I was to gather up my meagre bel
ongings, eradicate all marks of my stay on the island, and paddle away over the
horizon, all the while not knowing whence I go ... and vanish without a trace, n
ever to be seen again. As no one knew where I was, no one would know where I had
gone. In fact, I would become as extinct as the dodo and with no skeletal remai
ns. Psychologically, I would cease to be at all, I would have no presence. This was mo
re than death of the ego, which is a major event by any definition; this was tot
al annihilation. No ego, no soul no Self. No more Heavenly Bliss, Love Agap, or Div
ine Compassion. Only oblivion. It was not at all attractive, not at alluring, no
t at all desirable, yet I knew I was going to do it one day because it was the u
ltimate condition. Herein lay the secret to the Mystery of Life.
Some years ago I wrote the following:
The death of the ego is only for the orthodox-minded people; it is for those who ar
e easily seduced by the Glamour and the Glory and the Glitz of the much-touted A
ltered State. This is why pure intent is an essential prerequisite to ensure a g
uaranteed passage through the psychic maze. With pure intent one will not rest u
ntil one has gone all the way. One will not be bewitched by the psychic Power an
d Authority, either. All these allurements are but welcome food for the cunning
entity, which wanting only its own survival, readily sublimates itself into the
Spirit. With the clarity born of pure intent one can see this play for what it i
s and move on freely and willingly to what lies at the end of the wide and wondr
ous path ... the end of being. With pure intent one will not settle for second bes
t, for it has been seen in the peak experiences that the very best is possible,
here on earth. One sees that I must disappear entirely. There will be no transcend
ence, no transmutation, no metamorphosis ... not any of these. For one who goes
all the way, no phoenix will exist to arise from the ashes nothing Metaphysical
will remain. There will be no being at all. I will become extinct.
I use the word extinct deliberately for it carries a definitive meaning. Physical
ly, death is the end of an individual member of the species, whilst extinction i
s the ending of the species itself. The psychological annihilation of I in its ent
irety is the psychological ending of the species known as humanity. It is the end
of being and the end of an illusion. It is also the end of Being and the end of delu
sion. The Human Condition, with all its appalling sorrow and malice, has come to
an end in me. All those would-be wise people who state: You cant change human nat
ure are, fortunately, wrong. Because it is possible for me to become extinct, there
by releasing the body from the being within, I can walk freely in the world as-itis ... this actual world. I, as this body only, am living in that perfect purity
twenty-four-hours-a-day. I live in a state of benignity, which means a kindly a
nd harmless disposition. Life is a sincere a yet playful game and I am free to e
njoy it all, every moment again.
Humanity, which gave birth to me, was being sustained by me remaining as a being. I
ver fettered by the Human Condition. The species known as humanity has searched fo
r an Ultimate Fulfilment within the arena of the Human Condition for all of hist
ory. Such a search is endless and futile, for it is a search within an illusion.
Only further illusions further states of being can be found there ... or delusion
s. Becoming Divine is a delusion a state of Being that is actually an insult to in
telligence. I will never find the ultimate fulfilment for I am standing in the way o
f the Mystery of Life being revealed. There is no way out, I am doomed. I must, inevit
ably, 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 ex
tinction of me is the ultimate sacrifice I can make to ensure the possibility of pea
ce-on-earth for not only me but for all humankind.
I find myself here, in the world as-it-is. A vast stillness lies all around, abou
nding with purity. Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions,
imbuing everything with unimaginable fairytale-like quality. For me to be able
to be here at all was a blessing that only I could grant, because nobody else coul
d do it for me. I am full of admiration for the me that dared to do such a thing.
I owe all that I experience now to me. I salute my audacity. And what an adventure i
t was ... and still is. These are the wondrous workings of the exquisite nature
of life who would have it any other way?
Ultimate fulfilment lies beyond extinction. (pages 103-104: Richards Journal, The Ac
tual Freedom Trust 1997)
No. 02
RICHARD: Time has no duration when the immediate is the ultimate and the relativ
e is the absolute. This moment takes no interval at all to be here now. Thus it
appears that it is as if nothing has occurred, for not only is the future not he
re, but the past does not exist either. If there is no beginning and no end, is
there a middle? There are things happening, but nothing has happened or will hap
pen ... or so it seems. Only this moment exists.
RESPONDENT: To me, what you are describing is simply the experience most human b
eings have when they encounter the limit of their imagination as they try to tra
nscend the ordinary view of three dimensional geometry and time. You are, for a
moment, confounded stuck in a dilemma: On the one hand you intuit that the popul
ar concept of time/space is a myth, but on the other you cannot imagine (image)
the alternative.
RICHARD: I was not writing of transcending the concept of time/space in imaginat
ion, I was writing about actually being here in space and now in time ... as a f
actual, evidential, obvious and clear actuality. (I do not use imagination as I
do not have that faculty. Imagination arises from the same source as belief a ps
ychological entity known as the self.) What I was talking about may become clear
er to you by describing the nature of the infinity of space, and then go on to u
nderstanding the nature of the eternity of time.
Physically and thus factually, this actual universe has no inside as there is no ou
tside to infinity. Therefore there is no centre (no middle) and thus, with infini
ty, somewhere as a place is no where (nowhere) in particular. There is no measurem
ent possible with infinite space, for there is no reference point (an edge) to c
ompare against. Living on planet earth, humans measure space in comparison to th
e localised distance between here and there. It is this measurement that is rela
tive, not the universe. Here is, as a fact, anywhere in infinity.
So is it too with time. As there is no beginning and end to time, there is no mi
ddle. Now as a fixed point has no when (nowhen) in particular (it is whenever we hum
ans agree to make it). There is no measurement possible in eternity, for there i
s no reference point (before a beginning) to compare against. Living on the plan
et earth in localised daylight and darkness, humans measure time in comparison t
o the period between now and then. It is this measurement that is relative, not
time. Just as here is anywhere in infinity, so too is now anywhen in eternity.
Thus, just as we humans living on this planet are moving from nowhere to anywher
e in infinite space, so too are we coming from nowhen and proceeding to anywhen
in time. As it is any measurement that is relative, not the substance of space a
nd time, consequently, when I, the psychological entity called the self, disappear
s as a measurer (a reference point), measurement ceases to be a reality and the
actual becomes apparent. Then, and only then, is one being alive here as an actu
ality in space and living now as an actuality in time.
None of us are coming from somewhere or going someplace for we are always here a
nd it is already now. We are never not here and it is never not now. Where else
could we be but here? When we move from here to there, as we are moving we are alway
s here ... and when we arrive there, we are here. Similarly when else could it be
but now? As we wait for then to become now, while we are waiting it is always now ..
. and when then arrives, it is now.
RESPONDENT: Imho, the next step in the evolution of human consciousness will inc
lude the ability to embrace ten or more dimensions.
RICHARD: I did read a book years ago that detailed thirteen senses and they beca
me increasingly specious, after the first five, and not fitting the classificati
on of sense organ. It is the same with any other spatial dimensions that I have
read of.
Incidentally, as I am new to computer jargon I am presuming that imho indicates: In
my humble opinion?
Is this correct?

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista11.htm

Christianity belief I hugs and bread-mentality individual peace, I stand in the w

of me as-I-am being actually humane
| 01 | 02 |
No. 01
RESPONDENT: [First paragraph] As for myself, I would not presume to know any mor
e about the important inner workings of a bird or a fish than I would of the sam
e workings in my next door neighbour. I see that as arrogance. Not many answers
come easily in my experience. When I think I know I am just starting to get into t
rouble.
RESPONDENT: [Another paragraph] I would argue that animals do have a history and
an importance and plenty of lessons to bring to existence. From my knowledge of
their functioning at this point I agree that they cannot do these things betwee
n themselves. This puts a tremendous responsibility on US though as we become th
e ones who must record the history and reap the value of the lessons they can te
ach us. Being higher on the intellectual chain means we ought to expect more out
of ourselves. Not just to accept the blessing and hoard it but to take the next
step and say: now that I have this advantage, etc. what will I do with it?
RICHARD: As the second paragraph demonstrates the lie of the first, I find it to
o incompatible to respond thoughtfully ... except to comment that by your own ca
tegorisation you must be arrogant.
*
RICHARD: Animals are not aware of their impending death nor talk about that with
their compatriots in an effort to understand life, the universe and what it is
to be an animal ... like humans do.
RESPONDENT: How much did your knowledge of your impending death affect the choic
es you made today? I am sad to say my choices were hardly affected at all.
RICHARD: I lived today in perfection and purity. For all of the twenty four hour
s I was happy and harmless. Because of my awareness of my impending death, I lon
g ago eliminated the ego and soul the self and the Self completely from within t
his body, thus ending forever any trace of malice and sorrow. With no identity w
hatsoever, I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human
being ... and the experience of the infinitude of this physical universe is ambr
osial each moment again.
RESPONDENT: Doubt is a very strange thing. Once introduced it is so troublesome
to get rid of.
RICHARD: Personally, I have no doubt at all. I saw the cause of it and eliminate
d it long ago.
*
RICHARD: There are so many people claiming to have knowledge of the Real Jesus tha
t I have personally lost interest entirely.
RESPONDENT: I am surprised at that. It sounds as if you have an explorers heart
and I am deeply interested in many other things that hold no value to me in term
s of what I actually believe and live out in daily life. I find a great amount o
f truth in others ideas / ways / trials / errors / beliefs. By losing interest d
o we make it convenient to stop considering that we do not have the answers we w
ould like to believe we do. If Zen is wrong to me then I can dismiss it in its e
ntirety and in the process lose out on much of its value. By losing interest I w
onder if you had interest at one time or personal exposure to Christianity. Curi
ous.
RICHARD: No, it is not all that curious, actually. I explored for years and exha
usted all the possibilities ... until there was nothing left to explore ... whic
h does not surprise me as Christianity has such a paucity of expression. I also
studied Zen until it too exhausted its possibilities and promise ... so too with
all other religions. I now have all the answers and they are not a matter of be
lief.
RESPONDENT: Lets say that you are correct and it is all fraud. Have we gained or
lost by our belief and our exposure. I would ask that you consider this in term
s of the messages and beliefs as they were laid out originally ... not as we may
have distorted and polluted them along the way. I wonder what a huge chunk woul
d be missing from our lives without these ideas ... true or not ... it is strang
e to imagine them not being around for discussion. Hard to accept the inability
to have facts the way we like them about these people. There seems to be enough
evidence on both sides of the fence to make it essential to resort to something
besides the mind to decide. Then again, how is one supposed to make rational sta
tements about such things for long periods of time. I could explain my position
better by hugging you or baking you some bread.
RICHARD: Have we gained or lost by our belief? you ask ... I would unhesitatingly
say lost. One has only to consider the countless tens of millions of lives lost
in religious wars; one has only to consider the tens of millions of peoples tort
ured, maimed and raped due to religious belief and dogma; one has only to consid
er the tens of millions of peoples suffering unnecessary grief because of religi
ons; one has only to consider the tens of millions of peoples guilt about sexuali
ty because of religions and their imposition of unliveable tenets; one has only
to consider the tens of millions of peoples ... shall I go on and on about it or
is this short list sufficient?
Will you send your hug and bread as a zipped or unzipped attachment ... or will
you send it in plain text? You must acknowledge that it is a pretty useless mean
s to bring about peace-on-earth, eh?
RESPONDENT: I think that issues such as your example of the flat-ness of the ear
th became an issue which led to things such as: world development and government
enlargement and pain and societies that are out of control ... I think Jesus Ch
rist had some more important lessons to give. Like, ... once you get on the ship
to find out if the world if flat ... go ahead and love your neighbour as yoursel
f. We got the big ideas on our own and we completely missed the basics that were
handed right to us.
RICHARD: His important lesson love your neighbour as yourself is fatally flawed. You
r self is malicious and sorrowful and a loving and lovable self is still a self, n
evertheless. And so all the suffering goes on ... and on ... and on.
We never did get any big ideas of our own we were stuffed full of other peoples ide
as from birth onward. Just look at this list as an example: not an original thou
ght in sight which must be the definition of genius they are all repeating the tr
ied and true ... little realising that they are the tried and failed. Wake up and s
mell the coffee.
RESPONDENT: Do we live in a civilised world?

RICHARD: Yes.
RESPONDENT: If you are not experiencing the negative effects of instincts and yo
ur neighbours / co-workers / fellow human beings are ... isnt your life just as c
haotic simply due to your interaction with them? Or do you feel as though you ha
ve carved out a place where you can exist that way and interact at the same time
? Is a peaceful and harmonious existence what we are striving to have in our liv
es?
RICHARD: No, my life is not chaotic because of my interaction with them for I have
indeed carved out a place where you can exist that way and interact at the same
time. I thoroughly recommend such a way of living, for I am not striving to have a
peaceful and harmonious existence I already have that to the ultimate degree of
purity and perfection.
RESPONDENT: Enjoy the rest of your day.
RICHARD: Thank you, I will ... in fact, I happen to know that I will enjoy the r
est of my life.
No. 02
RESPONDENT: I am a work in progress and I do not believe for a minute that my be
lief system is incompatible with the state you have reached. I happen to believe
I am finite and will never be able to fully right myself with God by my own works
, finding ... I believe I know how to get there though. I do not see all these i
deas as being so far apart. The roads to the destination are a bit different. In
its unpolluted sense I do not see any dissonance between your description of yo
ur daily life and the goal I am striving for. Only the language changes. The pat
h is different. The after life might better be described as the start of life.
RICHARD: There is more than a change of language required before a self-confesse
d card carrying Christian can reach the destination that I write of, because not o
nly are the roads different, but so too are the goals. For a start, no Christian
I have heard of has as their goal the ambition to eliminate their ego and soul
their self and Self because their ego is required in order to remain a sinner re
quiring repentance and forgiveness and their soul is required to get to Heaven ...
or at least it did the last time I looked at Christianity. Secondly, I am a tho
rough-going atheist through and through and I know for a fact that not only is a
ny god a fantasy, but so too is any after-life. Thirdly, I do not need any compa
ssion to co-exist with the bad because compassion being born out of sorrow has c
ruelty as its opposite and very necessary counter-part to support it. And to for
estall any further suggestions of the application of the tried and true methods of
dealing with humanitys ills which are the tried and failed methods I have also dis
pensed with love which, being born out of loneliness, comes hand-in-hand with ha
tred ... its essential companion-in-arms.
*
RICHARD: I explored for years and exhausted all the possibilities ... until ther
e was nothing left to explore ... which does not surprise me as Christianity has
such a paucity of expression. I also studied Zen until it too exhausted its pos
sibilities and promise ... so too with all other religions. I now have all the a
nswers and they are not a matter of belief.
RESPONDENT: What are your answers a matter of? How does one exhaust all the poss
ibilities. Do you think you have been offered them all, or run across them all?
RICHARD: My answers are a matter of fact and actuality only ... there is nary a
belief necessary to live fully and completely here on earth. And one exhausts al
l the possibilities through application and diligence, patience and perseverance
, determination and obsession ... which are born out of the pure intent to achie
ve a condition of perfection here on earth, as this body, in this lifetime. When
one realises that ones identity what one thinks and feels to be who I am is but a
psychological entity that has taken possession of this body and is standing in t
he way of peace and harmony and serenity, one willingly self-immolates, psycholo
gically speaking. In the ensuring condition of innocence and probity one is both
blithe and gay, happy and harmless, fulfilled and content. One has reached ones
destiny by having escaped ones fate and nothing more needs to be done for the rem
ainder of ones life other than to live each moment again with the spontaneous enj
oyment and appreciation that comes with being alive only at this moment in time
and this place in space. Thus all possibilities have been offered, run across ..
. and exhausted for being the illusions and delusions that they are.
RESPONDENT: Many people would tell you they chose their beliefs with the full kn
owledge of the pain that would ensue. Not in a Stoic sense but in a I will stand
for what is right in a world which is wrong Death and torture and maiming would o
nly matter to those who were attached to this place and these bodies ... yes? If
you believe your life should run on specific guidelines that are laid out in a
perfect planif there are things which you are instructed not to do ... guilt over
the difference in what you say you believe and what you do sounds very reasonab
le. People who have no stake in these beliefs do not feel guilt. They are not in
volved. Suffering has a lot of value ... the least of which I believe is to show
that suffering has no reality. Again this time and time illustrated in the Bibl
e. Our bodies fall into the category of material things which are not coming wit
h. They are a possession ... another thing to be chained to. We believe they are
livable. Jesus Christ lived so that could be shown. We will never get it right
though until we are done with all this here in this life. We are incomplete with
out the gift of perfection that frees us and allows us to align ourselves with Go
d. Again, I see a lot easy outs by using examples of people who distorted their f
aith to bend to their lives. Not a good standard to look at. Jesus would be a be
tter one to do a comparative study with. He is the only one I am called to do th
at with anyway. But if we have the capacity to be the universe then why is it ne
cessary to include 10 million people in your example to drive your point home? W
ouldnt one persons suffering be enough? The numbers shouldnt matter.
RICHARD: Do you see now where not only is our language different but the goal is
too? You say: Our bodies fall into the category of material things which are not
coming with (us?). They are a possession ... another thing to be chained to. I a
m this body only and I have already reached my destination it was always here on
earth. For you, it would appear, that I am a soul which will eventually discard t
his body and go somewhere metaphysical when we are done with all this here in thi
s life. Thus I need to believe and have faith, whereas I have certainty and confide
nce born of the facts and actuality lying open and plain to view at all times.
And there are, at the latest count, 5.8 billion people suffering on this planet.
All because of belief ... believing that perfection is not possible here on ear
th, in this life-time, as this body.
*
RESPONDENT: I could explain my position better by hugging you or baking you some
bread.
RICHARD: Will you send your hug and bread as a zipped or unzipped attachment ...
or will you send it in plain text? You must acknowledge that it is a pretty use
less means to bring about peace-on-earth, eh?

RESPONDENT: Truth as well as peace is shared and reaped on a one to one basis. D
o you have children or a spouse or a friend or Richard ... I dare not ask ... do
you have an enemy? Try the hug (try the bread ... you might be surprised. It is
not the thing that is so important. The bread is life and the hug is love. They a
re gifts that can be exchanged. They are gifts that ought to be exchanged more o
ften. Everyone Hug One! (bumper stickers?) Not the most frugal use of peaceful r
esources but it sure beats an automatic weapon or the balled up end of someones a
rm. If each one is the universe or the potential of the universe ... wont you jus
t have joined up with something pretty amazing with your peace and hope? How wou
ld you bring about peace on earth? Or in your home?
RICHARD: I have two spouses, four children, seven grandchildren and 5.8 billion
friends ... and as you did dare to ask ... not a single enemy. I tried the hug a
nd the bread systems for years and years ... and I was not surprised when they j
ust did not work. I the hugger and the baker was the problem all along, and I was try
to curry favour by being a nice guy with all my giving and loving and sharing ... a
ll done so as to distract attention away from the fact that I was rotten to the co
re. My parasitical I bought about individual peace on earth for this body by the p
sychological self-immolation that I described above ... and I would bring about
global peace on earth by encouraging anyone else to do the same.
Thus I already have peace in my home.
*
RICHARD: His important lesson love your neighbour as yourself is fatally flawed. You
r self is malicious and sorrowful and a loving and lovable self is still a self, n
evertheless. And so all the suffering goes on ... and on ... and on.
RESPONDENT: I do not think this is flawed. As I spoke of earlier ... I take it a
s fact that the suffering will go on and on right up until the end. It has a pur
pose and its lesson. I think it shows how we simply cannot rid this place of the
se things on our own. We havent done it yet and I see no reason to believe it is
an achievement on our horizon. Love your neighbour as yourself means to me ... a
cknowledge that self (because it exists in me too!) and become compassion so tha
t others may become it to you. It is a rule for getting through ... for being fa
mily. I realise you do not subscribe to this but because you are alive and could
be my neighbour I think it is relevant. I postulate that you could be deeply af
fected by my lack of compassion or from the fact that not enough people have tak
en the time to hug me.
RICHARD: On the contrary, I am not at all affected by either your surplus or you
r lack of compassion and love. And where you say that you do not think his import
ant lesson to be fatally flawed you are demonstrating again that not only is our
language different and our goals different but that our methods of getting there a
re also diametrically opposite. And suffering will go on up until what end? The
end of the world? The end of your life? Furthermore, suffering serves no purpose
whatsoever and has no lesson to give ... the only good thing about suffering is
when it ceases, permanently. The annihilation of self the ego and soul is the c
essation of suffering. Then one has achieved perfection ... here on earth, in th
is life-time, as this body.
We can indeed rid this place of these things on our own ... but I am under no illu
sion that this will happen en masse.
*
RICHARD: Just look at this list as an example ... not an original thought in sig
ht which must be the definition of genius they are all repeating the tried and tr
ue ... little realising that they are the tried and failed. Wake up and smell the c
offee.
RESPONDENT: Wake up and smell the coffee is pretty vague ... so I am now sitting
here sipping my coffee wondering if you could expand on this a little. Do you h
ave solutions in mind for this state of affairs you see things in? If not, why n
ot?
RICHARD: Yes, I do have solutions ... I have been writing about nothing but the
problem and the solution all along. I, in any way, shape or form, am the very prob
lem and the solution lies in my hands. I must psychologically self-immolate ... and
... Hey Presto! ... peace on earth in our own life-time.
RESPONDENT: Do we live in a civilised world?
RICHARD: Yes.
RESPONDENT: I wholeheartedly disagree but then again, you already know that dont
you! The whole we are as strong as our weakest link thing rings real true in my
life. We are as civilised as our least civilised.
RICHARD: I gather you mean being civilised as in being humane ... civilised usua
lly means domesticated, socialised, cultured, refined, tamed, etc. ... as in liv
ing in houses and towns and cities with electricity and suchlike. That is, no lo
nger primitive as in living in caves and bough shelters whilst gnawing on a raw
brontosaurus bone and covered with lice. After all, if you re-read what I wrote
(which you cut and pasted above) I made it clear that I was talking of comparing
living in the wild to being domesticated. Methinks you were just being disingen
uous.
But since you raised the issue ... no, I can not agree. Forget about this pre-oc
cupation with the whole, for the while, and focus on the one and most important
culprit that you can lay your hands upon yourself. Your actual freedom which ens
ures personal peace on earth has nothing to do with the whole and everything to
do with the individual. I stand in the way of me as-I-am being actually humane and
for twenty four hours of every day for the rest of my life. And the good news i
s that my psychological demise is the first and only step necessary to usher in th
e beginning of a global peace on earth.
My individual peace is the best thing I can do for the whole.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista22.htm
spiritual enlightenment Dzogchen Buddhism death senses malice, an absolute end t
o not only suffering, but malice as well
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 |
No. 01
RICHARD: Reality is the world perceived through the senses by the self within th
e body. This self I is a psychological entity which, whilst being very real, has n
o actual existence. Hence I create reality by my apparent existence. As I am an illu
sion, any reality I create is also an illusion. Some people, realising this, attem
pt to rid themselves of this I by dissolving the ego. The resultant Altered State Of
Consciousness is called Enlightenment (Nirvana, Samadhi, Satori and so on). The
y then live in what is generally known as the Greater Reality, or some such other
name. They have realised themselves as being the Immortal Soul existing for all Ete
rnity ... they have merged with the Ocean Of Oneness. This ego-less self is now kno
wn as the Self (with a Capital S to denote Divinity). But the soul is still a psycho
logical entity nevertheless. This entity the second I of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (a
ka Ramana) fame is a delusion, therefore any Greater Reality this I creates is also
a delusion. To rid oneself of the delusion one must dissolve the second I the soul
in the same way that one dissolved the ego. Then the self and the Self no longer ex
ist as an identity to wreak its mischief. One then lives in the actual world as
this flesh and blood body.
Then one is the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tastin
g is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Wher
eas I, the entity, am inside the body: looking out through my eyes as if looking out
through a window, listening through my ears as if they were microphones, tasting
through my tongue, touching through my skin, smelling through my nose, and thinking th
rough my brain. Of course I must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for I am
cut off from the magnificence of the actual world the world as-it-is.
All this is just happening of its own accord. Everything I experience is actual
to this moment. And this moment is occurring now. This particular moment of bein
g here has never happened before ... and it will never happen again. This moment
is ever-fresh, perennially new. It is consistently so; dependable in its origin
ality and reliable in its uniqueness. For twenty-four-hours-a-day it is like thi
s, day-in-day-out ... therefore it is impossible for it to ever become boring. T
his moment does not exist in the real world, it exists in the actual world. Only t
he present can exist in reality.
Reality is not actuality. Reality is the world that is perceived through the sen
ses by me, the psychological entity that resides inside the body. Actuality is the
world that is apperceived at the senses by me as this body-consciousness. Reali
ty is objectively reinforced as being real by other entity-encumbered bodies that I
speak to. They endorse my perception of the real world as being the genuine, authent
ic world. It is not. Only the actual world is genuine and authentic. It is prima
ry and pre-eminent ... and it is perfect. The real world is superimposed over the
actual world by the entity that inhabits the bodies of billions of human beings.
The actual world, this magical world as-it-is, is converted into an imperfect w
orld by the alien entity within. This entity, gathering information via the sens
es, translates these data with an already distorted mind-set, into what it calls
reality. By identifying as me, the entity, I can never experience the purity of the
actual world.
It is possible to be actually free, here on earth, as this body, in this life-ti
me.
RESPONDENT: Thank you! This is the best thing Ive read on this list for weeks! Th
ank you again! Theres a great storm going on here right now.
RICHARD: Thank you for your kind response. Do you mean a physical storm rain, ha
il, thunder, lightning and so on or are you speaking metaphorically?
RESPONDENT: I meant a literal storm it was beautiful but I can see why it wasnt q
uite clear!
No. 02
RESPONDENT: I have a feeling of futility with what I am going to write because y
ou seem so attached to your belief that your philosophy is unique that I dont exp
ect you to believe me.
RICHARD: I appreciate the fact that you have a feeling of futility, for it is we
ll-founded. Nevertheless, I consider it well worthwhile to conduct a well-ground
ed discussion about Spiritual Enlightenment and an actual freedom. I would like
to point out that it is not my belief nor is it my philosophy ... it is my actual, o
ngoing experience. It is not a question of me believing or disbelieving you, eit
her ... I can ascertain the facts of what you write for myself without recourse
to belief.
RESPONDENT: What you describe above is almost exactly the same as descriptions o
f realisation (i.e. enlightenment, i.e. the E-word) from the point of view of Dz
ogchen in Tibetan Buddhism. Just direct experience of Reality, unimpeded by a se
lf, an observer, an I with an eye. As you said, the universe experiencing itself a
s a human being.
RICHARD: It is impossible to have a direct experience of Reality (with a capital R)
because Reality is a delusion born out of an illusion and is not accessible as a s
ensual experience. It is, however, only far too possible to imagine this fantasy
called Reality and yearn to live in it ... many people have done so and are still d
oing so. A few a rare few succeed in manifesting this fantasy, in their hearts a
nd minds, and report that they have arrived back whence they came ... some far-o
ut, supernatural dimension, that is anywhere but here on earth as an actuality a
nd now in time as a fact.
RESPONDENT: Dzogchen is the path of no path, the path of self-liberation which doe
snt mean that the self is liberated but rather that whatever arises spontaneously
self-liberates, i.e. it is what it is and nothing else. Cho = dharma = as it is.
That is the base, that is the path, that is the fruit. There is nothing but this
, and there is not this either because it is not any kind of thing that can be grasp
ed at.
RICHARD: I am not being difficult here for the sake being difficult yet this dou
ble-talk popularly known as paradox is specifically designed to stop thought. Pat
h of no path and self-liberation which doesnt mean that the self is liberated sounds
kind of silly when one considers it sensibly, does it not? It is not thought th
at is the problem, it is the thinker that needs to stop. When thought itself stops
, one enters into a trance state, wherein all sorts of phantasmagoria have their
play. This has been the sorry lot of well-meaning humans for millennia ... and
I know it well as I have travelled that path. I lived in the Divine Realm for elev
en years, thus having ample time to experience it from the inside and find out,
for myself, just what it is made up of. The Supernatural World is nothing but an a
ffective and mental State of Being; whereas the actual world the world as-it-is in
a material sense is a sensual world, verifiable by anyone with the necessary se
nse organs, minus I. Or to put it another way: actuality is objective experiential
phenomenon whereas Reality is a subjective state of being. It is being itself tha
t is false, not the corporeal world of the senses.
The same applies for: There is nothing but this and there is not this either more of
that enigmatic double-talk and it is not any kind of thing that can be grasped at f
ocuses, once again, upon the thing as being the problem and not upon the grasper. Th
e I will do literally anything to survive ... by ignoring the grasper and even denyi
ng that a thing exists. Taken to its extreme, as Hindu and Buddhist philosophy doe
s, one denies that this planet earth and the space that it hangs in and the univ
erse itself are actual. To them it is all an illusion, a dream. For them, the Dre
amer their god is who I really am and all their effort is predicated upon realising
that this is who one really is. Westerners have foolishly allowed themselves to
be taken in by the apparent wisdom coming from the eastern mystical states of b
eing because of the paucity of experiential wisdom in their own culture. It all
started growing exponentially after the sixties generation trekked to the Himala
yas, and to other exotic places, to find the permanent drug experience ... and f
ound cultures who had been practicing same for centuries, which (with the benefi
t of hindsight) has had predictably the self-same results.
So when you ask: Have you heard of this before and already dismissed it? Or is it
new information? ... not only have I heard it before ... I have lived it. I did
not dismiss it , I went beyond it into this actual world of the senses. The real w
orld, which I had created out of imagination, is but a veneer pasted over the actu
al, and to go in search of a Greater Reality is to go in the wrong direction. One
arrives in the actual by becoming involved, totally involved in being here ... n
ot by practicing detachment. Being here is to put your money where your mouth is
, as it were. All other actions are methods, devices, techniques ... in other wo
rds: delaying tactics. In being here one is completely immersed. Being here is t
otal inclusion. One demonstrates ones appreciation of life by partaking fully in
existence ... by letting this moment live one. One dedicates oneself to the chal
lenge of being here as the universes experience of itself. When I willingly and vol
untarily sacrifice myself the psychological entity residing inside this body I am gl
adly making my most supreme donation, for I am what one holds most dear.
To be here is to be committed. The potential for this commitment is conceived at
the moment of experiencing the perfection of life in a peak experience. This po
tential can lie dormant for years unless reactivated. Once the veil behind which
humanity skulks has been lifted even momentarily one has seen for oneself that
a place beyond human belief actually exists. Because one has visited the actual
world and walked around in it, it would be thought that one could nevermore deny
it. But such denial is endemic among humans. The reason for this odd denial is
fairly obvious: once the person has reverted to normal to being human again perfec
tion here-on-earth becomes merely a concept ... and a concept is not the actuali
ty. The grip of reality is so strong that perfection simply does not exist here, i
t is in another dimension. It is but a faded dream. The potential can lie dorman
t forever.
Meanwhile people thoughtlessly pursue the elusive chimera of Eastern Enlightenme
nt.
No. 03
RESPONDENT: What I mean by Reality is just: as-it-is. Nothing more, or less, or di
fferent than that. It is accessible as a sensual experience in fact the Dzogchen
view is that direct perception (i.e. through the senses, without the interventi
on of an ego) is in fact the only way to access it.
RICHARD: You definitely have my interest ... I am always on the look-out for som
eone, somewhere, who espouses something similar to what I experience. My immedia
te question would be: Does the Dzogchen view emphatically state that this world
as-it-is is the only Reality?
RESPONDENT: I was talking specifically about Dzogchen, or Ati Yoga, the innermos
t of the six Tantric vehicles. (I dont expect you to be interested in these petty
distinctions, but I just wanted to be clear, in case anyone else was.) Dzogchen
is sometimes called the end stage of Buddhism. It is concerned with the situation
after one has realised as-it-is.
RICHARD: No, it is okay, I am very interested in distinctions ... if Dzogchen, o
r Ati Yoga, is what you say it is I would like to know more.
*
RICHARD: The real world, which I had created out of imagination, is but a veneer p
asted over the actual, and to go in search of a Greater Reality is to go in the wr
ong direction. One arrives in the actual by becoming involved, totally involved
in being here ... not by practicing detachment. Being here is to put your money
where your mouth is, as it were.
RESPONDENT: Yes. That is what is meant by Dzogchen, which means Great Perfection o
r Great Completeness. Dzogchen has nothing to do with detachment. At that point th
ere is nothing that can form attachments.
RICHARD: Thank you for taking the time and trouble to explain about Dzogchen, or
Ati Yoga. I had never heard of it in all my reading and travelling and talking
with people. There is an esoteric book-store in the village I live in which, whi
lst they do not have any books in stock about Dzogchen, say that they can order
them in for me from the U.S. ... it would take about six weeks. Could I trouble
you for some particular information, please. They need to know the title, the au
thor and the publisher.
Also, can you recommend any particular title you consider would be relevant for
me to read.
No. 04
RICHARD: Why do you not give in now and admit to what is widely known amongst Bu
ddhists ... to wit: that it is not possible to be utterly free while this body i
s still alive and breathing? They all acknowledge that the Ultimate State Parinirv
ana lies on the other side of physical death.
RESPONDENT: Actually they dont. As I told you in another post, there are many dif
ferent kinds of Buddhism and your experience has clearly not been exhaustive. Yo
u share with your debating partner (No. 12) a propensity to make false generalis
ations based on your limited knowledge, so its not surprising that you dont agree
with each other. I would like to tell you that the Buddhist teachings of Dzogche
n begin with the realisation of non-duality and concern themselves with seeing wi
th naked awareness, i.e. experiencing everything as-it-is (as-it-is = dharma). Th
ere is no superior or more advanced state than this that occurs after death. The
re couldnt be could there?
RICHARD: I do wonder whether I was displaying a propensity to make false generali
sations based on [my] limited knowledge because the debate started by me saying t
hat it is well known that central figure of Buddhism would not take The Final Ste
p whilst there was still a single suffering sentient being. Vis.: [Richard]: It is
of no avail to quote Mr. Gotama the Sakyans revered wisdom, because he knew naug
ht of these matters that I write of ... it is a well known fact that, out of com
passion, he would not take the final step while a single sentient being was still
suffering. Which is why, for Buddhists, their Ultimate State Parinirvana lies on t
he other side of physical death. Thus his identity indubitably remained intact .
.. for compassion rises out of sorrow. In actuality the opposites are eliminated
, not merely transcended.
Where is this a generalisation? Where is this false? Is this not a central tenet
of Buddhism? My limited knowledge informs me that this is designated as The Bodhis
attva Principle meaning that a Bodhisattva is an individual who has attained Enli
ghtenment but delays entry into Final Nirvana in order to make possible the salvat
ion of all other sentient beings. Is it not also well known that the Ultimate Nat
ure of the Buddha is beyond form ... that is: this body and the physical world? I
s it not well known that this Ultimate Nature of the Buddha is the Unchanging Absol
ute or The Void? Is not The Void designated as being Beyond Time and Space ... that is
not this body and the physical world? For while this body is alive and breathin
g it is a fact that time and space are an actuality ... which clearly means that
the Ultimate State can only be after physical death.
You have the advantage of me in that I had not even heard of: [quote] the Buddhis
t teachings of Dzogchen [unquote] ... until you informed me of their existence, l
et alone read them. My question would be: Does Dzogchen specifically deny these
tenets? Does Dzogchen clearly state that there is no Life after Death? Does Dzogch
en unequivocally say that there is no something, by whatever name, to go on after
death? Does Dzogchen unreservedly state that this phenomenal world, this corpore
al world, this physical world, is all that there is? Does Dzogchen refute Mr. Go
tama the Sakyans tenet of Skandhas that re-incarnate? Does Dzogchen unambiguously s
tate that life as this human being is the Summum Bonum ... and that there is not
hing more superior than this anywhere? Because if he does, then why is it still
called: [quote] the Buddhist teachings of Dzogchen [unquote]? ... for it can not b
e Buddhism without these (and others not yet mentioned) central tenets. Please c
orrect me if I have got it wrong, for what I hear from you is that Dzogchen is s
aying that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan did not know what he was talking about.
The reason I am asking these questions is because you say: There is no superior o
r more advanced state than this that occurs after death as a definitive statement
... and then follow it with a query: There couldnt be could there? Why ask me? It
is you who have his writings. What does he say?
*
RICHARD: Physical death is the end. Finish. There is not a different phase of exi
stence after physical death.
RESPONDENT: Its a credible theory, but you dont actually know this, do you?
RICHARD: You see, where you say Its a credible
r definitive statement outlined above: There is
e than this that occurs after death. If you are
le theory? What does your man say? Is it a fact
theory, you cause me to question you

no superior or more advanced stat
so sure, then why call it a credib
or not?
And, yes, I do actually know this. I have written elsewhere: A fair enough questi
on ... but easy to understand with a little reflection. It is the psychological
entity within the body the I that projects a perpetuation of itself even unto an Af
ter-life. Just like all Gods and Goddesses are but a projection of self, so to is Im
mortality. This is what is a belief, not the statement: Physical death is the end.
Finish. As there is no I anywhere whatsoever inside this body, I can experience an
d thus know as a fact that there is no actual Immortality in some After-life because
there is no one here to have it (Immortality) or go into it (an After-life). It
is all but a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion. I think and
feel that I am so important that I must live forever. It is a pernicious belief with
its roots buried deep in self-importance and self-aggrandisement. It is where c
onceit meets arrogance and become meekness and humility ... and seeks its post-m
ortem reward. I will do anything to survive.
No. 05
RICHARD: Okay ... I will endeavour to improve upon my communication skills by re
straining my eloquence (what a pity, for I kind of fancied it).
RESPONDENT: Who kind of fancied it?
RICHARD: To ask who fancied it is to ask the wrong question. What (not who) fancie
d it. I use the first person pronoun for convenience ... but it refers to this f
lesh-and-blood body as being these sense organs seeing, hearing, tasting, smelli
ng, touching and thinking ... minus the I. Whenever I refer to the psychological e
ntity within the body, I usually use small quotes ... thus: I. Otherwise I would h
ave to write the above paragraph like this: Okay ... this flesh-and-blood body wi
ll endeavour to improve upon this flesh-and-blood bodys communication skills by r
estraining this flesh-and-blood bodys eloquence (what a pity, for this flesh-andblood body kind of fancied it).
A trifle laboured do you not think? And did I detect a tendentious note to your
query? For I have written elsewhere: I am these sense organs: this seeing is me,
this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me
, and this thinking is me. Whereas I, the entity, am inside the body: looking out
through my eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through my ears as if
they were microphones, tasting through my tongue, touching through my skin, smelling
through my nose, and thinking through my brain. Of course I must feel isolated, alien
ated, alone and lonely, for I am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world
the world as-it-is.
No. 06
RICHARD: To ask who fancied it is to ask the wrong question. What (not who) fancie
d it.
RESPONDENT: Okay. What fancied it? Could you explain how a flesh-and-blood body
can fancy eloquence? Mine just fancies stuff like cheesecake.
RICHARD: Strange as it may initially seem, it is not unlike fancying stuff like
cheesecake. Just as the taste-buds on the tongue delight in the explosion of sen
sation (sometimes akin to an orgasm) produced by a fresh, juicy, sweet and succu
lent peach in season ... then just as similar it is that the brain delights in t
hinking thoughts. After all, it is what the brain is good at (thinking thoughts)
and it revels in doing its thing. In the same way as the eyes wallow in the vis
ual splendour of a sunset, so too does the brain frolic in delight of an aesthet
ic elegance. I am not needed at all in these very physical processes ... in fact I g
et in the way of the free flowing fun of sensual experience with my worries, my dema
nds, my expectations, my fears and my loves ... and so on.
RESPONDENT: Sounds like that flesh-and-blood body could use a flesh-and-blood ed
itor, which this flesh-and-blood body happens to be. How about: This flesh-and-bl
ood body will endeavour to improve upon its communication skills by restraining
its eloquence (what a pity, for it kind of fancied it).
RICHARD: Okay ... it is now correct, grammatically speaking ... but it takes all
the fun out of it, does it not?
I wrote a book of some 95,000 words a while ago for some friends and a literary
agent came to hear about it and, upon reading a synopsis and a sample chapter, w
anted to read it in full prior to taking it to the U. S. to interest a publisher
. He then told me that I needed to consult an editor first, as my writing was Har
d and Long. When I asked what he meant, he explained: It is very literary and thus
laboured. As it was his idea to publish, and not mine, I never pursued the matte
r. Perhaps, being an editor yourself, you might care to throw some light upon wh
at he meant ... more than the inkling I understand ... for I kind of fancy my wr
iting style, of course!
RESPONDENT: Well Id say your writing style is a little convoluted and over-orname
ntal, but you clearly intend it to be, so I couldnt really call it a problem unle
ss you wished to be rid of it. However, this literary agent might also have mean
t that you write long sentences, which seems to be thought very naughty these da
ys, though it doesnt bother me at all. I am currently editing a book by someone w
ho writes somewhat similarly to you his style is entertaining except when he is
trying so hard to be clever that the sense of what hes saying gets buried in a pi
le of witty verbiage. He cant help it, though, he went to Oxford, where wit is co
mpulsory.
By the way I will get to recommending specific books on Dzogchen in a few days.
I havent had time to look into it yet.
RICHARD: Thank you.
No. 07
RESPONDENT: Excuse me for having this crazy thought but it seemed to me in your
reply to No. 24 that you sounded just the teensy-weeniest bit ... annoyed.
RICHARD: I must acknowledge that when I read your post I was puzzled enough by y
our observation to re-read what I had written to No. 24 to see just what would m
ake you think that it showed annoyance. For the life of me, I can not see where
it does. What had happened was that I simply saw no point in discussing the subj
ect of believing and beliefs with a person whose avowed intent was to not do any
thing at all with what was being written about. I am not interested in being inv
olved in what amounts to being nothing but an academic polemic about such an imp
ortant matter as peace on earth. I enjoy a discussion with people who sincerely
want to do something about ensuing such a prospect coming into being ... and I c
an freely engage in a most robust and vigorous discussion if warranted. But I ca

n not countenance the notion that specious argumentation and disputation are goi
ng to be the means whereby peace can be achieved.
No. 24s latest post demonstrates the validity of my point entirely:
And to cap it all off, where I attempted to penetrate through the layers of beli
ef to the wide-eyed naivet that lies buried under that cultured sophisticate that
has taken possession of No. 24s body by writing: If one diligently pursues the wi
de and wondrous path of an actual freedom all the way, one will find oneself her
e for the very first time as this body only, minus any argumentative and lugubri
ous I, No. 24 was inspired to buy into No. 4s attempt to ridicule the content of wh
at I write by comparing me to a cow by writing to me: Cows are neither argumentat
ive nor lugubrious.
All of which causes me to ponder upon what I wrote elsewhere:
I propose an absolute end to not only suffering, but malice as well and, as much
as people mouth such sentiments as being ideal, when it comes to the nitty-gritt
y of actually achieving such a condition, they invariably defend the status-quo.
Not only do they maintain their inherited position, they contend that I am eith
er deceiving myself or suppressing my feelings. According to them I merely think t
hat I have achieved the perfection I speak of ... nobody, it seems, is permitted
to be actually living what they all piously hope for. When faced with the concr
ete realisation of their dreams they passionately deny that such a thing is poss
ible. Ever so slowly, as the years roll by, I am having to revise my optimistic
prediction that global peace-on-earth will be about five thousand years in comin
g. If some of the people I have met during this last seventeen years are anythin
g to go by it will never happen. (pages 203-204: Richards Journal, The Actual Freedom
Trust 1997)
No. 08
RICHARD: She was inspired to buy into No. 4s pathetic attempt to ridicule the con
tent of what I write by comparing me to a cow.
RESPONDENT: It sounds as though your feeling of being offended at the analogy is
causing you to miss the point of the argument. I dont think it was said to ridicu
le you but to call your attention to the fact that what you were describing had c
ertain qualities in common with animal existence.
RICHARD: I am not offended by anything, let alone the analogy ... and where you
say: I dont think it was said to ridicule you , you seem to ignore the actual words to
ridicule the content of what I write . Please note content , not as you have shift
ed it too ... you . The content of what I write about does not have the slightest q
uality in common with animal existence whatsoever. This particular thread has dev
olved into utter nonsense by people not reading what is written but by reading w
hat they think or want to think is being written.
RESPONDENT: I dont know many people who are inspired to ponder their own
ts interesting that although you say you have no ego, you quote yourself
n anyone else on this list does. Its also interesting that you only seem
nt on this one thread, which originated with yourself and which is mostly
your own experience. Is that all that interests you?
words. I
more tha
to comme
about
RICHARD: I quote myself because there is no need for me to gain validity by quot
ing other peoples opinions. I generate all my own knowledge out of my own direct
experience of actuality ... and no one I have ever met can remotely experience l
ife like this.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista06.htm
curiosity is one of the greatest tools for freedom available enlightenment beyon
d enlightenment oldest soul in the universe
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 |
No. 01
RICHARD: One can argue forever the case of emotions and passions versus logic an
d rationality as being the cause of all human suffering ... but that would be to
miss the point entirely. It is I, the thinker and the feeler that is the spanner in t
he works. If I control or eliminate emotions and passions, then I, with my unmediat
logic and rationality can wreak havoc. Likewise, if I control or eliminate logic a
nd rationality, then I, with my unmediated emotions and passions can run amok. This
has been the sorry lot of humankind since time immemorial.
I, the psychological entity that has taken up a parasitical residence inside this
body, can and must be extirpated. Then, and only then, can one see what part tho
ught and feelings play in ones life. But I must disappear entirely it is no use to
merely eliminate the ego, thus sublimating ones personal self and manifesting an Imm
ortal Self that is Timeless and Spaceless; that is Unborn and Undying; that is Infinit
e and Eternal and so on. If one were to be satisfied with dissolving only the ego
then there would still be dissension. For example: there would be, as one schoo
l of thought maintains, no thought at all ... that is: No Mind, Emptiness, The Void an
d so on. Or there would be, as other disciplines propound, no feelings at all ..
. that is: Unconditional Love, Divine Compassion, Oneness with All and so on. The same
battle as rages on the secular level continues on the divine level because, by
but ridding oneself only of the ego, one has simply transcended the opposites ..
. not eliminated them.
There a third alternative. I, as ego and soul, must become extinct. I, as ego, am an
illusion. In a valiant but ultimately futile attempt to ameliorate the Human Co
ndition, I transmogrify into another I the second I and, manifesting Divine Compas
consider that the job is finished ... and that Unconditional Love is the cure-all
for humankinds suffering. It is not. The second I is a delusion born out of an illu
sion. Any solution that this second I dispenses is thus also fatally flawed. All t
he Saints and Saviours and Masters and Messiahs down through the centuries have
been driven by a sense of Mission to bring Love and Compassion to a undiscerning hum
anity. Even a cursory study of history will quickly show that they have left suc
h bloodshed and hatred in their wake that it beggars description. Something is s
eriously amiss with the traditional approach. How much longer will humans contin
ue to pursue the Tried and True which, upon closer examination, is the Tried and Fa
iled.
The Divine Solution has had thousands of years to demonstrate its efficacy. There
is as much war and murder and torture and domestic violence and corruption now a
s there was when the first Divine Beings came along with their spurious solutions.
It behoves one to question and question deeply just what constitutes the self and
the Self ... the illusion and the delusion. When it is seen that both the first a
nd the second I, whilst being very real, are not actual then something remarkable
happens. I, being an illusion, do not actually exist. I being a delusion, also do no
t actually exist. Simply and magically, I am here as this moment is here ... liv
ing in the actual world of people, things and events as this flesh and blood bod
y, bereft of both the thinker and the feeler. There is no I to be separate, therefore
there is no need for Union, Oneness, Love, Compassion and so on, to bridge the fancif
distance between me and the other. I create the distance and I create the solution
l a play in a super-charged imagination ... and would be extremely funny if it w
ere not for its disastrous and appalling consequences.
Spiritual Enlightenment is worthless. The blame for the continuation of human mise
ry lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having suffic
ient courage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of the final goal the Unkno
wable. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwil
ling to relinquish the Self ... and an ego-less Self is still an entity, neverth
eless. In spite of the glamour and the glory of the Altered State Of Consciousne
ss, 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 hum
ankind astray. Preaching submission or supplication they keep a benighted humani
ty in appalling tribulation and distress. The death of the ego is not sufficient
: the extinction of the self in its entirety is the essential ingredient for pea
ce and prosperity to reign over all and everyone.
Here in the actual, this miraculous world as-it-is, is the secret to life. Here
lies a healthy mind, for here only sagacity exists.
RESPONDENT: Do you experience this? Or do you just like talking about things of
which you know nothing?
RICHARD: To clarify a very valid point: No, I was not talking about things of wh
ich I know nothing ... I was writing out of my own direct experience. If, percha
nce, I was to venture an opinion I would preface it with: In my opinion .... If it
is something I have read or heard from another, I would say: I have read ... or I
have been told ....
A very brief personal history to explain: Spiritual Enlightenment has been aroun
d for some thousands of years ... and there is still no peace on earth. I entere
d into an ongoing Altered State Of Consciousness on Sunday, the sixth. of Septem
ber 1981, becoming Enlightened in the Eastern spiritual sense of the term. I spe
nt the next eleven years endeavouring to discover why it did not work why it did
not deliver the Peace On Earth it seemed to promise. Accordingly I sought to go
beyond Enlightenment into a condition I had glimpsed on many an occasion during
those eleven years. On Friday, the thirtieth. of October 1992, I succeeded and
landed in actuality ... in what I choose to call actual freedom. Nowadays I know
, intimately, why Enlightenment does not deliver the goods ... and, of course, I
now know what does. I am not an Enlightened Master sitting in an exalted position
... and what a relief that is. I am a fellow human being, who happens to live i
n a condition of perfection and purity, offering my experience to whomsoever is
interested.
As I wrote before: Spiritual Enlightenment is worthless. The blame for the contin
uation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, al
though having sufficient courage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of t
he final goal the Unknowable. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego op
erating, they were unwilling to relinquish the Self ... and an ego-less Self is
still an entity, nevertheless. In spite of the glamour and the glory of the Alte
red State Of Consciousness, closer examination reveals that these Great persons ha
d and have feet of clay. Bewitched and beguiled by the promise of majesty and my
stery, 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 self in its entire
ty is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over all and ev
eryone.
No. 02
RICHARD: I am not an Enlightened Master sitting in an exalted position ... and wha
t a relief that is. I am a fellow human being, who happens to live in a conditio
n of perfection and purity, offering my experience to whomsoever is interested.
RESPONDENT: What do you feel about No. 4s and No. 13s declaration of enlightenment
? Your position of fellow human being would seem to be more mature.
RICHARD: If someone wishes to declare themselves Enlightened and they are not ..
. they only make fools of themselves. If they are actually Enlightened, they sti
ll make fools of themselves, for Enlightenment is a delusion born out of an illu
sion.
RESPONDENT: Yes. I think you have answered the above question. That is my positi
on. I have started a very small E-Mail forum (have not started posting yet). No.
4, and No. 12 are on it as well as Gloria (a heart centred mystic) and Jan (a S
ufi orientated mystic) I would be most pleased if you will join us. If there is
anyone you would recommend I would be pleased to consider them. The basic idea i
s for the development of qualities such as service and sharing ... you may find
this page on the stages beyond enlightenment of interest: (a now discontinued We
b Page URL)
RICHARD: I accessed the Web Page you recommended and found enough to intrigue me
. I have not, of course, been able to read everything there, but I will get back
to it as soon as possible. So I would be interested in joining your E-Mail foru
m ... whenever you start posting, feel free to include me on your list.
I look forward to a continuing and fruitful correspondence.
No. 03
RICHARD: To clarify the situation: (1) I am not enlightened. (2) I do not want t
o be enlightened. (3) I never will become enlightened. (4) Enlightenment is wort
hless.
RESPONDENT: So despite the fact that most religions and philosophers often defin
e enlightenment as the ultimate state of being at the same time as saying that d
ont know what it is because they havent got there, you know what it is so well (wi
thout being there) that you say it is worthless .
RICHARD: But I have been there, so I am well positioned to say that it is worthl
ess. 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 ye
ars I sought a genuine exploration and discovery of what it means to live a full
y human life and in October 1992 I discovered, once and for all, what I was look
ing for. Since then I have been consistently living an incomparable condition wh
ich 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. I
t 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 Enlighte
nment. I became Enlightened as the result of an earnest and intense process whic
h commenced in the January of that year. At approximately six oclock on the morni
ng of Sunday, the sixth of September 1981, my ego disappeared entirely in an edify
ing moment of awakening to an Absolute Reality. I lived in the Enlightened State f
or eleven years, so I have an intimate understanding of the marked difference be
tween 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 Enlig
htenment, 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 becomi
ng Enlightened is an extreme test of ones mettle, requiring nerves of steel, it s
eemed that only a rare few humans were destined to become Self-Realised. The que
stion 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 b
eyond Enlightenment that would usher in the beginning of a genuine possibility o
f peace for all? Some Masters hinted at and alluded to going beyond Enlightenment
... yet their Teachings remained exactly the same. Some disciplines suggested th
at 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 tho
ught. No useful information could be gained from there.
Over the eleven years I had numerous experiences of a condition that seemed so e
xtreme that one must surely physically die to attain to it. To go beyond Enlight
enment seemed to be an impossibility whilst still alive and breathing. Then at m
idday 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 co
mplete condition that would deliver the goods so longed for by humanity for millen
nia. Just like my ego had dissolved, back in 1981, my soul disappeared. I was no l
onger a
r had a
thout a
. There
Self existing for all Eternity and transcending Time and Space. I no longe
feeling of being or Being any sense of identity whatsoever had vanished wi
trace ... and I could thus no longer detect the presence of The Absolute
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 diff
erent to Enlightenment in that it is most definitely substantial: there is no lo
nger a transcendence, for I have neither sorrow nor malice anywhere at all to ri
se above. They have vanished entirely, leaving me both blithesome and benign car
efree and harmless which leads to a most remarkable state of affairs. The chief
characteristics of Enlightenment Union with the Divine, Universal Compassion, Lo
ve Agap, Ineffable Bliss, The Truth, Timelessness, Spacelessness, Immortality, Al
oneness, Oneness, Pacifism, Surrender, Trust, Beauty, and Goodness being redunda
nt in this totally new condition, are no longer extant.
Herein lies the unmistakable distinction between this condition, which I call ac
tual 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 Myste
ry 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 lif
e-time.
No. 04
RESPONDENT No. 4: Those who are not strongly attached to reaching perfection in
the first place can easily mislead. Too many people take this kind of teaching a
s an excuse to live in any way they please, all the while smugly believing it to
be the final destination. Theyve had a minor realisation that everything is perf
ect and that there is no such thing as a fixed state of enlightenment, and have
promptly stopped. Unfortunately, most who reach this stage make no further progr
ess. Richard is a case in point. He is currently dwelling in what I call the Gre
at Pit of Emptiness a false heaven produced by a shallow understanding of non-du
ality. A strong desire to attain absolute perfection is needed to escape this st
inking pit and, quite frankly, I dont think Richard has it.
RESPONDENT: Well I would not put it like that. Richard is simply deluded (a bit
like yourself) about certain things. Richard, I would like to post your material
(with your permission) onto another forum where the list owner has just declare
d herself the second oldest soul in the universe.
RICHARD: Anything I post to the Internet immediately becomes public property, of
course ... you are free to do whatever you like with it.
RESPONDENT: Many thanks.
RICHARD: But thank you for taking the trouble to advise me as to your intentions
... I would be interested to know where you are sending it too ... or, for that
matter, anything else you may decide to do with it in the future.
RESPONDENT: Well I will be using it as an indication of those who declare enligh
tenment. It will probably go to the Buddhist or Insight forums.
RICHARD: Out of curiosity: Who does she say is the oldest soul in the universe?
RESPONDENT: Well far be it from me to say curiosity is an indication of a trivial
mind but the information is delusional and therefore I have no intention of aski
ng.
RICHARD: The information that everyone on this planet gives out is delusional es
pecially that of the Enlightened Masters yet I study it all. This is so I can po
int out to people where they are deluded if the occasion arises. If it were not
for curiosity I would not be living in the perfection of this moment as I am now
. Far from being the indication of a trivial mind ... it is one of the greatest to
ols for freedom available.
RESPONDENT: You see, Richard, if your beyond Enlightenment state is irrelevant you
have no need to declare it. In fact it displays little wisdom. However that is
your understanding.
RICHARD: For a person who actively promotes their own web-site under every post
I hardly consider you are in a position to pass criticism. In fact, you personal
ly sent me to a web-site which deals specifically with a subject entitled Beyond
Enlightenment. People in glass houses, eh?
However, I freely declare it because of all of the wars, the murders, the tortur
es, the rapes, the domestic violence and the corruption that is going on this fa
ir earth of ours. For far too long humankind has been living in ignorance ... an
ignorance that is reinforced and perpetuated by the wisdom of all the Saints and
Sages, the Masters and Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours since time immemor
ial.
After all, we are fellow human beings, albeit benighted, genuinely endeavouring
to live in peace ... or are you?
No. 05
RICHARD: But I have been there, so I am well positioned to say that it is worthl
ess. 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?
RESPONDENT: Why not I do it all the time.
RICHARD: I have noticed.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps you need to read the web page entitled: Beyond Enlightenment.
RICHARD: I did as you said and read it. I am beginning to comprehend why you act
as you do.
*
RICHARD: 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 incom
parable 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 wo
rld of the senses. It is not an affective or mental state of being; it is a phys
ical condition that ensues when one goes beyond Spiritual Enlightenment.
RESPONDENT: Sounds excellent. Can you levitate?
RICHARD: No.
*
RICHARD: In September 1981 I underwent a monumental physiological transformation
into an Altered State Of Consciousness which can only be described as Spiritual
Enlightenment.
RESPONDENT: Your descriptive abilities are obviously effected by the serious nat
ure of your Altered State Of Consciousness did you have a history of mental illnes
s before your enlightenment or just after? I of course mean that in the most har
mless way.
RICHARD: During.
*
RICHARD: I became Enlightened as the result of an earnest and intense process wh
ich commenced in the January of that year. At approximately six oclock on the mor
ning of Sunday, the sixth of September 1981, my ego disappeared entirely in an edi
fying 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.
RESPONDENT: It sounds like you were in need of a good breakfast.
RICHARD: I ate very well, actually.
*
RICHARD: 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 Spirit
ual Enlightenment, which has been within the human experience for thousands of y
ears, had not delivered the Peace On Earth it seemed to promise.
RESPONDENT: Nobody promised this obviously you were misinformed. Jesus said he b
rought a sword. Buddha informed us existence was suffering (misery guts) Mohamed
killed anyone who did not accept his truth. No. 12 hates women.
RICHARD: I did say seemed to promise ... one does need to read the fine print, eh?
*
RICHARD: As the process of becoming Enlightened is an extreme test of ones 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.
RESPONDENT: Most people have nerves of putty.
RICHARD: It is pusillanimity that stops people, mostly.
*
RICHARD: I was looking beyond the superficial and questioning even the most clos
ely held ideas and beliefs. Was there something more to discover ... something t
hat lay beyond Enlightenment that would usher in the beginning of a genuine poss
ibility of peace for all? Some Masters hinted at and alluded to going beyond Enli
ghtenment ... yet their Teachings remained exactly the same.
RESPONDENT: Quite right too wouldnt want to strain your nerves of steel.
RICHARD: I was talking about already existing great teachers, actually.

*
RICHARD: Some disciplines suggested that such a condition existed after physical
death: when the soul quit the body. The Hindu Mahasamadhi and Buddhist Parinirvan
a are two examples of this kind of thought. No useful information could be gaine
d from there.
RESPONDENT: I can see you have studied with some of the most profound teachers t
hat ever drove a taxi.
RICHARD: I have read hundreds and hundreds maybe into the thousands of books. I
wanted to know; I wanted to understand.
*
RICHARD: Over the eleven years I had numerous experiences of a condition that se
emed so extreme that one must surely physically die to attain to it. To go beyon
d Enlightenment seemed to be an impossibility whilst still alive and breathing.
Then at midday on Friday, the thirtieth of October 1992, a curious event occurre
d, due to my intense conviction that it was imperative that someone evince a fin
al and complete condition that would deliver the goods so longed for by humanity f
or 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 va
nished 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 edi
fice.
RESPONDENT: Brilliant. You ceased to exist. From this we can conclude that you a
re not bonkers because one must exist or have a soul to so do. Therefore you are
making this all up to test peoples gullibility. You are not a woman because the
y are not intelligent enough to be devious. Therefore you are a God. Om Mani Pad
me Hum.
RICHARD: One cannot be a god when one is bereft of a soul or spirit ... of being.
*
RICHARD: Since that date I have continued to live in a condition of complete ema
ncipation and utter autonomy ... the condition is both permanent and actual. Thi
s 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 b
enign carefree and harmless which leads to a most remarkable state of affairs. T
he chief characteristics of Enlightenment Union with the Divine, Universal Compa
ssion, Love Agap, Ineffable Bliss, The Truth, Timelessness, Spacelessness, Immort
ality, Aloneness, Oneness, Pacifism, Surrender, Trust, Beauty, and Goodness bein
g redundant in this totally new condition, are no longer extant.
RESPONDENT: Marvellous. The things one can do with a bit of mental imbalance, an
E-Mail account and the inhuman imagination.
RICHARD: I do call Spiritual Enlightenment institutionalised insanity.
*
RICHARD: Herein lies the unmistakable distinction between this condition, which
I call actual freedom and the Enlightened State: I am no longer driven by a Divi
ne 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.
RESPONDENT: Speak God-like One. Transcender of humanity we await the expression
of freedom. Know any good jokes?
RICHARD: Yes.
*
RICHARD: This is an actual freedom, here in the world as-it-is, as this body, in
this life-time.
RESPONDENT: Wow. I am speechless. You said it, so it must be true.
RICHARD: Quite frankly, I fail to see the point in responding to any more replie
s of yours like this one. Therefore, to save wasting other peoples time and space
and mine I will not. If you have something intelligent and constructive to cont
ribute either critical or agreeable then, of course, I will respond.
I detect from all your posts to this list that you may fancy yourself as being a
bit of a Court Jester type of person. The main trouble with someone setting onese
lf up to be the Court jester is that while trying to make a fool of oneself for la
ughs, they actually do make a fool of themselves.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista03.htm

Truth actual freedom apperception innocence time this moment takes no interval a
t all to be here now enlightenment
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
No. 01
RICHARD: No longer plagued by petty arguments, pathetic one-upmanship.
RESPONDENT: Including, of course, the pathetic one-upmanship of I have discovered
truths no one else knows. What I would like to understand is why all the self-pr
oclaimed enlightened (I use that term loosely to include you Richard, though you
dont use it yourself) folk on this list are so all-fired certain that they are t
he only ones on the surface of the earth who have ever experienced what they exp
erience? And why are yall so arrogant that you can say things like nowhere in the
revered and sacred scripts, anywhere in history as if you personally had studied
each one? It is actually your attitude of smug disdain that most convincingly ar
gues against your having achieved anything resembling equanimity, never mind tru
e understanding of reality.
RICHARD: To clarify the situation:
1. I am not enlightened. 2. I do not want to be enlightened. 3. I never will bec
ome enlightened. 4. Enlightenment is worthless.
If no-one was bold enough to say that the accepted truth is a mistake, then the su
n would still be revolving around the earth. In the face of public opinion, one
needs to be intrepid to question the collective wisdom and find out for oneself
the fact of the matter. One of the best ways of doing this is to see that someth
ing held to be true is not working. Instead of vainly trying to make it work thr
ough intellectual dishonesty, one takes stock and applies lateral thinking. One
needs to be audacious to proceed where no-one has gone before ... and trail-blaz
ers are often castigated for their effrontery. Fancy being ridiculed or ostracis
ed for ascertaining the actuality of something ... for establishing a fact. To b
e forced to recant, by popular demand, is an outstanding act of dogmatic elitism
born out of ignoring the facts. With this being the lot of the path-finder, no
wonder humanity is in the mess that it is in, for who would run the gauntlet?
But I am supremely blas about the opinion of others, for their truths do not work .
.. they do not live in peace and tranquillity. They do not experience the perpet
ual purity of this moment of being alive; a purity welling-up in all directions
from the vast, immeasurable stillness of the infinitude of this universe. They r
emain ignorant of the excellence of the absence of being. In short, their truths, th
eir philosophies on life, do not work. The criterion of a fact is that it works,
it produces results. Because I live here, where the immediate is the ultimate,
there is no sorrow or malice. All my thoughts are benign, for maleficence does n
ot exist where time has no duration. By living the fact that I am not actual, evil
has ceased to be.
With no evil in existence, I do not have to believe in and muster all my energie
s in order to be good. Good is a psychic force created to combat the psychic force
known as Evil. Similarly, in monotheistic cultures, a God is invented to engage in
an endless battle with a Devil. In polytheistic cultures Gods are opposed to Demon
s. Then there is Heavens, Hells, Sin, Karma, Resurrection, Reincarnation ... the
n. Where is intelligence in all this? Are humans worthy of the title Mature Adult
s? This is worse than puerile ... this is primitive in the extreme. It all leads
to such appalling brutality and unbearable suffering that it is a wonder that su
ch nonsense can still be soberly entertained as even approximating truth. It is
not only bizarre; this is insanity.

All this is so patently obvious that I am amazed at the reactions I meet when I
talk about such matters to others. It all does not work. These truths have been ri
gorously applied by diligent peoples for thousands of years, to no avail. How lo
ng must humans keep on trying something that just simply does not work ... and n
ever will? Why take umbrage at something entirely new, something that has never
been before, something that delivers what it proposes? Are humans so perverse as
to turn their backs, again and again, on the fact that the tried and true methods
do not work? So much for the supposed innate curiosity and the inherent spirit of
exploration and discovery that is said to be the hall-mark of being human. Humans
rather spend billions on searching for life in outer space, for example, instea
d of examining their own mores. Does humanity hope to find an alien race near so
me distant star who have the secret to life? And if they did find such creatures
, who on earth would listen? Who would apply their wisdom? Would they be accused
of smug disdain? Would they not also be called arrogant?
Obviously, what would happen, is that a phalanx of sociologists, anthropologists
, biologists, psychologists, theologians and philosophers would swing into actio
n to study their culture.
Such is the unyielding fate of a benighted humanity.
No. 02
RICHARD: To clarify the situation: (1) I am not enlightened. (2) I do not want t
o be enlightened. (3) I never will become enlightened. (4) Enlightenment is wort
hless.
RESPONDENT: You can make a statement like number 4 only after youve tasted the wi
ne. Before, its a silly assumption, prejudice, sour grapes, or laziness.
RICHARD: But I have tasted the wine . You must have missed one of my posts. For yo
ur benefit I will re-post the last paragraph:
[Richard] Nothing that I as an ego-less Self experienced many years ago when I l
the Divine Realm (Samadhi, Satori, Nirvana, Sunyata and so on) can equal the ma
gnificence of being here in this actual world. Being here as-I-am far surpasses
any Religious Illumination, Spiritual Enlightenment, Mystical Union or any other
Altered State Of Consciousness. I do not make the mistake, as the people who ha
ve dissolved only their ego do, of identifying myself with Existence or Whatever
as being God On Earth, or any of that deluded nonsense for I have no identity o
r self whatsoever. For example: This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am per
petually here for the term of my natural life as this moment is; I am not immort
al. It is the universe that is eternal ... not me. I am free to be me; me as I a
ctually am. I am free to be practical, straight-forward and down-to-earth. I am
free of any guile, any hypocrisy, any duplicity, any cupidity ... any corruption
at all. Innocence prevails only where time has no duration ... and this moment
has no measure, it is ever-new. I have no need for such a paltry surrogate as Im
mortality ... Immortality fades into the oblivion it deserves when compared to t
he magnitude of experiencing the infinity of the universe as a human being livin
g here, each moment again, fresh and new and pristine. I am free to live in this
magical wonderland that is the actual world. [end quote].
RESPONDENT: Oh ye of star trek fame tell me what havst thou seen?
RICHARD: I have been writing of nothing else but what I have seen. I suggest you
check the back copies as it would take up too much space to re-post them all he
re.
*
RICHARD: They do not experience the perpetual purity of this moment of being ali
ve; a purity welling-up in all directions from the vast, immeasurable stillness
of the infinitude of this universe.
RESPONDENT: A blast of hot air. Wow. Tell me, how does this inflated rhetoric ap
ply when you brush your teeth in the a.m. and p.m.?
RICHARD: It is a pleasure and a delight to brush my teeth , or do anything else, f
or that matter, in the a.m. and p.m.. The experience of the perpetual purity of thi
s moment of being alive endows everything one does with an infinite perfection ..
. even sitting doing nothing at all is a marvellous felicity.
*
RICHARD: Because I live here, where the immediate is the ultimate, there is no s
orrow or malice. All my thoughts are benign, for maleficence does not exist wher
e time has no duration. By living the fact that I am not actual, evil has ceased t
o be.
RESPONDENT: And yet the I still subjects us to so much drivel.
RICHARD: It is indeed unfortunate that you find all this to be so much drivel. You
are missing out on the possibility of the most delicious actualisation of a per
fect freedom. Perhaps some input from my companion of eleven years would be more
compatible to your tastes, as my words seem to raise your ire:
[quote] Like everybody else I too was hoodwinked for many years. I remained swind
led until, together with my partner in life, I started to question the human arc
hetype with its relentless beliefs and needs, hopes and despairs. Nothing sancti
oned by humanity ever seemed to lead to the sweet destiny that I had seen and kn
own as being possible for all of humankind. And now, after an extensive odyssey,
I know without a shadow of a doubt that personal peace-on-earth is my birthrigh
t, as it were, and was always available to be achieved. Nevermore do I feel a ne
ed to belong, because I do not feel alone and lonely by myself. As I do not have
a precarious identity to protect, a battle of wills with another is no longer a
n attractive option; no ego-victory is sweet enough to want to relinquish ones pe
rsonal peace for. I experience anger to be a thoroughly rotten emotion; an emoti
on which has no redeeming features whatsoever and which, in my view, only perpet
uates me as an identity, thus assuring continued potential for violence. Nor do
I need to be needed, loved, or appreciated by others any more; these tiresome ch
aracteristics, which put demands on other people, have been eliminated ... and I
do not miss them one iota. [end quote].
No. 03
RICHARD: For example: This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetually h
ere for the term of my natural life as this moment is; I am not immortal. It is
the universe that is eternal ... not me. I am free to be me; me as I actually am
. I am free to be practical, straight-forward and down-to-earth. I am free of an
y guile, any hypocrisy, any duplicity, any cupidity ... any corruption at all. I
nnocence prevails only where time has no duration ... and this moment has no mea
sure, it is ever-new. I have no need for such a paltry surrogate as Immortality
... Immortality fades into the oblivion it deserves when compared to the magnitu
de of experiencing the infinity of the universe as a human being living here, ea
ch moment again, fresh and new and pristine. I am free to live in this magical w
onderland that is the actual world.
RESPONDENT: Richard, this tells me nothing at all. I get these kinds of paragrap
hs from my freshmen composition students all day long. They are full of high rhe
toric, but contain very little actual information. I am sure that you are famili
ar with the old saying Show, dont tell. Show me. Dont noun me to death.
RICHARD: You could not possibly get these kinds of paragraphs from my freshmen co
mposition students all day long. Read my posts again and look at the content this
time. No freshman could even begin to comprehend the substance of what I say ev
en as a concept ... let alone as an experiential actuality. Just taking one exam
ple out of what you quoted back at me innocence prevails only where time has no d
uration would send your students into an intellectual paroxysm .
But, then again, as you say that you get these kinds of paragraphs from my freshm
en composition students all day long then obviously you would already be living w
hat that sentence demonstrates. If this is so, why do you profess to not underst
and it when you say: Richard, this tells me nothing at all ?
RESPONDENT: Trust me, I have read every one of your posts. Each one reminded me
of those horridly self-conscious inspirational sayings that one can buy, in poster
form, in new age shops.
RICHARD: There must be a different type of new age shop where you live; I have b
een in many, many shops of that name and read countless posters and inspirational
sayings ... and I have never seen anything that approaches what I am talking abo
ut.
If only they did.
RESPONDENT: Yes. Yes. Yes. All this is very sweet. Very noble. But it means noth
ing. This is all one giant clich, well expressed, of course, I grant you that, bu
t still clich. Ive read this many, many times, in many different versions, but the
upshot is always the same: the author has nothing to say, and says it in as man
y words as possible.
RICHARD: I can only reiterate what I have written above. I very much doubt that
you have read the sentence innocence prevails only where time has no duration ever
before ... let alone many, many times, in many different versions. In case you th
ink that I am being selective, I could take the time to go back through my writi
ng and come up with many examples of originality ... but I am not going to even
attempt to live your life for you.
RESPONDENT: What the hell does perpetual purity of this moment of being alive mean
? This phrase means nothing to me. Show me what you do, how you do it. Demonstra
te infinite perfection to me.
RICHARD: I am doing nothing else but showing it to you and demonstrating it to y
ou ... but all you see, unfortunately, is what you call clichs. But maybe this is
worth a try: the perpetual purity of this moment of being alive means: innocence p
revails only where time has no duration.
I could be in error here, as all I have to go on is what your writing conveys, b
ut just maybe you have been reading too many Zen books as the Zen Masters demand
of their students: Show Me! and: Demonstrate! Even if you are a Zen Master ... I am
not your student.
RESPONDENT: My counsel on those occasions is the same one I give you now: Tell m
e something I can use. Make me laugh, show me 10 ways to keep Ficus trees alive,
write a poem, eat cheesecake, send a curry recipe. Dont fluff me to death.
RICHARD: You ask me to tell you something you can use. Perhaps this will be of s
ome help:
1. Make me laugh : Visit a professional comedian ... it is their profession to mak

e you laugh. 2. Show me 10 ways to keep Ficus trees alive : Ask a horticulturist a
nd they will show you how ... for a price. 3. Write a poem : Write your own. My fo
rt is prose and as that is one giant clich, my poetry would not be any different ...
in your eyes. 4. Send a curry recipe: Try typing: Top 10% Cooking sites into your s
earch engine. Or: The Chilidogs Kitchen. Or: Bangkok Cuisine. Or: Ten Thousand Recipes
5. Eat cheesecake : Eat your own ... only this time taste for the very first time
.
In other words: I am not here to do it for you. It is your life that you are liv
ing. Perfection is ever-available for those who dare to live it. I am simply say
ing, in as many ways as are befitting, one thing only:
It is possible.
No. 04
RESPONDENT: This is, right now, though, a question of communication. I am asking
you to communicate your experiences to me, via a clear, unambiguous language. T
hats all. Tell me, without using all those high-sounding nouns, how you tie your
shoes.
RESPONDENT 2: My attempt: I was told that one must learn to still there mind. Us
ually this involves sitting comfortably twice a day, stare at a flame (or spot),
repeat a mantra, etc. ... Meditation. This is required so that one experiences
the different states of mind we are capable of. Without a successful stopping of
thoughts, there can be no further communication. Have you done this? After acco
mplishing this, then there are multitudes of pathways that one experiences that th
ose who havent stilled their thoughts can not know, for instance: In our waking s
tate we can think to the past of future and extrapolate meaning. In our waking s
tate we can think about our dreams and extrapolate myth. In our waking state we
can think about our dreamless sleep and extrapolate clear light, samadhi. Richard fe
ll into this state of samadhi, that often happens to sincere searchers of truth.
RESPONDENT: What Richard fell into, it doesnt travel well in prose. I sit Zazen t
wice a day, for 30 45 minutes. It does not involve visualisation or candles or m
antras. I just sit, watch my breath, and let thoughts arise and fall as they may
. It is not my desire to stop all thoughts from arising. Without thoughts, one m
ight as well be a lump on a log. What is required is that one pays attention to
the way thoughts come and go and to just let that happen, without grasping after
them.
RESPONDENT 2: Yes, I do this too. Just let thoughts and feelings come and go, li
ke the clouds. This too is a form of samadhi. That is why a meditation designed by
you, to stop your thought process is to your advantage. What we believe life is a
bout, is what it is about for us. Believing is seeing. This is conditioned exist
ence. Thoughts are that conditioning. To find out your original face, trace the
thoughts to their arising. All thoughts come from the one mind. So that is what we
find if we discipline our laziness, and excuse making. If one truly seeks their
own mind they will find it. Usually they will find a teacher (benefactor). Many
are only seeking ego reinforcement. They usually sound dogmatic, or partial. Th
e state of mind that Richard is referring to, has a complete loss of a personal
self. It has worn itself out. When this last echo of me disappears, awareness has
nothing to do but be itself. Cloudless, unimpeded, no value, no feeling, just aw

areness.
RICHARD: No comment.
No. 05
RICHARD: Just taking one example out of what you quoted back at me innocence prev
ails only where time has no duration would send your students into an intellectua
l paroxysm.
RESPONDENT: Well, it sent me into one as well. Time has no duration? Innocence p
revails? Watchatalkinboutman?
pen ... or so it seems. Only this moment exists. This moment has no term, it tak
es no time at all to occur ... which gives rise to the inaccurate notion that it
is timeless. This is an institutionalised delusion, for it stems from the egoce
ntric feeling that I am Immortal, that I am Eternal.
Apperception which is the minds perception of itself reveals that this moment is
hanging in eternal time ... just as this planet is hanging in infinite space. Th
is moment and this place are in the realm of the infinitude of this actual physi
cal universe. This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetually here for
the term of my natural life as this moment is; I am not Eternally Present. It is
the universe that is eternal ... not me. As one is the universe experiencing it
self as a sensate human being, any I always on the look-out for self-aggrandisemen
t grabs the universes eternity for itself. Also, what helps to create the feeling
that the present is timeless is that human beings as an identity are normally o
ut of this universes eternal time. Yet time is as intimate as this body being her
e now at this moment. It is so intimate that I as a body only am not separate fr
om it. Whereas I, as a human being, have separated myself from eternal time by being a
n entity. To be an ontological being is to mistakenly take this body being here as
containing an I, a psychological or psychic entity. To be is to take this moment of
being alive personally ... as being proof of my subjective existence. I am an illus
ion; if I think and feel that I do exist, then I am outside of eternal time. I am for
r complaining that there is not enough hours in the day, or I am always running out
of time, or I am always catching up with time, or I am always behind time.
With no I whatsoever to keep one out of this moment in time, one is pure innocence
personified, for one is literally free from sin and guilt. One is untouched by
evil; no malice exists anywhere in this body. One is utterly innocent. Innocence
, that much abused word, can come to its full flowering and one is easily able t
o be freely ingenuous noble in character without any effort at all. The integrit
y of an actual freedom is so unlike the strictures of morality whereupon the ent
ity struggles in vain to resemble the purity of the actual inasmuch as probity i
s bestowed gratuitously. One can live unequivocally, endowed with an actual grac
efulness and dignity, in a magical wonderland. To thus live candidly, in arrant
innocence, is a remarkable condition of excellence.
None of the supposed innocence of children comes anywhere near to the matchless pu
rity of the innocence of the actual. Nor does the assumed innocence in the status
generously and wrongly attributed to those old men, women and children classifie
d as innocent victims of war; for these victims are all guilty of instinctive anger
and vicious urges themselves. As much as one might be sensitively considerate ab

out their suffering, they cannot be labelled as innocent whilst they remain bein
g human. They are not to blame: nobody is born innocent, all humans are already gui
lty at conception. Fear and aggression and nurture and desire are built into the H
uman Condition ... this is the human nature that is said cannot be changed. These int
rinsic urges and drives are known as the instinct for survival.
The self is born out of the instinctual passions.
RESPONDENT: If you want me to experience your experience, you need to paint that
picture a bit clearer. Its like saying, the sunset is pretty. You may have had an
orgasmic experience watching the sunset, but for me to get it as well, you need to
employ the entire range of rhetorical devices: from assonance to zeugma.
RICHARD: You say you need to employ the entire range of rhetorical devices . Reall
y? I hardly dare to use rhetoric on this list ... are you the same person who to
ld me off on:
1. 20 August: [quote] how does this inflated rhetoric apply . 2. 20 August: [quote
] A blast of hot air . 3. 22 August: [quote] They are full of high rhetoric . 4. 22
August: [quote] Dont fluff me to death . 5. 22 August: [quote] Dont noun me to death .
6. 26 August: [quote] Tell me, without using all those high-sounding nouns .
As for assonance , I consider that: the perpetual purity of this moment of being al
ive and: innocence prevails only where time has no duration is quite euphonic ... t
o the point of being mellifluent, do you not think? And when I examine my writin
g for zeugma , I see that is very sylleptic indeed, thank you very much.
RESPONDENT: On a more serious note: this is not a question of originality. I dont
question that you have had some sort of awakening, one that feels all fresh and
new and different from whatever anyone else ever experienced. I have had those
too. Everyone has. And then one moves on; otherwise, one gets stuck on some kind
of plateau of self-congratulatory fervour.
RICHARD: I did not move on ... I self-immolated. And I am very pleased that I did t
am not self-congratulatory because I did nothing to earn applause ... it was I that
made this possible ... and I salute my audacity.
*
RICHARD: The perpetual purity of this moment of being alive means: innocence preva
ils only where time has no duration.
RESPONDENT: Yes, great-now, show me what that means in simple terms: when you ti
e your shoelaces.
RICHARD: Hmm ... I do not wear shoes. But if I did; whenever I tie the laces I d
o it for the very first time. As I said in my previous post in response to your
invitation to eat cheesecake : eat your own ... only this time taste for the very
first time. This moment of being alive has never happened before and will never
happen again. It is unique. As it is always this moment already, everything is i
mmediately peerless. Therefore it is never boring; it is ever-fresh; I am never
boring ... I am ever-fresh. I have never been here before: everything is happeni
ng for the very first time ... I am happening for the very first time. This is w
hat I mean by: the perpetual purity of this moment of being alive and: innocence pr
evails where time has no duration.
Because I am ever-new, I am automatically innocent.
RESPONDENT: I am, however, looking to understand your experience.
RICHARD: Has this post helped? It would be excellent if it has, because I enjoy
a genuine and fruitful discussion.
No. 06
pen ... or so it seems. Only this moment exists.
RESPONDENT: In this passage you write as if are you telling fairy tales? Things ei
ther happen or they dont; they happen as if only in fairy tales and other fictitiou
s accounts.
RICHARD: No, I am not telling fairy tales . The past did happen and the future wil
l happen ... it is that they are not actual now. Only this moment is actually ha
ppening now. However, I was describing the impression that certain people gain w
hen they experience this moment in time as being all there ever has been and wil
l be ... in their own words: the past is not real, the future is not real, only t
he present is real . I wrote as if because the impression not the actuality is that
only the present is real , and because it is a strong impression, it has led peop
le astray for centuries. Time is a fact and not the illusion that those certain
people are so wont to say it is.
The segment you snipped the above out of goes on to explain that: only this momen
t exists [as an actuality]. This moment has no term, it takes no time at all to
occur ... which gives rise to the inaccurate notion that it is timeless. This is
an institutionalised delusion, for it stems from the egocentric feeling that I am
Immortal, that I am Eternal. Apperception which is the minds perception of itself
reveals that this moment is hanging in eternal time ... just as this planet is h
anging in infinite space. This moment and this place are in the realm of the inf
initude of this actual physical universe. This moment is perennial, not timeless
. I am perpetually here for the term of my natural life as this moment is; I am
not Eternally Present. It is the universe that is eternal ... not me.
Does the [as an actuality] insert clarify the point? For later in the post you say
: I thought past moments didnt exist for you?. Vis.:
[Richard]: Whenever I tie the laces I do it for the very first time. [Respondent
]: Now you are contradicting yourself. You can only do something for the first t
ime, when you have an idea of past events being dissimilar to this one. I though
t past moments didnt exist for you?
Past moments do not exist as an actuality at this moment. Normally, people make
the past real (that is, a substitute for actual) by emotive thought drawing upon m
emory through reverie (nostalgia, sentimentality, longing, yearning, homesicknes
s for the good old days and so on). Certain people, wishing to escape this and, ha
ving an experience of this moment in time, then declare that the past and the fu
ture are not real ... as in never existed and never will exist (ironically, they
usually then get down from their podium and say that that is all for now until E
vening Darshan at 6.00 P.M. ... which is an acknowledgment of time). Thus they mi
stakenly assume that they are Timeless and go on to extrapolate that they are Unbor
n, Undying, Eternal and Immortal.
RESPONDENT: I am in agreement with you that the present moment is important; wit
hout it, theres no possibility to break the chain of dependent origination. The s
ame holds true for the past, however. How else can change (the change, for examp
le, you have been describing in yourself?) happen, unless conditions/causes in t
he past give rise to conditions/causes in the present to allow for such a change
?
RICHARD: The change I have been describing in myself was a happening wherein the c
ause and effect occurred simultaneously, rather than consecutively ... as is the
normal course of events. The way this is experienced is that one can not differ
entiate between me doing it and it happening to me.
It is an exquisite event, by any description.
My favourite expression regarding how to precipitate such an event is:
[Richard]: Step out of the real world into the actual world ... and leave yoursel
f behind ... where you belong.
RESPONDENT: You are describing that which you are so critical of: a changeless,
timeless, eternal, fixed point. The dance of causes and conditions happens elsew
here, and Prince Richard seems to have misplaced his dancing shoes.
RICHARD: This moment is always here ... but it is a perennially moving moment, w
ithout duration, in eternal time. By being here as-I-am, (I as this body), I am
moving with it ... I can never be anywhere else but here and it is always now. Y
et I plan for a future and draw upon past experience in order to operate and fun
ction. It is not a a changeless, timeless, eternal, fixed point , for it is a movi
ng, perennial, perpetual, arena that is nowhen in particular and anywhen all at
once.
The dance of causes and conditions can only happen here, not elsewhere, for there
is nowhere else but here for anything to happen at, and no moment but now for an
ything to occur in ... as an actuality.
*
RICHARD: With no I whatsoever to keep one out of this moment in time, one is pure
innocence personified, for one is literally free from sin and guilt.
RESPONDENT: That is very nice. However, I rejected ideas like innocence, sin and
guilt a long time ago. They are mental constructs. The old Zen fogies talk abou
t carrying water, chopping wood, eating when you are hungry, and sleeping when y
ou are tired. Thats your innocence in action.
RICHARD: You are, of course, entirely free to reject them as being mental constru
cts , as it is your life you are living and only you can live the consequences of
whatever you do ... or do not do.
*
RICHARD: As much as one might be sensitively considerate about their suffering,
they cannot be labelled as innocent whilst they remain being human. They are not t
o blame: nobody is born innocent, all humans are already guilty at conception.
RESPONDENT: Now here we have an interesting Christian notion creeping in: all hu
man are already guilty at conception? I am sure that next you will drag in that
slut Eve and put the blame on her.
RICHARD: This comment shows that you have not rejected ideas like innocence, sin
and guilt a long time ago as this is a strong reaction. Incidentally, this old fo
gy merely depresses a lever to obtain instant hot or cold water, watches the aut
omatic heater turn itself up and down, goes to a restaurant when hungry and slee
ps on an orthopaedic bed with an electric blanket under a feather-down doona whe
n sleepy.
Aint technology grand!
*
RICHARD: Fear and aggression and nurture and desire are built into the Human Cond
ition ... this is the human nature that is said cannot be changed. These intrinsic ur
ges and drives are known as the instinct for survival.
RESPONDENT: Fear and aggression arent intrinsic (if they were, you wouldnt have be
en able to overcome them) they are produced causally. Some of the causes predate
an individuals birth.
RICHARD: I beg to differ. All creatures are born with the instinct for survival,
which manifests itself as fear and aggression ... which gives birth to a rudime
ntary self (which those people who study these things have reported observing in
the animals they studied) and this is known, in humans, as The Human Condition. T
hus nobody is born innocent which means free from sin and I use the word sin becau
se fear and aggression combine to form malice ... which is another word for Evil.
Hence my usage of the expressive phrase all humans are guilty at conception. And for
as long as a person can become angry, hateful, jealous, envious, spiteful, vind
ictive and so on and so on, they are guilty.
And, yes, it is possible to not only overcome them but to eliminate them entirely.
Then one is free to act appropriately according to the circumstances ... and no
t out of an instinctual reaction. Instincts are not set in stone, they are simpl
y blind natures way of ensuing survival. With our thinking, reflective brain we can
improve on nature in this respect, as we have done in so many other ways. Any i
nstinctual drive can be eradicated.
Where you say some of the causes predate an individuals birth , you are not hinting
at those hoary myths of pre-determination or re-incarnation, surely?
*
RICHARD: Therefore it is never boring; it is ever-fresh; I am never boring ; I a
m ever-fresh. I have never been here before; everything is happening for the ver
y first time ... I am happening for the very first time. This is what I mean by:
the perpetual purity of this moment of being alive and: innocence prevails where t
ime has no duration. Because I am ever-new, I am automatically innocent.
RESPONDENT: O.K. overlooking the contradiction of being ever-new with the idea of
time having no duration [when you introduce comparative notions like ever new then
you have also introduced a past time], how do you maintain a sense of continuit
y? How do you answer e-mail in a coherent sense, if you are happening for the fi
rst time right now, and right now, and right now?
RICHARD: Is there still a need to over-look the ever-new bit in light of my explan
ation above? And, of course I answer E-Mail coherently for I fully acknowledge t
ime as being a fact. As this specific moment has never happened before, so too h
as this specific body called Richard never happened before ... everything is con
stantly changing. Thus I like this moment am ever-new, fresh, unique, peerless,
original, unrivalled, matchless and novel. Thus I this new I of this moment can
say, quite validly, I am happening for the very first time. The I that appeared to e
xist over time was a mental/emotional construct ... or as I am inclined to say:
A psychological entity that endures through psychological time. Whereas I have n
ever been here before. ... and neither has this moment.
It is all very priceless.
No. 07
RICHARD: No, I am not telling fairy tales . The past did happen and the future wil
l happen ... it is that they are not actual now. Only this moment is actually ha
ppening now.
RESPONDENT: To whom is this moment happening ?
RICHARD: To what, not whom. I am these sense organs: this seeing is me, this heari
ng is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this
thinking is me. Whereas I, the entity, am inside the body: looking out through my e
yes as if looking out through a window, listening through my ears as if they were
microphones, tasting through my tongue, touching through my skin, smelling through my
nose, and thinking through my brain. Of course I must feel isolated, alienated, alon
e and lonely, for I am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ... the w
orld as-it-is.
RESPONDENT: When someone says the future doesnt exist, he is most likely making a s
emantic point, because the future is forever receding from us; it never catches
up with us.
RICHARD: When one is no longer interested in dismissing something as being seman
tics and actually sets to and starts to uncover just what is actually going on,
one discovers that the future, when it inevitably comes, as it must, is always p
resenting itself as this moment. Far from forever receding from us , this moment i
n time is the previous moments future ... as an actuality. When you wrote this EMail to me, you anticipated my reply ... which then lay in your future. As you a
re now reading that reply, then what was previously only a future for you is hap
pening now ... at this moment.
Great fun this business of altering a mind-set to meet the fact, is it not?
*
RICHARD: The change I have been describing in myself was a happening wherein the c
ause and effect occurred simultaneously, rather than consecutively ... as is the
normal course of events. The way this is experienced is that one can not differ
entiate between me doing it and it happening to me. It is an exquisite event, by any
cription.
RESPONDENT: So you went from X to not-X (or vice versa) via quantum leap?
RICHARD: I appreciate the phrase quantum leap because it seems to explain an appar
ently mysterious phenomenon. However, it is a description of the enlightenment p
rocess wherein I vanish from one place and miraculously re-appear in another. With
a quantum leap ones normal I an illusion is transmogrified into a grand and exalted
a delusion which is identified as being the Eternal Self existing Beyond Time and S
pace.
Anything else than being here and now as this body only exists solely in an enth
usiastic imagination; enthused by me, by any being at all. Any intuition of being is c
reated and sustained by emotive thought ... it is the egocentric fear of not bein
g that gives rise to the notion of a myself. Any fear of the death of me is an irrati
onal reaction to the apparent demise of an enduring psychological entity. The dea
th of me is a non-event; I do not actually exist in the first place. There is no actu

al me to either die or to have Eternal Life.
Something irrevocable happens inside the brain. In an ecstatic moment of being p

resent, I expire. I am extirpated, rubbed out. I cease to exist, permanently. I becom
xtinct. There is a sensation inside the brain that appears to be a physical turni
ng over of some kind ... something that can never, ever, turn back. Something irr
evocable happens and everything is different, somehow, although everything stays
the same. Something has changed, although nothing has happened. My demise was as
fictitious as my apparent presence. I have always been here, as this body; one onl
y imagined that I/meexisted.
It was all an emotional play in a fertile imagination.
RESPONDENT: Richard, dear. I was being sarcastic and/or ironic in regard to your
concept of already guilty at conception. It struck me as an unhelpful kind of con
cept for one like you. Please explain what you mean.
RICHARD: I deliberately used the expressive phrase guilty at conception (and elsewhe
re Born in Sin) because I am currently writing to a western audience. When I write
to people raised in the eastern tradition I write ignorant at conception and Born
in Maya. I do this because I wish to prompt the reader into actually looking at t
he facts of the human condition. The human condition is characterised by malice
and sorrow ... both of which are intrinsic to the self, which comes out of the i
nstinct for survival that humans are born with. One can not become free of anger
, hatred, jealousy, envy, spitefulness, vindictiveness and so on, without elimin
ating sorrow and malice. One eliminates sorrow and malice by extirpating the sel
f ... which is only a psychological/psychic entity anyway. But as it has its roo
ts in the instincts which we are born with its hold upon the body is tenacious,
to say the least. Understanding the mechanics of humane and inhumane behaviour c
an only be efficacious if the source of all distress is located.
Hence: guilty at birth (or Born in Maya)
*
RICHARD: The instinct for survival manifests itself as fear and aggression.
RESPONDENT: Wrong. Fear and aggression is a human interpretation of value free b
ehaviour. A lion does his lion thing we call it aggression.
RICHARD: Animal behaviour is not value free . When a lion does its lion thing we do
not just call it aggression ... it is aggression. [Oxford Dictionary]: aggressio
n: the act of beginning a quarrel or war; behaviour intended to injure a person o
r an animal. I am sure that you will find that numerous studies have been done th
at clearly demonstrate that animals are subject to both fear and aggression. I h
ave watched many, many television nature documentaries for this very purpose and
have always made sure that I was not being misled by anthropomorphism.
Incidentally, you wrote: his in a lion does his lion thing. Lionesses are also aggre
ssive. Sexism? Or merely a slip of the tongue?
*
RICHARD: It is possible to ... eliminate the instinctual drives entirely. Then o
ne is free to act appropriately according to the circumstances and not out of an
instinctual reaction. Instincts are not set in stone, they are simply blind natu
res way of ensuing survival.
RESPONDENT: Show me how you eliminate your hair from growing. Some behaviours an
d emotions are hormonally driven. How do you regulate hormones? Can you tell me
how you make your fingernails grow? How your heart pumps?
RICHARD: Where you write about hair and fingernails growing and the heart pumpin
g you are dragging in a red-herring. I was talking of instinctual drives like fe
ar and aggression, not genetic features such as chromosomes.
It is scientific research that demonstrates a connection between hormones and em
otional behaviour ... and it is scientific research which has located emotions a
s being in what is popularly called the Lizard Brain. With a mutation in there the
Substantia Nigra is the organ I favour as being the seat of consciousness hormo
nes have no emotions to evoke. I, being male, presumably have testosterone circu
lating throughout this body ... yet I do not experience malice and vindictivenes
s, fear and aggression, hatred and anger, callousness and indifference and so on
. Those emotions and all others have ceased to exist.
It is actually possible to be perfect ... in this life-time.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista16.htm
here now time infinite universe death animals/humans harmless as belief (vegetar
ian Hinduism non-violence) peace survival instinct humility Ancient Wisdom spir
tual agnostic equals belief
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 |
No. 01
RICHARD: This is the only moment that I am actually alive. All past mes and all fu
ture mes have no actuality at all. I am only ever here, now.
RESPONDENT: This sounds like the mental state of a dog or cat or horse or chimp
etc. It always seemed to me that the Zen type of existing totally in the moment
was like an evolutionary regression. Birds and fish achieve this mental state qu
ite well and effortlessly.
RICHARD: So, are you actually here some other time than now, then? How do you ma
nage to do that? Prestidigitation? Or befooling yourself? Why do you deny a fact
? What is the point of refusing to see the obvious and live in an illusion? And
why is the fact of only ever being here now as an actuality somehow linked, in w
hat can only be a derogatory manner, to the mental state of an animal? As far as
human beings can ascertain, animals can not think and reflect as we do ... for
example: having a history to discuss with other animals and compare notes. Or: b
eing aware of their impending death and talk about that with their compatriots i
n an effort to understand life, the universe and what it is to be an animal? Oth
er people before you on this list have tried to compare me with animals ... to n
o avail. It is, if you will excuse me being frank, silly to the extreme. No dog
or cat or horse or chimp or bird or fish, etc., can operate this keyboard and pu
t words together like I do. It is nonsensical to dismiss something another write
s so cavalierly.
Also, I am on record as saying emphatically that there is not the slightest trac
e of religiosity, spirituality, mysticism or metaphysicality in me whatsoever, s
o to liken what I write about to the Zen type of existing totally in the moment is
an error. I do not subscribe to any Zen tenets at all, for Zen is a religion, w
hen all is said and done ... and I do not live in the moment . I have been writing
about I, the self and me the Self ceasing to exist totally. There is this flesh-and
-blood body only ... there is no I/me in this body. How then can this be translated
as living in the moment if there is no I to do so? I do write in English words, you
know, and they quite clearly convey what my experience of life is to one who tak
es to time to read what they actually say ... instead of jumping to pre-conceive
d ideas about what is written and rushing to the keyboard to come up with the sa
me-same stuff that others have done before you.
But then again, maybe you have not been following the thread and are unaware of
all this.
RESPONDENT: As
I am very much
id in the past
of completing
far as living in the moment is concerned; in writing this E-Mail

focused in the present moment while cognisant of what has been sa
about the subject Im addressing and my progression toward the goal
my thoughts and this post.
RICHARD: Oh, so you are cognisant of what has been said in the past about the sub
ject ... so what then is your excuse for acting as if you do not know what I writ
ten about these subjects before?
*
RICHARD: Of all the hamburgers I have ever eaten or will ever eat, only this one
actually exists. This hamburger and I and all that is around and about me at th
is moment are it what we are living for. To experience this moment in time and t
his place in space fully is the whole point of existence. I am the universe expe
riencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being.
RESPONDENT: Ah, when we get into the realm of reflection then, I believe, we are
not entirely engrossed in the moment at hand. Reflection requires one to be som
ewhat removed from the experience. Reflecting on an event and being totally imme
rsed in one cannot coexist.
RICHARD: There is no I within this body to be either engrossed or removed. I was t
alking of apperception, wherein I am temporarily in abeyance, and there is only th
is body happening at this moment. Apperception, according to the Oxford dictiona
ry definition, is when the mind perceives itself. Not I perceiving my mind ... the m
ind perceiving itself. This is not a thoughtless state like those spiritual peop
le advocate, for the brain is patently capable of thinking its own thoughts. The
refore reflection is not only possible, but is a delight ... for there is no I in
there messing things up with its petty worries and demands. There is no I to be tot
ally immersed , hence no problem regarding reflection. It is the brain thinking a
nd reflecting, not an I.
*
RICHARD: Only this moment exists. This moment has no duration.
RESPONDENT: Then how can it exist ?
RICHARD: By being here now.
*
RICHARD: This physical universe is infinite and eternal. It has no beginning and
no ending ... and therefore no middle. There are no edges to this universe.
RESPONDENT: But there are boundaries to the universe and it is finite.
RICHARD: Ah, I see that you believe in the latest cosmological theories ... mayb
e those regarding the big bang and the big crunch? They are only theories, you k
now, not fact. They are based on mathematical models ... which require increasin
gly frantic coefficients to prop up their postulations. No scientist has ever ac
tually seen their expanding boundary of the universe through a telescope ... nor h
as anyone ever been there and come back with a souvenir teaspoon embossed with Gr
eetings From The Edge Of The Universe.
There have been many people throughout human history who have hypothesised about
the universe having a beginning and an end to make it fit into their cosmogonic
al model without any success. It was Mr. Albert Einstein, if I remember correctl
y, who came up with the fatuous observation that if one shone a torch out into s
pace it would eventually shine on the back of ones head! Some early Greeks had th
e earth supported by their gods shoulders Atlas while the Hindus had it supported
on four elephants standing on a turtles back swimming in the cosmic ocean ... or
some such thing; Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene was a flat earth god ... and so on. Su
ch is the stuff of genius.
All the while, of course, the universe has remained both infinite and eternal.
*
I will skip your next four observations as they were only sarcastic attempts to
perhaps achieve some notoriety as being a wise-cracking one-liner of the Mr. Bob
Hope ilk. Unfortunately they did not have the redeeming feature of being at all
funny ... and did nothing to contribute to an intelligent two-way discussion an
d a sharing of experiences about life, the universe and what it is to be a human
being living in the world as-it-is. To wit:
1. Kinda like your post. 2. When Im out of time I wont be around to worry about it. 3.
You mean their mouths? 4. More insidious than, for instance, waiting in line to si
gn up for welfare?
*
RICHARD: But then again, I am by nature cunning and deceitful. I will do anything bu
t face the fact of my own demise. With my psychological death, however, comes release
from the fears of physical death. All of the unnamed terrors surrounding death a
rise from apprehension as to what will happen to me as a being. I regard death with
equanimity; when it happens I will welcome it as I do the oblivion of deep sleep
each night. Like sleep, it is an agreeable actual occurrence.
RESPONDENT: Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage. Rage against the dying o
f the light so wrote Dylan Thomas. Fear of death is life preserving and is part o
f our instinct to survive and precedes any apprehension of what will happen to me a
s a being. That apprehension is merely a psychological afterglow of the instinctive
fear.
RICHARD: This is a bit at odds with your earlier statement: our human instinctive
behaviour is proving ruinous to the planet and so we need to be able to conscio
usly amend our ways or continue ruining things.
Personally, by the extirpation of the self and the Self I have eliminated all of
those debilitating instincts which blind nature endowed me with at birth. Conse
quently I experience that I am more free than a bird on the wing ... being total
ly without the instinctual fear and aggression, for example, I find that my life
is blithesome and gay. Having abolished malice and sorrow forever, I am both ha
ppy and harmless ... and will be for the remainder of my days.
*
RICHARD: The search for meaning amidst the debris of
s and dreams and schemes has come to its timely end.
nce or separation between me and my senses and
o be the senses as a bare awareness is apperception,
ence of the world as-it-is.
the much-vaunted human hope

With the end of me, the dista
thus the external world disappears. T
a pure consciousness experi
RESPONDENT: Again, I believe, this is how other animals naturally exist.

RICHARD: Are you seriously suggesting that animals search for meaning? That they
have dreams and schemes? That their sense of self albeit a rudimentary one at t
hat can come to an end? That they can have an experience of apperception a pure
consciousness experience and then set out to achieve the goal of self-lessness?
Are you for real? Or are you pulling my leg and I have obligingly risen to the b
ait?
I look forward to a more fruitful discussion on these matters.
No. 02
RICHARD: The extinction of I in any way, shape or form ensures the elimination of
every single anti-social urge or impulse let alone behaviour in action thus free
ing oneself to the enjoyment of the harmless pleasures of life. Like eating a ha
mburger if that is ones predilection. Rape is not harmless. This is all pretty ba
sic stuff ... can you raise your level of debate a bit, please?
RESPONDENT: Neither is eating a hamburger. Just ask the cattle.
RICHARD: Actually, I was talking about having eliminated malice what is commonly
called evil from oneself in its entirety. That is, the dark side of human nature
which requires the maintenance of a good side to eternally combat it. By doing the
impossible everybody tells me that you cant change human nature then one is automa
tically harmless ... which does not mean abstaining from killing. It means that
no act is malicious, spiteful, hateful, revengeful and so on. It is a most estim
able condition to be in.
As for killing cattle: the very fact that one is alive means consuming nutrients
... and staying alive means that something, somewhere, must die in order to sup
ply these nutrients. This is a fact of life ... and the marvellous thing about a
fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belief, an opinio
n, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny a fact prete
nd that it is not there but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and dec
ision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom having the freedom
to choose but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvious, and in
seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising over the Rig
ht and Wrong judgment. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only action.
When it comes to the consumption of nutrients there are many and various beliefs
one can hold dearly to. There are people who will not eat red meat at all ... o
nly white meat and fish. Then there are people who will not eat any flesh of war
m-blooded animals at all ... only fish and reptiles. Then there are people (vege
tarians) who will not eat any meat at all, but will consume eggs and dairy produ
cts. Then there are people (vegans) who will eat only vegetables, grain and seed
. Then there are people (fruitarians) who will only eat fruit. Then as we go int
o myth and fantasy there are those who live on water and air ... and finally tho
se who live on air only!
As in regards to asking the cattle : Some vegetarians maintain that as a carrot (f
or example) does not scream audibly when it is pulled from the ground there is n
o distress caused by the consumption of vegetables. Yet the carrot indubitably d
ies slowly by being extracted from its life-support system the ground is its hom
e and is this not distressing on some level of a living, growing organism? It al
l depends upon the level, or degree, of aliveness that one ascribes to things. Veg
ans, for instance, will not consume eggs as this prevents an incipient life from
being born. Fruitarians go one step further and say that, as the consumption of
carrots prevents them from going to seed and sprouting new life, vegetables are
to be eschewed entirely. Then, as the eating of grain and seeds also prevent po
tential life-forms from growing, they will eat only the flesh of the fruit that
surrounds the kernel and plant out the embryo plant-form (I have been a fruitari
an so I know full well what I am speaking of).
The obvious fact is clearly demonstrated by taking all this to its ultimate cons
ideration. What will one do as a fruitarian causing no pain or the taking of lif
e of anyone or anything about those pesky things like mosquitoes, sand-flies, co
ckroaches, rats, mice and other vermin that invade my house? Put up screens? What
about outside? Will I slap them dead ... or just shoo them away? What will one d
o if attacked by a snake, a crocodile, a shark, a lion and so on? Do as the Reve
red Scriptures say and turn the other cheek? Will I humbly submit to my fate and
be mauled severely myself or even killed simply because of a religious injuncti
on, a moral scruple, a noble ideal, a virtuous belief, a passionate opinion, a d
eeply held ethical theory? In other words, have animals and insects been given t
he right, by some inscrutable god, to do with me whatsoever they wish? Is my sur
vival dependent upon the non-existent benevolence of all those sentient beings t
hat I am not going to cause distress to?
What then about germs, bacteria, bacillus, microbes, pathogens, phages, viruses
and so on? Are they not entitled to remain alive and pain free? If one takes med
ication for disease, one is possibly painfully killing off the microscopic creat
ures that ones body is the host too. Some religions the Jain religion in India, f
or example has its devout members wearing gauze over their nose and mouths to pr
event insects from flying in and they even carry small brooms to sweep the path
as they walk so that they will not accidentally step on some creature. It can re
ally get out of hand. For instance, small-pox has been eradicated from the world
by scientists as a means of saving countless human lives ... is this somehow Wro
ng? What is Right in regards to what I do in order to stay alive? If I do none of t
hese things then I will be causing pain and suffering to myself ... and I am a s
entient being too. It is an impossible scenario, when pursued to its ultimate co
nclusion.
And then there is the matter of ones fellow human beings. Some of them in fact at
times a lot of them are desirous of invading the country that one is living pea
cefully in, with the avowed intent of killing, torturing, raping, pillaging and
subjugating oneself and ones fellow citizens. If one holds a strong and passionat
e belief in not causing any pain and suffering to other sentient beings then one
must be more than a fruitarian ... one must be a pacifist as well. This amounts
to hanging out a sign if everybody else in the country one lives in adopts this
specific belief which says, in effect: Please feel free to invade us, we will no
t fight back, for we hold firmly to the principle of not causing pain and suffer
ing to any sentient being whatsoever (the Tibetan situation is a particular case
in point). Thus anarchy would rule the world ... all because of a belief system
handed down by the Saints and the Sages, the Messiahs and the Avatars, the Redee
mers and the Saviours, the Prophets and the Priests, century after century.
All this is predicated upon there being an enduring I that is going to survive the
death of the body and go on into the paradisiacal After-Life that is my post-mort
em reward for being a good person during my sojourn on this planet earth. It is I who
is the believer, it is I who will cause this flesh-and-blood body to go into all man
ner of contorted and convoluted emotion-backed thoughts as to what is Right and wh
at is Wrong, what is Good and what is Bad. If it were not for the serious consequences
of all this passionate dreaming it would be immensely humorous, for I am not actu
al ... I am an illusion. And any grand I that supposedly survives death by being Time
less and Spaceless, Unborn and Undying, Immortal and Eternal am but a delusion born o
ut of that illusion. Thus any After-Life is a fantasy spun out of a delusion bor
n out of an illusion ... as I am so fond of saying.
When I am no longer extant there is no believer inside the mind and heart to have an
y beliefs or disbeliefs. As there is no believer, there is no I to be harmful ... on
e is then free to not eat meat, or eat meat, as the circumstances permit. It is
an act of freedom, based upon purely practical considerations such as the taste
buds predilection, or the bodys ability to digest the food eaten, or meeting the s
tandards of hygiene necessary for the preservation of decaying flesh, or the ava
ilability of sufficient resources on this planet to provide the acreage necessar
y to support the conversion of vegetation into animal protein. It has nothing wh
atsoever with sparing cattle any distress.
If you have followed this discussion thoroughly you will have seen for yourself
that avoiding eating cattle is born out of holding on to a belief system that is
impossible to live ... as all belief systems are. I am not trying to persuade y
ou to eat meat or not eat meat ... I leave it entirely up to the individual as t
o what they do regarding what they eat. It is the belief about causing harm by eat
ing cattle that is insidious, for this is how you are manipulated by those who s
eek to control you ... they are effectively beating you with a psychological sti
ck. And the particularly crafty way they go about it is that they get you to do
the beating to yourself. Such self-abasement is the hall-mark of any religious h
umility ... a brow-beaten soul earns its way into some gods good graces by self-c
astigating acts of redemption.
Holding fervently to any belief is a sure sign that one is being controlled.
No. 03
RICHARD: Why is the fact of only ever being here now as an actuality somehow lin
ked, in what can only be a derogatory manner, to the mental state of an animal?
RESPONDENT: All Im saying is whats the big deal about being here now if thats the o
nly place there really is to be? Also, the heightened conscious state that you a
nd others talk about seems to me to be more of a mindless state that I associate
with other animals.
RICHARD: The big deal about being here now which means to be without an I in any way
, shape or form is to be living in perfection. One has eliminated malice and sor
row by eliminating the self, the identity, thus one is happy and harmless. The b
enefits are, of course, enormous: not only is one living a life free of sadness,
loneliness, grief, despair and depression leading to suicide in some cases ther
e is the social benefit of peace on earth. This means no more wars, murders, tor
tures, rapes, domestic violence or child abuse. It means a life of ease and enjo
yment forever ... akin to what might be described by some as heaven on earth.
This does not sound to me at all like the mindless state associated with other an
imals .
*
RICHARD: As far as human beings can ascertain, animals can not think and reflect
as we do.
RESPONDENT: Right, they think and reflect as they do.
RICHARD: Your facetiousness betrays a stubborn refusal to face facts ... to the
detriment of yourself and others.
*
RICHARD: There is this flesh-and-blood body only ... there is no I in this body. H
ow then can this be translated as living in the moment if there is no I to do so?
RESPONDENT: Okay, so youre not living at all. Fine.
RICHARD: Now your sarcasm shows a certain stupidity about facing facts ... to th
e detriment of yourself and others.
*
RESPONDENT: Then how can it exist?
RESPONDENT: What is it exactly that is being here now?
RICHARD: This moment in time.
*
RESPONDENT: We can see that galaxies are speeding away from one another. We can
see back in time to when the universe was just a young thing. We see that stars
die while new ones are born. The universe evolves. What is infinite is eternal.
What is eternal does not evolve. Therefore the universe is not infinite. However
, what makes the universe possible may indeed be something of an infinite, etern
al nature.
RICHARD: Now I understand ... you believe in a Creator God. Of course, for you,
the universe can not be infinite because a god is infinite ... and you can not h
ave two infinities. Therefore you chose belief over fact. Oh well, so it goes.
Also, we do not see that galaxies are speeding away from one another , scientists se
e a red-shift occurring which indicated, as Mr. Fred Hubble postulated in 1934 (if
my memory serves correct) that the galaxies were moving apart. He later (1939??
) questioned his own hypothesis (hypothesis: unproved theory, educated guess). Hum
ans can not see back in time to when the universe was just a young thing because n
o one can see into the past. There are mathematical models that have created the
belief among most cosmologists that the universe was once created by a Big Bang .
.. but it is a belief only. They too believe in Creation ... a belief which colour
s their thinking (or rather, their imagination, for none of their speculation is
factual).
Yes, stars do die and new ones are born ... and spectacularly at that. But the u
niverse does not evolve ... it is the contents of the universe that are born and
die and evolve. The universe itself is infinite and eternal ... properties that
you (and the cosmologists) attribute to an unknowable divinity.
*
RESPONDENT: Our instincts for self-preservation, aided by our brain power, are i
n the process of gobbling up the planet. This does not contradict the fact that
the instinct for self preservation, manifested in the fear of death, is life pre
serving. I brought this up to point out that that was behind your apprehension as
to what will happen to me as a being. The instinct is for self preservation and th
e propagation of the species without bound. There is no instinct for preserving
the environment. Or for preserving life in general. Once we connect our survival
to the preservation of the environment then our instinct for self preservation
might be enlisted on behalf of all our interconnected ecosystems.
RICHARD: Our instinct for self-preservation, by gobbling up the planet , can hardl
y be succeeding in its designated task of being life-preserving if it is as you po
int out in fact destroying the environment and the eco-system. This instinct whi
ch is put in place by blind nature is what is leading humans to their eventual e
xtinction as a species. Blind nature is not at all concerned about our survival,
either as an individual or as a species, it is only concerned with the survival
of the fittest. These blind instincts, which served us well in the primitive st
age of life, are now detrimental to our well being and can and should be dispens
ed with.
It is also our instinct for self preservation which has led to so many wars. Har
dly a salubrious state of affairs I would say. However, the elimination of self
in its entirety is the automatic elimination of instincts which are not set in c
oncrete thus global peace on earth is highly possible ... unless, of course, peo
ple continue to believe that some fictitious god is going to step in and save us
all from ourselves.
We are on our own ... our future prosperity is entirely in our own hands.
RESPONDENT: Animals have no self to begin with as a human has self. As I see it
a bird a dog or a cat look out on the world and see it for what it is. They dont
question what they see. They dont question their motives, or appetites, or second
guess their actions, they live and experience life unfettered by the introspect
ion that humans are capable of. Therefore, I think this affords them a pure cons
cious experience of the world in terms of their particular existence. Or, to app
ly your words, there is no separation between an animal and its senses. They are
their senses as a bare awareness, a pure consciousness experience of the world
as-it-is.
RICHARD: Obviously you can not remember having had a pure consciousness experien
ce, for if you did you would know that it is not at all like how an animal exper
iences itself. Animals experience a full gamut of emotions and passions includin
g fear and aggression and rage and anxiety and longing ... which is hardly the s
tuff of a pure consciousness experience. Animals do not have peace-on-earth and
never will until they develop the ability to think and reflect and most importan
tly act sensibly about their situation. But, then again, they would probably als
o start off wasting this ability by believing in some metaphysical entity who is
going to do all the work for them about saving themselves ... some big Mummy or
Daddy up in the sky who will step in and look after them.
They would probably also consider themselves to be mature adults!
No. 04
RESPONDENT: Perhaps your post is about resolving your own inner conflicts (I kno
w, you dont have any, uh, I mustve forgot) But I cant see how it all was instigated
by my remark. I didnt say there was anything wrong with eating meat just that it
was not a harmless thing to do. I am a carnivore and while not apologetic about
it I find a certain amount of humility in the fact that another living thing is
butchered for my benefit. That another animals life becomes my life I am gratefu
l to that animal. I can enjoy eating a steak as a celebration of life, of its in
terconnectedness, its interdependence, its very existence.
RICHARD: You are right in that I do not have any inner conflicts, the post was f
or any others clarification and edification. It was easily instigated by your rema
rk because yours was a remark typical of the hypocrisy of people weeping crocodil
e tears over animal butchery ... all the while millions of their fellow humans a
re slaughtered in terrible wars whilst they personally do nothing about the root
cause. I, with my malice and sorrow am that cause.
So you are humble about eating a steak ... and grateful to that animal , eh? As I
am sure that the animal can not appreciate your gratitude and humility, then the
se feelings must surely be arising in order to assuage and pacify your extant fe
elings of culpability and guilt at a guess, that is or maybe some other feelings
, whatever they are. Otherwise why the gratitude and humility ... to say nothing
of the typical New Age lecture on celebrating life, being interconnected, and s
o on?
RESPONDENT: Now, a couple of your remarks from the above paragraphs: [Richard]: A
s for killing cattle: the very fact that one is alive means consuming nutrients
... and staying alive means that something, somewhere, must die. It is the belie
f about causing harm by eating cattle that is insidious, for this is how you are m
anipulated by those who seek to control you. Youre saying here that eating cattle
doesnt have anything to do with the fact that theyre killed? And its only a belief
that any harm is done to a particular steer so you can eat No. 15s hamburger with
such gusto?
RICHARD: Quite frankly, I fail to understand how you can get eating cattle doesnt
have anything to do with the fact that theyre killed out of what you copied and pa
sted of my writing. I see that I wrote that something, somewhere, must die . That
sounds to me that I am aware that eating cattle has a lot to do with them being
killed. What is your point?

And no, it is not that it is only a belief that any harm is done ... because, as I
wrote: the very fact that one is alive means consuming nutrients ... and staying
alive means that something, somewhere, must die. It is the elimination of malice
and sorrow from oneself that renders one harmless ... not refraining from eatin
g meat. It is the belief in non-violence called ahimsa in India that is insidiousl
y harmful, for it gives the appearance of absolving the I from culpability about a
ll the suffering on earth. And the erroneously absolved I lives to see another day
, only to wreak its havoc on this otherwise magnificent planet that we all live
upon. And if one does not have that particular belief, then they have to resort
to feeling gratitude and humility towards the dead animal ... an exercise in fut
ility that also allows the I to get away with its continued mischief.
I will do anything to survive.
No. 05
RICHARD: Otherwise why the gratitude and humility ... to say nothing of the typi
cal New Age lecture on celebrating life, being interconnected, and so on.
RESPONDENT:
a long way
s of many a
Amazing how
Im not really at all familiar with New Age stuff. And you can go back
and find a reverence for life and its interconnectedness in the myth
primitive people. But youll probably look down on their wisdom, too.
such an enlightened being can be so condescending!
RICHARD: But the whole New Age stuff is but a re-hash of all the discredited stuff
that goes back a long way ... there is nothing new about New Age stuff , it is all
about finding a reverence for life and its interconnectedness in the myths of man
y a primitive people. That is what New Age is ... it is the Old Age, actually.
Of course I look down upon their wisdom ... their wisdom has had thousands of year
s to demonstrate its efficacy and has failed miserably. There is no peace on ear
th, even after all this while of very earnest peoples, throughout the centuries,
assiduously practicing the tried and true which promises but never delivers Peace
On Earth. Just take a look at the news on television or the headlines in any ne
wspaper. There are as many wars, murders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence inc
idents and child abuse now as there was then ... not to forget all the sadness,
loneliness, grief, depression, despair and suicides. The tried and true has a lot
to answer for ... it is the tried and failed.
And I am not an enlightened being ... let alone condescending . I am pointing out th
e facts and actuality of what is going on and what has been going on, that is al
l.
*
RICHARD: And no, it is not that it is only a belief that any harm is done ... beca
use, as I wrote: the very fact that one is alive means consuming nutrients ... an
d staying alive means that something, somewhere, must die. It is the elimination
of malice and sorrow from oneself that renders one harmless not refraining from
eating meat.
RESPONDENT: What does malice and sorrow have to do with eating meat? (You go off
on so many tangents.) And you can eliminate malice and sorrow all you want, but
it does not change the fact that life is interconnected. And to be aware of tha
t fact might not do anything for a particular steer but it gives one a healthy p
erspective on the nature of things so one would not be apt to mindlessly decimat
e other life forms out of false feelings of superiority and/or the false belief
that they are expendable without consequence to ourselves.
RICHARD: The elimination of malice and sorrow renders one harmless, so it is not
a tangent, it is germane to the discussion. The whole thing about not eating me
at comes from that non-violence trip ahimsa in India about trying to be harmless by
not killing anything ... all the while being malicious and sorrowful in feeling
and thus thought. Merely suppressing the deed (being non-violent) does not exonera
te one from being a harmful person ... it merely makes one look that way from th
e outside. Inside, one may be churning away with barely suppressed anger and rag
e ... or grief and resentment or whatever. There invariably comes a time when th
e non-violent vegetarian can restrain themselves no longer and they burst out in a
paroxysm of raging violence or whatever which they will later regret, of course
, and in tearful and heartfelt remorse probably ask their god for forgiveness ..
. but it is too late, for the damage has already been done. A non-violent person i
s not harmless, for they can not be trusted, if provoked enough, to remain calm
and harmless.
As for the fact that life is interconnected ... well that is the problem, is it no
t? Humans are all connected via a psychic web a network of invisible vibes that le
ads to incredible power-trips between competing members of society. A person may
be nice to your face, for example, but the intuitive feeling is that they hate
your guts ... this is the interconnectedness in action. It is a powerful force a
n energy that seeks to control by psychic manipulation and leads to the most horri
fic consequences ... as has been the sorry demonstration of history. The elimina
tion of the psychic entity I the self as an ego and a soul is the ending of interc
onnectedness. One is then, for the first time, a free individual beholden to no
one ... and free from both being controlled and being a controller. In other wor
ds, one is happy and harmless ... by having extirpated malice and sorrow complet
ely. The enlightened people merely transcend malice and sorrow they sit above it
in a cocoon of love and compassion and never eliminate them. And so the wars go
on ... and on and on.
I do not have a false feeling of superiority towards animals: I am superior. And t
hey are indeed expendable without the slightest trace of consequence to ourselves
(apart from the dependence we have on being a part of a healthy ecological foodchain, which can be easily maintained with a little more research and thought).
I have already written about all the killing that we do anyway in self-defence .
.. mosquitoes, sand-flies, cockroaches, rats, mice, snakes, crocodiles, sharks,
lions, germs, bacteria, bacillus, microbes, pathogens, phages, viruses and so on
. It is impossible to be harmless by being non-violent. The belief in non-violence i
s one of the most pernicious and insidious beliefs that one can hold, for it cre
ates the illusion that one is harmless when one is not.
RESPONDENT: Im glad you have a place where you can go off and disappear. I wish I
did. Until then Im stuck with myself and my relation to the rest of the world.
RICHARD: I do not have to have a place where I can go off and disappear for I am h
appy to be here all the time ... here and now. It is I, the parasitical self, that
needs to go off and hide from time to time, for it is an alien ... and it knows
that it should not be here inside the body, wreaking its mischief in disguise.
You say it well: I am stuck with myself and my relation to the rest of the world.
No. 06
RICHARD: The big deal about being here now which means to be without an I in any way
, shape or form is to be living in perfection. One has eliminated malice and sor
row by eliminating the self, thus one is happy and harmless. The benefits are, o
f course, enormous ... not only is one living a life free of sadness, loneliness
, grief, despair and depression leading to suicide in some cases there is the so
cial benefit of peace on earth. This means no more wars, murders, tortures, rape
s, domestic violence or child abuse. It means a life of ease and enjoyment forev
er ... akin to what might be described by some as heaven on earth. This does not s
ound to me at all like the mindless state associated with other animals.
RESPONDENT: First of all your posts would be a lot clearer, simpler and shorter
if you didnt try and second guess everything and over-read into what people are s
aying. I implied that animals have a more limited mind than we do. Not that they
were entirely mindless .
RICHARD: First of all I would like to point out that I did not second guess and o
ver-read into what people are saying because you did not imply that animals have a
more limited mind at all ... you clearly stated: a mindless state that I associat
e with other animals. Yet now you write, with a sublime disregard to what you did
write previously, that animals are not entirely mindless . Of course they are not
... but that is not what you originally wrote.
RESPONDENT: As far as achieving an existence on another plane or the discipline
of a Zen master, no, my dog cant do that.
RICHARD: You see, you may tell me I am second-guessing and over-reading, but wha
t you did say, on the 27 November, was: This sounds like the mental state of a do
g or cat or horse or chimp etc. It always seemed to me that the Zen type of exis
ting totally in the moment was like an evolutionary regression. Birds and fish a
chieve this mental state quite well and effortlessly. Please note that I, for one
, clearly see the word dog in there ... yet now you are saying that your dog can n
ot achieve this mental state quite well and effortlessly . So why not stop trying
to wriggle out of it by accusing me of something I just did not do and admit tha
t you were wrong? Then we can drop this nugatory topic and go on to discuss some
thing of substance.
*
RICHARD: There is this flesh-and-blood body only ... there is no I in this body. H
ow then can this be translated as living in the moment if there is no I to do so?
RESPONDENT: Okay, so youre not living at all. Fine.
RICHARD: Your sarcasm shows a certain stupidity about facing facts ... to the de
triment of yourself and others.
RESPONDENT: No, it shows my inability to understand what youre talking about. Per
haps you could try to explain it better for my enlightenment rather than to ridi
cule me. One expects better from enlightened beings, but maybe thats not fair. Bu
t then, lifes not fair.
RICHARD: I have repeatedly stated that I am not an enlightened being, so why per
sist with this line of argument about how I should respond according to some anc
ient protocol? As for me ridiculing: you see, by not being encumbered with enlig
htenments etiquette, I am thus free to meet sarcasm with whatever is an appropria
te response. And as for me explaining: I had already done so ... the above sente
nce was snipped out of my clear explanation, vis: I do not live in the moment. I ha
ve been writing about I, the self and the Self ceasing to exist totally. There is
this flesh-and-blood body only ... there is no I in this body. How then can this b
e translated as living in the moment if there is no I to do so?. As I was reminding y
ou of what I have already written in this thread which you said that you had bee
n following I rather rashly assumed that you knew that I in little quotes referred
to the psychological entity, also known as the ego or the soul, that lived a pa
rasitical existence within the body ... and had no substance whatsoever. Any ide
ntity as a self (ego) a mental construct backed by emotion is an illusion that n
ormal people (unenlightened people) hold to as being real, and any identity as a
Self (soul) a mental construct backed by passion is a delusion that abnormal pe
ople (enlightened people) hold to as being truly real.
When this identity is seen for what it is, the illusion and delusion disappear,
then there is no I to be living in the moment ... there is only this flesh-and-blood
body being here at this moment in time. When I use the first person pronoun I a
m not referring to who I am the metaphysical entity within but what I am ... this ve
ry physical body only.
*
RESPONDENT: Then how can it exist?
RESPONDENT: What is it exactly that is being here now?
RICHARD: This moment in time.
RESPONDENT: Yeah, okay, thats a nice tautology.
RICHARD: I could not resist ... it was such a tautological question ( what is it
exactly that is being here now? ) that there was no other answer possible. Perhap
s you had better get your dog to ask the questions next time.
*
RICHARD: There are mathematical models that have created the belief among most c
osmologists that the universe was once created by a Big Bang ... but it is a belie
f only. They too believe in Creation ... a belief which colours their thinking (or
rather, their imagination, for none of their speculation is factual).
RESPONDENT: And what makes your speculations factual?
RICHARD: Nothing at all. When I speculate I know it to be nothing but that a spe
culation and I say so. Other people, making speculations, start believing in the
m ... and the action of believing in something somehow makes it appear to be tru
e. They then take this truth to be a fact ... which is the mistake many eminent sc
ientists make. Mr. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, for example, was just th
at a theory and not a description of something actual ... a fact that many peopl
e overlook in their rush to believe in someone elses truth.
*
RICHARD: Yes, stars do die and new ones are born ... and spectacularly at that.
But the universe does not evolve ... it is the contents of the universe that are
born and die and evolve. The universe itself is infinite and eternal ... qualit
ies that you (and the cosmologists) attribute to an unknowable divinity.
RESPONDENT: Again, if something is infinite, by definition, there cant be anythin
g else other than whatever that infinity is. Infinity exists as a unit inseparab
le undifferentiable, unchangeable. Nothing could exist in it that was different
than the whole. But what is it? Do you think that infinity is empty space?
RICHARD: No. I said that the universe which is space and everything in it is inf
inite. That is: infinite empty space and an infinite number of bodies in that empty
space . It is these bodies that are born and die and evolve ... it is matter rearr
anging itself into a different form.
Great stuff, is it not? Personally, I am so glad to be able to be alive and livi
ng in this era wherein all kinds of discoveries have been made which threw off t
he stranglehold religion had upon the Western mind for centuries (people used to
be burnt at the stake for much less heretical writing than what I do). This eme
rging clarity of Western thought has been swamped recently by the insidious doct
rines of the Eastern mind creeping into scientific research ... but I am confide
nt that it is but a passing phase.
It is sobering, however, to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eage
rly following the pundits of the East down the slippery slope of spiritual scienc
e and spiritual philosophy ... thinking that it has nothing to do with religion. Spi
rituality is the religion of the East, thus any wisdom designated True Wisdom trans
lates easily as Gods Word. The trouble with people who discard the god of the West
is that they do not realise that by turning to the Eastern spirituality they hav
e effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. If it were not for the
appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing.
The Christian conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person
to be susceptible to the beguiling philosophies of the East. At the end of the l
ine there is always a god of some description, lurking in disguise, and wreaking
its havoc.
No. 07
RESPONDENT No. 28: We first suppose changes are relative, not absolute to some o
ther state. You dont have an absolute reference (the beginning you claim) where e
verything is set up in an initial position. As I type this E-Mail, I dont need to
go back a thousand years to see something is changing in my screen. Its just tha
t I see changes comparing two states separated by a finite time period.
RESPONDENT: YES, by a FINITE time period. In a finite time period we can see one
thing following another. If time never had a beginning, though, theres really no
point at which to begin to measure time. Infinity, eternity is by definition me
asureless. All time would be the same time with no beginning and no end. At any
point in eternity there would be an eternity of time before and after it. No tim
e could be any different from any other time. There could be no successions, no
series of any kind. An infinity of spacetime means no beginning and no end to sp
acetime. Therefore, no boundaries whatsoever, boundary-less and measureless. An
infinite spacetime is that which always was and always will be at once, at one t
ime everywhere, infinite. One time, one space, indivisible. Infinite spacetime c
ould not increase itself from point A to point B for that would infer a boundary
around spacetime which would invalidate its infinite nature. Infinite spacetime
would in all directions be simultaneously the same everywhere. Actually there w
ould not be any direction at all in an infinite spacetime because each and every
point would be the centre, as each and every point would be surrounded by an in
finity of spacetime. Therefore, no changes could occur in an infinite spacetime
because there could be nothing other than the one infinite spacetime. So spaceti
me must have had a beginning. If there was a beginning to spacetime that would m
ean there was nothing at all preceding it. So, spacetime would then have to proc
eed out of nothing. Nothing does not mean empty space, nor a perfect vacuum. Not
hing means no thing at all. No space at all. No thing. And how could anything ha
ve a beginning in nothing? This is not possible. So, there must be no beginning
to spacetime. Lots of questions. The mystery prevails. Absolute explanations are
a matter of ones Faith. There is no logical necessity for one particular Faith o
r another. Though there might be a logical necessity for having faith, for const
ructing a belief system.
RESPONDENT No. 28: Now, consider changes being absolute to something. The only t
hing we could take as absolute is Everything, Infinity, Truth, call it whatever,
for we (not you) believe there is no beginning.
RESPONDENT: I have no problem with whatever you may or may not believe. Whatever
you believe to be the truth is true for you. My point is that there is no logic
al necessity to what one believes as some have maintained there is. The problem
is that what one believes to be the truth one must believe it to be the absolute
truth. But if one believes that, what matter if I do not, or anyone else does n
ot, see it. You may look upon us a poor unfortunate lost souls and thats just fin
e with me. Again Im not arguing with what anyone believes but only with the logic
of it. If its ones belief that their Faith does have a logical necessity to it t
hen one has the burden of proving that. And so far nothing here has yet convince
d me of that logical necessity. If anyone has a positive logical argument absolu
tely proving the infinite nature of things, that is, an argument which does not
rely on disproving the possibility of a finite universe in order to posit an inf
inite one, please post it.
RICHARD: Shall I summarise what you are saying for clarity? Vis.:
1. So, spacetime must have had a beginning. 2. So, there must be no beginning to sp
acetime. 3. Lots of questions. The mystery prevails. Absolute explanations are a m
atter of ones Faith. 4. There is no logical necessity for one particular Faith or a
nother. 5. Whatever you believe to be the truth is true for you. 6. My point is that
there is no logical necessity to what one believes as some have maintained ther
e is. 7. If its ones belief that their Faith does have a logical necessity to it the
n one has the burden of proving that.
As I see it, you are adopting a stance of not being able to know certain things
( the mystery prevails ) because, as you maintain, there are some things that just
cannot be known with an absolute certainty ( absolute explanations are a matter
of ones Faith ). You state that anyone claiming to definitely know these things mu
st be holding a belief ... you state categorically that it is a matter of faith
for them ( whatever you believe to be the truth is true for you ). As I understand
it, someone with your position, vis a vis the hard questions, is called agnostic ..
. given that the definition of the word agnostic is that such a person believes th
at the subject under discussion can not be known one way or another (gnostic can a
lso mean undecided). The people I have met personally, over many years that I have
discussed these matters, who embrace this position have invariably been firmly
convinced that this course of inaction is the intelligent approach ( my point is
that there is no logical necessity to what one believes as some have maintained
there is ). Mostly they have been academics ... it is a variation on that hoary a
dage: he who says he does not know, really knows. I guess it makes them feel intel
lectually comfortable.
Being agnostic about something believed unknowable whilst satisfying to an intel
lect desiring to maintain that there is no logical necessity to what one believes
amounts to supposition. You can not know, as an absolute certainty, that there a
re some things that are unknowable. Such a stance is, in itself, a postulate (just
try saying: I believe it is unknowable and then try saying: I know it is unknowabl
e ... and you will get my point). Therefore, you fit your own criterion for other
s where you classify them as believers. If you are scrupulously honest with yourse
lf intellectually and logically then you will experience what it feels like to h
ave a logical necessity to what one believes . For you, it is logically necessary
to believe that there are some things that are unknowable.
Therefore, as you said in point No.7 above: if its ones belief that their Faith doe
s have a logical necessity to it then one has the burden of proving that , it beh
oves you to prove that your faith does have a logical necessity to it. I, for on
e, can see its logical necessity ( so, spacetime must have had a beginning versus s
o, there must be no beginning to spacetime ) ... but as I am not at all impressed
by such abstract logic, I call it a cop-out to be agnostic as a logical necessi
ty. Please, I am not nit-picking or trying to trip you up: for something like tw
enty five years I was agnostic and it is an apparently satisfying position to be
in ... until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself. I was cleverly
shuffling all the hard questions under the rug and going around deftly cutting th
e believers down to size (which is all so easy to do). But I had nothing to offer
in its place other than it is unknowable and I puzzled as to why this was so. Fina
lly, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to fi
nd out for myself all about life, the universe and what it is to be a human bein
g.
I now know.
RESPONDENT: If anyone has a positive logical argument absolutely proving the inf
inite nature of things, that is, an argument which does not rely on disproving t
he possibility of a finite universe in order to posit an infinite one, please po
st it.
RICHARD: Simple. As you have so aptly demonstrated the limitations of the highly
revered abstract logic when it comes to dealing with absolutes may I suggest yo
u deal only in facts and actuality and not in illative comprehensions ... which
are but a product of the minds imaginative faculties. The brain is quite capable
of seeing for itself without imagination; in fact without the I that sense of self
which is but a psychological entity that gives birth to vivid fancy and fantasi
es it does the job a whole lot better. Rid yourself of the I that is currently inh
abiting your body as a centre around which everything revolves which manufacture
s edges into the bargain and you will apprehend for yourself that this physical
universe has no boundaries either in space or time (or spacetime if you wish to be
lieve in the current theories that are held by the physics community to be true)
. It is I that creates the impression of finiteness ... and then challenges others t
o prove them wrong. There is no such thing as a physically finite universe; it i
s I who creates this impression in my mind ... I can only think in terms of duality. T
o think logically is to think in terms of opposites ... and logic is limited ina
smuch as it cannot encompass infinitude. Therefore, it is up to those who propos
e an edge, a boundary, a beginning or an ending to demonstrate the veracity of t
heir belief. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless,
limitless, immeasurable infinitude.
With no I to mess things up you will understand apperceptively that physically, an
d thus factually, this actual universe has no inside as there is no outside. Therefo
re there is no centre (no middle) and thus, with infinity, somewhere as a place
is no where (nowhere) in particular. There is no measurement possible with infinit
e space, for there is no reference point (an edge) to compare against. Living on
planet earth, humans measure space in comparison to the localised distance betw
een here and there. It is this measurement that is relative, not the universe. He
re is, as a fact, anywhere in infinity.
So is it too with time. As there is no beginning and end to time, there is no mi
ddle. Now as a fixed point has no when (nowhen) in particular (it is whenever we hum
ans agree to make it). There is no measurement possible in eternity, for there i
s no reference point (before a beginning) to compare against. Living on the plan
et earth in localised daylight and darkness, humans measure time in comparison t
o the period between now and then. It is this measurement that is relative, not
time. Just as here is anywhere in infinity, so too is now anywhen in eternity.
Thus, just as we humans living on this planet are moving from nowhere to anywher
e in infinite space, so too are we coming from nowhen and proceeding to anywhen
in time. As it is any measurement that is relative, not the substance of space a
nd time, consequently, when I, the psychological entity called the self, disappear
s as a measurer (a reference point), measurement ceases to be a reality and the
actual becomes apparent. Then, and only then, is one being alive here as an actu
ality in space and living now as an actuality in time.
None of us are coming from somewhere or going anywhere for we are always here an
d it is already now. We are never not here and it is never not now. Where else c
ould we be but here? When we move from here to there, as we are moving we are always
here ... and when we arrive there, we are here. Similarly when else could it be b
ut now? As we wait for then to become now, while we are waiting it is always now ...
and when then arrives, it is now.
Being alive is ambrosial, to say the least.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista20.htm
immortality death celibacy the way of pleasure is a wide and wondrous path not e
xcluding half of the population
RESPONDENT: How can immortality deserve to be in oblivion!
RICHARD: Because it is but a belief ... and it is a belief that prevents one fro
m being here at this moment in time where purity and perfection abound. Being he
re which can only happen when I, the psychological entity within, abdicates its th
rone enables one to be happy and harmless for, along with the I goes sorrow and ma
lice. Without malice, there is no war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence
and corruption that is so endemic ... it is intrinsic to the human condition. Wi
thout sorrow there is no sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that
is such a global incidence ... it is also inherent to the human condition.
Immortality is but a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion. I thi
nk and feel that I am so important that I must live forever. It is a pernicious beli
ef with its roots buried deep in self-importance and self-aggrandisement. It is
where conceit meets arrogance and become meekness and humility ... and seeks its
post-mortem reward.
Thus, for me, Immortality has been banished to the oblivion it deserves.
RESPONDENT: I believe, as I think No. 3 does too, that unless you can convey you
r message to others ... it doesnt profit you to say or write anything. That only
in learning the art of communication can your words be worth a fig to anyone els
e.
RICHARD: Okay ... I will endeavour to improve upon my communication skills by re
straining my eloquence (what a pity, for I kind of fancied it). Is this post any
better so far?
RESPONDENT: It has been shown that the female is
the activating essence to create a life without
rstand such offspring are generally female. This
eated the extreme paternalistic dominance of the
.. how does the male ego handle the fact that he
capable of creating the ova and

any male being involved. I unde
could be the very thing that cr
past few millennia ... I mean .
is biologically redundant?
RICHARD: I do not know how a male ego handles the fact that he is biologically r
edundant for I do not have one. Also, I had a vasectomy many, many years ago bec
ause I was not interested in procreating and adding to the population explosion
... so I do not mind at all being redundant.
RESPONDENT: To state these things as nothing other than being in a state of denia
l. Is a sweeping generalisation which shows little depth or thought. There are ma
ny good reasons for the separation of the sexes ... and most of them have to do
with the powerful nature of sexual attraction. In my experience if there is any
restriction in a religion it is because of manipulation by the power structure, or
as a preparation for a return to this condition at a higher point in the spiral
.
RICHARD: Nevertheless, I do still consider that it is being in a state of denial b
ecause, back in my spiritual years, I was celibate for nearly five years (along
with many other austere practices) and I would look down when urinating and thin
k: Is that all these parts are to be used for?. Eventually I decided to forego my
puritan path and embark upon the way of pleasure. Instead of being Straight and n
arrow is the path to God, the way of pleasure is a wide and wondrous path, full o
f enjoyment and delight. And it does not exclude half of the population ... whic
h I consider is definitely being in a state of denial.
I did give the matter a great depth of thought ... and the results have vindicat
ed my decision.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE

=====
index.htm
On Mailing List A
Respondent No. 1
Respondent No. 6
Respondent No. 11
Respondent No. 16
Respondent No. 21
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 7
Respondent No. 12
Respondent No. 17
Respondent No. 22
Respondent No. 3
Respondent No. 8
Respondent No. 13
Respondent No. 18
Respondent No. 23
Respondent No. 4
Respondent No. 9
Respondent No. 14
Respondent No. 19
Respondent No. 24
Respondent No. 5 | A |
Respondent No. 10
Respondent No. 15 | A |
Respondent No. 20
Respondent No. 25
Respondent No. 26

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved.

=====
lista09.htm
ethnic orientation violence beliefs naivet children are not innocent the impositi
on of social mores are essential something entirely new must come into existence
| 01 | 02 |
No. 01
RESPONDENT: The list has too much activity and I do not wish to bring such disor
der to my mailbox. I noticed a post here recently that suggested the list be use
d to post topics and people could interact directly. This would reduce the traff
ic for whom ever that may be relevant. I am presently keen to explore the topic
of ethnic orientation and violence but would correspond on other aspects of life
as well.
RICHARD: Ethnic orientation and violence ... the two would seem to go hand-in-hand
, would you not say? And has it not got a lot to do with beliefs and the action
of believing itself? And does it not all believing stem from separation? I see,
first of all, that there is a separation of male and female from each other by g
ender identification as man and woman two distinct social identities leading to a lo
calised discontent and resentment, causing the battle between the sexes.
Then there is the separation of oneself by being a me, a psychological identity fr
om ones body and therefore from the world about, leading to a generalised discont
ent and resentment, causing wars between tribal groups. To end the separation is
to end the violence. To end the separation, can one not whittle away at all the
social mores and psittacisms: all the beliefs, ideas, values, theories, truths,
customs, traditions, ideals, superstitions ... and all the other schemes and dr
eams? One can surely become aware of all the socialisation, of all the condition
ing, of all the programming, of all the methods and techniques that were used to
produce what one finds oneself to be ... a wayward ego and soul careering aroun
d in confusion and illusion. I see that a mature adult is actually a lost, lonely,
frightened and cunning entity inside the body.
However, it is never too late to start in on uncovering and discovering what one
actually is under all the beliefs ... do you not think so?
Do not beliefs come in from another person, or persons, starting from day one as
a new-born baby? Mother and Father or a substitute parent require the child to
conform to the already existing world of fact and fiction. Through actions and w
ords, carrots and sticks, the child is taught to believe until it is sufficientl
y indoctrinated, having made these beliefs their own truths. The child can not com
pare these beliefs with anything outside of their environment, because they do n
ot know there is an outside ... so they have no reason not to swallow the entire
package, this whole reality.
This process is called socialisation and results in forming the social identity;
a process which may take, perhaps, up to twelve years to complete. All this whi
le the child has learned, by trial and error, reward and punishment, precept and
example with endless repetition how to feel afraid, secure, loved, disliked, gr
eedy, proud, lonely, etcetera ... no matter what culture one is born into. Human
kind is now sufficiently programmed into believing that this what human beings a
re is human nature and it cannot be changed ... we are all stuck with it. Such is
the extent of believing. What one can do, however, is ask oneself whether one wa
nts to continue to live an illusory life? Following blindly in the footsteps of
ancestors is to perpetuate fiction over fact, as being the only way to live.
One has taken on their beliefs and made them ones own ... their beliefs are who o
ne is. Ones image of oneself is a totally borrowed picture ... which one believes
to be ones very identity. It is what one thinks and feels one is as me. Does one w
ish to continue to defend an illusion? Family ties, tribal customs and national
mores all contribute in the making of ones identity. Religious beliefs, ideologic
al creeds and cultural values all go to cement the psychological make-up of ones
very real self. Ones identity is what one has adopted as being me. How much longer
does one wish to go on defending someone that is not me? How much longer does one
want to go on living in pathos as a group member ... which is what a social enti
ty is.
If one thinks and feels that this identity is me as I actually am, then I must bel
ong to a group. Out of loneliness I must have a sense of belonging. This culturall
y created psychological entity that I identify as is always lonely for it is an al
ien, a fictional creation of the group, who can not exist outside of the group m
entality. But what about me as-I-am? Stripped of the identity, I can be never lo
nely, for I am complete, sufficient unto myself. Loneliness is as fictional as t
he identity that has been created as me by all those other lonely entities which w
ere here before one arrived as a baby. One has made it ones own and called it me.
Whereas, by being me, me as I actually am, I can never be a belief.
No. 02
RICHARD: Ethnic orientation and violence ... the two would seem to go hand-in-han
d, would you not say?
RESPONDENT Are you suggesting that ethnic orientation would not exist without id
entification and any form of identification, not seeing what you are actually, f
ree from identification, is violence?
RICHARD: Yes, this is my experience. I was born in Australia, of a British-born
father and a first-generation Australian mother from an English background. Thus
I was raised to believe that I was, literally, an Australian-born citizen ... b
ut with British blood! (Blood is blood ... is this not all ridiculous!). However
, as an infant, a child, a youth and then a man, I was unable to discriminate fa
ct from fiction. I had no terms of reference that I could use as a standard to j
udge by as every single human being on this planet was not simply a flesh and bl
ood body ... but an ethnic human being. Thus, as I wrote in my previous post, I bo
ught the whole package. Hook, line and sinker.
As I slowly started to unravel the mess that humankind was in by unravelling it
in me, I discovered a second layer under my ethnicity ... I was a man, and not simply
a flesh and blood body.
Under that lay a further layer. It took me years and years of exploration and di
scovery to find out that I was a me a being and not simply a flesh and blood body.
There, and only there, was the root cause of violence. By identifying as a me, a p
sychological entity was able to possess this body. It is not unlike those Christia
ns who are said to be possessed by an evil entity and require exorcism. Only thi
s possession was called being normal. Therefore, (if I may be a touch melodramatic
) every human being is thus possessed by an alien entity; for me ... a walk-in was i
n control of this body!
RESPONDENT If there were no need to identify, ethnic orientation would merely fa
ll away?
RICHARD: Yes. There is no such thing as an Australian, an American, a German, a Japa

nd so on. All the wars; all the blood-shed; all the appalling misery is because
of the absurdity of identification. But not just ethnic orientation, as I have a
lready said above.
RESPONDENT The world has tremendous subtle violence going on then doesnt it? (I h
ope I do not sound too naive).
RICHARD: No, you are most definitely not too naive. It is the cultured sophisticat
es that cause and have caused such untold damage on this fair earth. Naivet is a
beneficence ... it is what I got in touch with to enable me to steer my way thro
ugh the maze of conditioning ... a conditioning that stretches back into antiqui
ty. Naivet is the closest thing one has got to an actual innocence ... one can re
ly much more upon it to see ones way clearly than one can rely upon the most prof
ound thought or the most sublime feeling. No matter how lofty the thought or dee
p the feeling, unless one is nearly innocent, one will never succeed.
As I said, naivet is the closest thing we have to innocence. The fabled innocence o
f children is just that: a fable. A childs so-called innocence turns out to be no m
ore than a trusting gullibility, a preparedness to believe out of ignorance. Chi
ldren are not innocent (literal definition: free from sin). Infants and children a
re not as happy and harmless and benevolent and carefree as is so often made out
to be the case ... and have never been so. They have malice and sorrow firmly e
mbedded in them, for one is born with instinctual fear and aggression. Just watc
h a one month old baby bellowing its distress at being alone; just watch a one y
ear old pinching its sibling in spite for taking its toy; just watch a two year
old stamping its foot in a temper tantrum; just watch a three year old child fig
hting with its peers for supremacy.
One must ask: where in all this is the fabulous innocence ... an innocence which m
ust have peace and harmony and tranquillity in it for there to be peace-on-earth
? The imposition of social mores moral virtues, ethical values, honourable princ
iples, decent scruples and the like are essential to curb the instinct-born spit
eful anger and vicious hatred that are part and parcel of the essential traits o
f being a sentient being. A Golden Past has never existed at any period, or at any
stage, of development. To achieve a truly golden age, something entirely new mu
st come into existence. All peoples must cease being. To change Human Nature, (which
everyone says cannot be changed) one must give-up, voluntarily, ones cherished i
dentity ... the self one was born with.
It is an amazing adventure we are all on.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista23.htm
energy-soul infinity here time apperception ASC purpose in life perfection
| 01 | 02 |
No. 01
RESPONDENT: I recently went through your dialogue. My reflections are as follows
.
RICHARD: I am only too pleased to respond to your reflections ... I will answer
point by point as a detailed account of the views expressed are essential if one
is to comprehend the vast difference between an altered state of consciousness
such as Spiritual Enlightenment and an actual freedom wherein there is a conditi
on of pure consciousness.
RESPONDENT: (1) Law of conservation of Energy states that Energy can neither be
created nor be destroyed .
RICHARD: If you went through my dialogue you will have noticed my comments regardi
ng capitalisation: [Quote]: anyone who uses capitalisation is referring to someth
ing that is Sacred, Holy, Hallowed, Divine, Heavenly, Sanctified, Sacrosanct, Ot
herworldly and so on. In other words: God. [End quote]. As you have capitalised t
he word energy , I take it that you are referring to some god, by whatever name. A
s you are therefore attempting to mix science and religion, your observation doe
s not mean anything factual at all.
RESPONDENT: (2) As long as the person is alive the body is in activity. However,
when the energy is no longer able to activate the body due to malfunction of th
e body, the body perishes. (Like in a computer the electricity is no longer able
to activate it if the hardware fails).
RICHARD: Now that you are using a small e for energy, I take it that you mean the
animating energy that determines that a body is alive and breathing. As this ene
rgy is dependent upon the cellular structure of the body being in an active phas
e, not in entropy, then when the body dies, this energy dies with it. That is it
. Finish.
RESPONDENT: (3) Even when the body perishes the energy continues to be!!
RICHARD: Not so, as I explained above. You are referring to some metaphysical en
tity like a soul, or some such thing, which survives the death of the body. Any su
ch entity is clearly a psychic projection of the psychological entity that is kn
own as the self which, not being actual, wishes to perpetuate its apparent existen
ce for all eternity. This is but a delusion born out of an illusion. The self, w
hilst being real sometimes very real is not actual.
RESPONDENT: (4) This energy is called the Soul, the Atman, the Self etc. etc.
RICHARD: Yes, I know it is called by these names. These are all metaphysical con
cepts and have no facticity whatsoever. The apparent existence of a soul require
s belief ... and etymologically the word believe means: to fervently wish to be tru
e.
RESPONDENT: (5) However while the energy is in the body due to ignorance we iden
tify ourselves with the body not with the Atman.
RICHARD: It is ignorance (that is, ignoring a fact) to identify with the Atman (an
Indian religious concept). It is sensible to understand that I am this body.
RESPONDENT: (6) The word religion is derived from Latin. Re means back, again. Legare
means to bind, to unite. Etymologically speaking religion means that which binds
one back to the origin.
RICHARD: So, some people like to believe that their origin is some god. The fact
is that my origin was an ova and a spermatozoa uniting.
RESPONDENT: (7) The purpose of religious teaching is to remove the Ignorance: I a
m the Body.
RICHARD: The purpose of religious teaching is to brainwash people into believing
nonsense instead of facts and actuality. I am this body; I am the sense organs:
this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me,
this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas I, the psychological entity
, am inside the body: looking out through my eyes as if looking out through a wind
ow, listening through my ears as if they were microphones, tasting through my tongue
, touching through my skin, smelling through my nose, and thinking through my brain. O
f course I must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for I am cut off from th
e magnificence of the actual world the world as-it-is.
Of course I must invent a god to seek union with so as to end my loneliness and so
rrow.
RESPONDENT: (8) We as humans are an evolved being but not yet evolved to underst
and many things. A dog for example may not understand many things we as humans d
o.
RICHARD: It is true that a dog does not understand as many things as humans do.
But why do you bring evolution into what is basically a religious discussion tha
t you are having? Does your god want you to spend millions of years evolving jus
t so that you can come to understand that you are god? What sense does that make
? To condemn you to countless rebirths of suffering and sorrow caused by an in-b
uilt ignorance that only evolution can undo sounds suspiciously like a very sick
god, to me.
RESPONDENT: (9) Can you tell me how far the space around us extends. Can that sp
ace end somewhere? If so what is beyond that?
RICHARD: Space is infinite, so it extends indefinitely. As it is infinite, it ca
n not end somewhere. As it does not end, there is nothing beyond the universe. I
t is I who, being a fiction, desires Immortality to perpetuate my real existence for
all of Eternity thus secretly despising this body and this physical life and it
is I who, being a central figure in my scheme of things, proposes that there is an
outside to this material universe. There is not. This universe has no edges ...
which means that there is no centre either. With no centre to existence we are n
owhere in particular. Being here, as an actuality, is to be anywhere at all, for
infinity is everywhere all at once.
RESPONDENT: (10) Can you tell me how we came in to being? (Did the chicken come
first or the egg ?)
RICHARD: We came into being through sexual intercourse, which unites the ova and
the spermatozoa. The embryo thus formed by the rapid doubling of this first cel
l spends nine months being nourished in the womb. Then one is born into the phys
ical world of sensual pleasure and delight.
As for the hoary question of the chicken and the egg scenario so beloved of peda
nts ... it is predicated upon there being a beginning to the universe. The unive
rse, being infinite, had no beginning and has no end. This means that there is n
o middle either. Thus we are already here in space and it is always now in time.
RESPONDENT: (11) Can you tell me how far you can go back in time? 1000 B.C.? One
Million B.C.? Before that what ?
RICHARD: Time is eternal; you can go back forever. However, why not try being he
re ... where this moment is happening? By letting go of the self the I that one ho
lds so dear then one is being here as-I-am, in the actual world. Being here as-I
-am is to be blithe and gay, for life is a delightful adventure in itself. I do
not have to do anything to get a thrill for it is thrilling to realise, each momen
t again, that I am actually here. I am fresh, ever-new ... I have never been her
e before. All that is happening is happening for the first time. Never before in
human history has this particular moment occurred, so of course it is exciting.
There is no way of knowing what will happen next how much more stimulated can o
ne be than this? Yet there is an utter safety in all this, for in the actual wor
ld nothing can go wrong. The actual world is epitomised by a perfection that is
unassailable ... whatever happens is appropriate to the circumstances. Being her
e as-I-am enables one to be aware of the grand scheme of things, and everything
falls into place. A vast understanding, beyond normal human comprehension, is in
stantly available to one who is genuine. This actual world is rich and vital in
all its happening. I am the universe experiencing itself in all its splendour an
d magnificence. It is abundant, bountiful, luscious ... I luxuriate in being her
e, so fantastic is it to be alive, to be me as I actually am.
RESPONDENT: (12) As one of the Hindu Saints said: Why are we wasting time in anal
ysing and arguing all this discover the Self in you!!
RICHARD: Many of the Hindu Saints have discovered the Self ... and they are expo
rting their nonsense to all those gullible peoples in the West who are eager for
mystical experience. The trouble with people who discard the god of Christianit
y is that they do not realise that by turning to the Eastern spirituality they h
ave effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality
is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the west have been
raised to believe in. And it is of no use to protest that Hindu spirituality is
not a religion for I have been to India some years ago and studied Hinduism for
myself. It is those bits about realising oneself to be That, by whatever name, th
at sounds so convincing to the Western mind that is desperately looking for answ
ers. The Christian conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking pe
rson to be susceptible to the insidious doctrines of the East. At the end of the
line there is always a god of some description, lurking in disguise.
RESPONDENT: (13) Everyone at all times is performing an activity knowingly or un
knowingly to keep himself or herself happy and as long as we seek this happiness
identifying ourselves with this body the happiness can only be temporary since
the body dies and is reborn every moment. (Like you). And also seeking happiness
through the body will abide by the law of nature where every action has equal a
nd opposite reaction. Pleasure is followed by Pain.
RICHARD: I beg to differ: Happiness is permanent because this body dies and is born
every moment. Time has no duration when the immediate is the ultimate. This mome
nt takes no time at all to be here. It is as if nothing has occurred, for not on
ly is the future not here, but the past does not exist either. If there is no be
ginning and no end, there is no middle. There are things happening, but it is as
if nothing has happened or will happen. Only this moment exists. This moment ha
s no duration, it takes no time at all to occur which gives rise to the inaccura
te notion that it is Timeless. This is an institutionalised delusion, for it stems
from the egocentric feeling that I am Immortal, that I am Eternal.
Apperception reveals that this moment is hanging in time, it is in a realm of it

s own. This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetually here for the ter
m of my natural life as this moment is; I am not Eternally Present. What creates t
he feeling that the present is timeless is that human beings are normally out of
time. Yet time is intimate. It is so intimate that I am not separate from it. W
hereas I, as a human, have separated myself from time by being. Being is to mistakenl
ake this body being here as containing an I, a psychological entity. To be is to tak
e this moment of being alive personally as proof of my subjective existence. I am an
illusion; if I think and feel that I do exist, then I am outside of time. I am forev
complaining that there is not enough hours in the day, or I am always running out o
f time, or I am always catching up with time, or I am always behind time.
With no I whatsoever to keep me out of this moment in time, I am pure innocence pe
rsonified, for I am literally free from sin and guilt. I am untouched by evil; n
o malice exists anywhere in this body. I am utterly innocent. Innocence, that mu
ch abused word, has come to its full flowering in me. I am easily able to be fre
ely ingenuous noble in character without any effort at all. The purity of being
alive at this moment in time is so unlike the strictures of morality whereupon t
he entity struggles in vain to resemble the purity of the actual inasmuch as int
egrity is bestowed gratuitously. I can live unequivocally, endowed with a natura
l grace and dignity, in a magical wonderland. To thus live candidly, in arrant i
nnocence, is a remarkable condition of excellence.
This moment of being alive has never happened before and will never happen again
. It is unique. As it is always this moment already, everything is immediately p
eerless. Therefore it is never boring ... it is ever-fresh ... I am never boring
... I am ever-fresh. I have never been here before ... everything is happening
for the very first time ... I am happening for the very first time. Because I am
ever-new, I am automatically innocent. Innocence prevails where time has no dur
ation.
The perpetual purity of this moment of being alive actually endows perennial hap
piness.
RESPONDENT: (14) So, discover the Self in you through meditation, through contem
plation, and thou shalt realize the Self in you and that Self alone is real.
RICHARD: The Self may be real, but it is not actual. You will have noticed by no
w, surely, that I have no intention at all of meditating and realising The Self in m
e. I did that back in 1981 and remained stuck in the Altered State of Consciousn
ess called Enlightenment, Nirvana, Samadhi, Satori and so on, for eleven years.
That was accomplished by dissolving the ego. In 1992 I dissolved the soul in a l
ike manner and thus The Self disappeared along with it. Nowadays, I have no identi
ty whatsoever ... and it is a constant delight to be here, free from malice and
sorrow. I am happy and harmless.
RESPONDENT: (15) If someone asks me to prove this I am as lost as I would be to
convince somebody how sweet tastes and that it tastes good. These are all but ex
periences.
RICHARD: It is all right I know the taste of sweet for I was living in Heavenly
Bliss, Love Agap and Divine Compassion for eleven years. I had arrived. I had bec
ome Awakened to the Greater Reality in 1981. I was Heavenly Bliss, Love Agap and Di
vine Compassion ... there was no separation between me and The Absolute. I had a
Divine Sense of Mission to spread The Word and I embarked on fulfilling my Sacred
Duty, gathering some disciples on the way, until 1984. Then I started to question
just what I was doing and just what had happened to me. Something seemed to be
wrong ... this had all been done before by other Masters and Messiahs, Saints an
d Sages, Avatars and Saviours, to no avail. In fact, instead of bringing Love an
d Peace, they had left in their wake much bloodshed and hatred ... and I was one
of them! Accordingly I travelled to India to find out for myself exactly what w
as amiss with this whole Enlightenment business by meeting some of these hallowe
d Gurus and imbibing the centuries of Eastern Spiritual Tradition for myself, in
stead of merely reading about it in books.
It was to take me eleven years to get out of this massive delusion I was living
in and go beyond it to arrive at where I am today. It was eleven years of coming
to terms with the understanding that what I was living was megalomania a Delusi
on of Grandeur and that it was what every human being believed in, in some way,
shape or form ... but that is another story. Today, I am no longer an Enlightene
d Master living in an Exalted State of Being ... I am me-as-this-body only, a fe
llow human being who has no sorrow or malice whatsoever to transcend; hence I am
both happy and harmless.
It is a most estimable condition to be in.
January 02 1998
RESPONDENT: Thank you for long, patient feedback on my reflections. Can I have y
our views on what you think is the purpose of this life on earth as a human bein
g?
RICHARD: The purpose of life on earth as a human being is to understand that I,
as this body, am not separate from the universe. One is, after all, made up of t
he very stuff of the universe ... and I mean this as a physical actuality. The v
ery material that this body is constituted of is the material of the universe on
e did not come from outside of it and be randomly placed in here by some god for som
e mysterious purpose that is not up to humans to fathom. It is possible to fully
know the Mystery of Life to such an extent that one is completely satisfied and f
ulfilled. Nothing more needs to be done other than to live it each moment again
and to enjoy and appreciate it all fully and totally. The utter purity of this p
erfect understanding and the living of it defies imagination and is impossible t
o believe. All of ones wishes and dreams are answered ... and more. It is the ad
venture of a lifetime to embark upon a voyage of exploration and discovery; to n
ot only seek but to find. And once found, it is here for the term of ones natural
life it is an irreversible mutation in consciousness. Once launched it is impos
sible to turn back and resume ones normal life ... one has to be absolutely sure
that this is what one truly wants.
The reward for going to the very end of illusion and delusion is to emerge unsca
thed and to find oneself actually being here for the very first time. The benefi
ts of doing all this are beyond price ... the immediate bestowal of universal pe
ace upon oneself resulting in thus ushering in the possibility for a global peac
e-on-earth is the benefit most worthy of acknowledgment. Yet, rewards and benefi
ts notwithstanding, to have reached ones destiny is to be of the ultimate service
possible the universe has been able to fulfil itself in me, a human being. Fina
lly there is an intelligence operating unimpeded ... blind nature has been super
seded. There is, most assuredly, not an Intelligence behind the universe, as is co
mmonly supposed. To entertain such a notion is to commit the vulgar error of ant
hropomorphism. Intelligence abides only in humans and the free operation of this
intelligence is constantly being thwarted by the parasitical psychological enti
ty known as me. I am an identity, a being, a presence that interferes with the smooth
nning of life. I create everyday reality and it is a grim business to live in this
reality, with only scant moments of reprieve. With the dissolution of I the self
in its entirety reality vanishes and this actual world of perfection and excelle
nce becomes apparent.
Actual perfection and excellence is free. It is the freely available bonus of da
ring to be me. Freeing myself of Self-Realisation, which manifests as me being The Se
lf that exists for all eternity in a Timeless and Spaceless realm the Greater Realit
y was the last step into actuality. Everyday reality was an illusion and the Great
er Reality was a delusion born out of the illusion. Unadorned I stand on my own;
more free than a bird on the wing and cleaner than a sea-breeze on a sweltering
summers day. To be me is to be fresh, each moment again. Owing nothing to no one
I am free from corruption perversity has vanished forever. Unpolluted as I am by
any alien entity, my thoughts and my deeds are automatically graceful. Goodwill
, freed of social morality, comes effortlessly to me for all internal conflict i
s over. I am gentle and peaceful in character. All this comes as no surprise for
it is what humans have all long suspected to be the case. This universe, this p
hysical world humans all live in, is too big in its grandeur, too neatly complex
in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure for humans to
be eternally doomed to perpetual misery. Surely, no one can believe for a moment
that it is all fated to be forever wrong. This is a tremendous universe in all
its workings this physical world humans live in is magnificent, to say the least
.
I do not need the stimulation of frenetic busyness to enhance my day with a self-i
nduced sense of importance. I no longer have to justify my existence here on ear
th by doing and achieving something that is considered worthwhile by the denizens
of the real world. Being here fully here is the summation of all existence; nobo
dy is going anywhere, anyway, for one is already always here. This universe is o
penly being here in all its splendour and magnificence and I am simply being at
this moment in time where only actuality exists. The perfection endowed by the i
nfinitude of all space and time is such a remarkable occurrence that nothing mor
e needs to be done other than to enjoy it through-and-through each moment again.
This experience of being here is the experiential apperception of the much soug
ht-after meaning of life. So what more could one ask for? Nothing is a mystery any
more; there is no riddle to be solved nor any puzzle to be unravelled for all i
s open to view. Because of the sheer infinity of the universe I can never be bor
ed or restless ... each moment is packed so full of the pleasure of being here t
hat I do not have time for reverie or speculation. Other than the essential phys
ical planning required for the smooth running of my day-to-day activities I have
no idea at all as to what I want to do with my life. This constant realisation
is ambrosial.
One can realise that one is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and re
flective human being.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista24.htm
death afterlife belief postponing feeling Reality universe actual freedom bod
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 |
No. 01
RICHARD: Physical death is the end. Finish.
RESPONDENT: Funny, arent you the same Richard who is so not into beliefs? But thi
s sounds suspiciously like a belief to me.
RICHARD: A fair enough question ... but easy to understand with a little reflect
ion. It is the psychological entity within the body the I that projects a perpetua
tion of itself even unto an After-life. Just like all Gods and Goddesses are but a
projection of self, so to is Immortality. This is what is a belief, not the stateme
nt: Physical death is the end. Finish.
As there is no I anywhere whatsoever inside this body, I can experience and thus k
now as a fact that there is no actual Immortality in some After-life because there i
s no one here to have it (Immortality) or go into it (an After-life). It is all
but a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion. I think and feel tha
t I am so important that I must live forever. It is a pernicious belief with its roo
ts buried deep in self-importance and self-aggrandisement. It is where conceit m
eets arrogance and become meekness and humility ... and seeks its post-mortem re
ward.
I will do anything to survive.
No. 02
RESPONDENT: You make it sound as if the only alternative to believing that physi
cal death is the end of consciousness were believing that consciousness survives
the death of the body, that is, believing in some form of immortality. But neit
her alternative escapes the status of belief, in its narrow epistemological sense.
I would suggest that there is another alternative, that of a reservation of jud
gment in the absence of conclusive evidence one way or the other. I think such a
reservation of judgment is consistent with faith, which, as existential commitm
ent, transcends both belief and unbelief (in their narrow epistemological sense,
that is).
RICHARD: I write this assuming you did mean to write in its narrow epistemologica
l sense and not in its narrow etymological sense. (I have been recently accused of
doing the latter which disingenuously allows one to avoid having to examine the
action of believing and its dire consequences). As epistemology has to do with t
he validity of knowledge, I am wondering how belief can be considered narrow in an
epistemological sense . Belief is, per definition, not knowledge ... unless we al
low the word knowledge to devolve into including anything at all that anyone would
care to imagine or fantasise about.
Be that as it may, I appreciate that it sounds like I am presenting only two alt
ernatives to believe in, yet I am not. I am consistently urging not only the dis
carding of all beliefs, but to examine and discard the very action of believing
in itself. I only present a refutation to a particular belief in order that a pe
rson may come to see, not only how silly it is, but how dangerous it is to belie
ve at all. I would not want anyone to stop believing in immortality and start be
lieving in death as oblivion ... that would be to swap one belief for another an
d the action of believing remains intact. Where the action of believing remains
intact, the believer the I is supported, affirmed, verified and perpetuated. This is
the primary danger of beliefs (the secondary danger, of course being the result
of a specific belief put into practice out in the world ... for example: Religi
ous Wars and Crusades). Thus to propose a reservation of judgment is to do nothi
ng about the I at all. Being agnostic about something believed unknowable whilst s
atisfying to an intellect desiring to transcend belief and unbelief amounts to yet
another belief (I believe it is unknowable). The question to ask oneself is: Why a
m I procrastinating.
Procrastination allows me to continue to subsist ... and yet I will thus wreak my havo
c in another area. And where you say that a reservation of judgment is consistent
with faith, we are back into the same arena as the action of believing, for fait
h, trust, hope and belief are all part of the same package. The action I am refe
rring to is the passionate involvement required to maintain the synthetic credib
ility of whatever is believed in, or what one has faith in, or what one trusts a
nd what one hopes for. It is impossible to dispassionately believe, dispassionat
ely have faith, dispassionately have hope or dispassionately trust. Anyone who c
laims otherwise does not understand the experiential reality lying under those w
ords. I am, to a large part, an emotional being ... I am, to a large part, made up of
beliefs, values, principles, ideals, theories, traditions, customs, mores and so
on. Belief is an emotion-backed thought ... and not sensible thought at that.
For a start, any belief is nonsensical. By its very nature a belief is not factu
ally true ... otherwise it would not need to be believed to be true. A fact is o
bvious; it is out in the open, freely available for all to see as being correct.
To believe something to be true is to accept on trust that it is so. A fact doe
s not have to be accepted on trust ... a fact is candidly so. A fact is patently
true, manifestly clear. A fact has actual verity, whereas a belief requires syn
thetic credence. It is a fact that I, as this body, am mortal. I will die in due
course ... this heart will stop beating, these lungs will cease breathing, this
brain will quit thinking. The flesh will decompose, if buried, or will be dispe
rsed, if burnt, as smoke and ash. There could be nothing more final, more conclu
sive, more complete, of an ending to me than this. So the belief in Immortality
goes against all the factual, evidential actuality. It must, therefore, have its
roots buried deep in the psyche, to be held so passionately by so many people.
It is not merely the passing whim of a thoughtless few. It is something that peo
ple feel deeply to be true. It is dear to their hearts desire.
Herein lies the clue to ascertain why this fancy has persisted: a feeling is not
a fact. Feelings have led humankind astray for millennia, without ever being qu
estioned as to whether they are the correct tools for determining the correctnes
s of a matter. Feelings are held to be sacrosanct; they are given a credibility
they do not deserve. They are seen to be the final arbiter in a contentious issu
e: Its a gut-feeling, or My intuition is never wrong, or It feels right, and so on. Th
ught, shackled by emotion and passion, cannot operate with the clarity it is cap
able of. At the centre of feelings lies a passionate entity known as the soul. T
he soul, which has no substance whatsoever, is revered as being the seat of me; it
is my essential being. The feeling of being is the impression of being present; it is
the perception of a presence that transcends time and space ... giving rise to th
e improper assumption that I am Immortal. It must be stressed again that all this
is derived from calenture; nothing in this has any facticity. This is because I ge
nerate unfortunate misinformation on account of being. I may be real ... but I am not
actual. Reality is not actuality. Reality is a world-view created and sustained
by emotive thought. This affective vision is a blinkered version of what is actu
al. Time is actual, space is actual ... and any personal interpretation of the a
ctual is an emotional transubstantiation of it into an illusion called reality.
To then transcend this reality is to take a mystical leap into an Other-Worldly
Realm ... a Supernatural Reality.
This Supernatural Reality is always spelt with a capital to denote Divinity. Eve
ryday reality which the Spiritual people call worldly is already an illusion, so a
ny rising above this is to move from an illusion into a delusion. In this delusi
on I feel a Oneness with all of Creation, an intuitive sense of Being. In this intui
tion of Being, I am Timeless and Spaceless ... in other words; Eternal and Infinite.
I have cheated Death itself. When the body dies, I will discard it as I would a suit
of old clothes and live forever in that Transcendental Realm. I will have attained
to My Essential Nature, which is one of Love Agap and Divine Compassion. The Incom
parable Beauty of My Heavenly State is best described as being Ineffable ... which
is to dissemble in such an ingenious way that the gullible cannot help but be i
mpressed by and be in awe of, My Supreme Condition. I have realised Myself as being th
e Absolute, the Supreme ... as being God Incarnate. I have manifested Myself in orde
r to bring My Teachings to humankind.
Remember, all this is a delusion born out of an illusion ... it is all a feveris
h play in a super-active imagination, spurred on by a morbid dread of not being. D
eath is viewed as a calamity, a tragedy. I, being non-material, cannot accept, let
alone embrace, that which is physical, that which is actual. Mortality is a phy
sical phenomenon; it is a fact to be faced and understood. To act otherwise is a
denial of the actual. This universe is so enormous in its scope, so grand in it
s order, so exquisite in its form, that it is sheer vanity and utter insolence t
o presume that what occurs intrinsically to the scheme of things is somehow Wrong.
With an attitude like that, no wonder people hate having to be here on earth. I
t is no wonder that they feel that they have to cope with life whilst waiting fo
r death to release them. It is such a shame that billions of human beings are mi
ssing out on the unadulterated perfection of being fully alive; missing out on r
ejoicing in being here now; missing out on deriving immense pleasure at living t
his moment, here on earth.
This universe knows what it is doing ... to assume that it does not is absurd. T
his universe was miraculously able to give birth to me, it is marvellously capab
le of bearing me and will, eventually, wondrously manage to end me. This is the
physical, actual order of things in this, the only universe there is. There is n
owhere else but here ... and there is no time but now. Anything else than here a
nd now exists only in an enthusiastic imagination ... enthused by me, by any being a
t all. Any intuition of being is created and sustained by emotive thought ... it i
s the egocentric fear of not being that gives rise to the notion of an myself. Any f
ear of the death of me is an irrational reaction to the demise of an apparently en

during psychological entity. The death of me is a non-event; I do not actually exist i
n the first place. There is no actual me to either die or to have Eternal Life.
RESPONDENT: Furthermore, if you make the argument that since there is no I, there
can also be no immortality of the I, you have to accept the argument that since th
ere is no I, there can also be no death of the I. Otherwise, while you might be beyo
nd enlightenment, you would not be very consistent.
RICHARD: Oh, yes ... it is a delicious sensation to be here; I experience myself
as no-one in particular; I am simply a body enjoying this exquisite moment of b
eing alive unimpeded by any self within. Only this moment actually exists, for the
re is no lasting I present which would make the past and future real. The freedom
from enduring over time as the past, the present and the future, leaves one comp
letely able to appreciate the impeccable purity of being here. This appreciation
is the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here and now. This type of
attention is best known as apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aw
are of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not I being aw
are of me being conscious; it is the minds awareness of itself. Apperception is a w
ay of seeing that can be arrived at by pure contemplation. Pure contemplation is
when I cease thinking ... and thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind
, being free of the thinker and the feeler I as ego and soul is capable of immense
rity and purity. All this is born only out of pure intent. Pure intent is derive
d from the PCE experienced during a peak experience, which all humans have had a
t some stage in their life. A peak experience is when I spontaneously cease to be, t
emporarily, and this moment and place is here and now. Everything is seen to be
perfect as-it-is. Diligent attentiveness paid to the peak experience gives rise
to pure intent. With pure intent running as a golden thread through ones life, refl
ective contemplation rapidly becomes more and more fascinating. When one is tota
lly fascinated, reflective contemplation becomes pure awareness ... and then app
erception happens of itself.
With apperception operating more or less continuously in my day-to-day life, I find
it harder and harder to maintain credibility. I am increasingly seen as the usurpe
r, an alien entity inhabiting this body and taking on an identity of its own. Me
rcilessly exposed in the bright light of awareness apperception casts no shadows
I can no longer find my position tenable. I can only live in obscuration, where I
about, creating all sorts of mischief. My time is speedily coming to an end, I can b
arely maintain myself any longer. The day finally dawns where the definitive momen
t of being here, right now, conclusively arrives; something irrevocable takes pl
ace and every thing and every body and every event is different, somehow, althou
gh the same physically; something immutable occurs and every thing and every bod
y and every event is all-of-a-sudden undeniably actual, in and of itself, as a f
act; something irreversible happens and an immaculate perfection and a pristine
purity permeates every thing and every body and every event; something has chang
ed forever, although it is as if nothing has happened, except that the entire wo
rld is a magical fairytale-like playground full of incredible gladness and a del
ight which is never-ending.
With no me inside to mess things up, I can ascertain, with clarity, that there is
no soul inside this body. The soul was a feeling, not a fact. With no soul to qui
t the body at physical death, there is, perforce, nowhere to go to. There is no A
fter-Life; it was all a creation of me and my longings for Immortality. Being here n
ow, this moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetually here, not immortal.
The present has vanished, as did the past and the future, into the mists of my ti
me. With me gone, all myths end.
It is possible to actually know.
No. 03
RESPONDENT: Epistemologists sketch out various theoretical frameworks to account
for all the various elements that relate to knowledge. Almost every epistemolog
ical framework attempts to deal with the nature of belief as it relates to knowl
edge. A definition of knowledge that has become popular in many circles is that
knowledge is justified, true belief. However, belief, as epistemologists use it, o
ften means something very different from what other people intend by it when the
y use the term non-technically. That is why I like to distinguish between belief
in its narrow epistemological sense which usually means something like cognitive a
ssent to the truth or falsity of a proposition (e.g., based on a judgment of prob
ability) and belief generally, which can have quite a broad range of meanings, f
rom trust, to opine, to hope, to think, to be-almost-sure- but-not-quite.
RICHARD: So under the various theoretical frameworks I gather that the word knowled
ge has now come to mean justified, true belief . I wonder just what, to these theor
ists, constitutes an unjustified, false belief. As a belief is not a factual obs
ervation in the first place, it must drive them crazy trying to decide which bel
ief is true and which belief is false ... and which one to justify. I am glad th
at I stick to facts and actuality ... it is so much easier.
RESPONDENT: It is certainly dangerous to believe falsely. However, it is equally
dangerous not to believe correctly. For example, if I didnt believe I had a body
, I wouldnt see any reason to eat, and would quickly starve to death.
RICHARD: It is just as dangerous to believe correctly as it is to believe falsely .
Just look at what happened to Mr. Salmon Rushdie. You cannot believe that you hav
e a body ... if there is a body it is evident. All you can do is acknowledge the
fact of the body. And as for starving to death: the stomach sends a signal to th
e brain when it needs food. You and your belief are not necessary at all for survi
val. You only think and feel (believe) that you are important ... you are actually red
undant.
RESPONDENT: I personally dont have much of a problem with my I. Nature made it, and
who am I to argue with that?
RICHARD: Who indeed. With such fatalism ruling your life then there is not much
point in me responding to rest of your post, is there? Especially as I happened
to notice the following while skimming through the posts that you wrote about yo
ur obvious belief on the subject entitled: Love:
[Respondent]: The important thing is simply to do what God commands one. God give
s each person different abilities and aptitudes for different ways of loving, an
d places various people in our way who have varying capacities for taking what w
e are capable of giving, etc. etc. etc. One must use ones judgment and try to dis
cern what is the most loving course of action in any given situation, or in othe
r words, to discern Gods command. If God commands a person to give up the joys of
marriage and family for the sake of a greater work that will do a greater good,
and if they obey, they certainly have my blessing and admiration and perhaps al
so my sympathy.
This belief in God is at variance with your avowed stance about after-death ... as
previously stated thus: Vis.:
[Respondent]: I would suggest that there is another alternative, that of a reserv
ation of judgment in the absence of conclusive evidence one way or the other .
I suggest that this is a good example of the layers of deceit that the act of be
lieving can create within the human mind and heart, leading otherwise intelligen
t people so far astray from what is actually happening that they can justify pre
tty well anything.
No. 04
RESPONDENT: It is not necessarily a fact that I have a body, merely because I pe
rceive myself as having a body. A theoretical example beloved of epistemologists
is the so-called brain in a vat example. It is not inconceivable that I am simply
a brain kept alive in a Dr. Frankensteins vat that is being stimulated by a mad
scientist in such a way as to simulate bodily experience. If that were true, it
would make my belief that I have a body another example of empirically justified
, but untrue belief.
RICHARD: If this is an example of what is so beloved of epistemologists , then the
y clearly can not help humanity out of the mess it has got itself into via cripp
ling beliefs. I now see why you need your god.
RESPONDENT: I personally dont have much of a problem with my I. Nature made it, and
who am I to argue with that?
RICHARD: Who indeed. With such fatalism ruling your life then there is not much
point in me responding to rest of your post, is there?
RESPONDENT: Ah, I see you believe I am a fatalist ... you may not see any point
in responding to the rest of my post (if you followed out the rest of your belie
fs to their logical implications, you wouldnt see any point in eating or sex, eit
her), but, as fate would have it, I happen to be endowed with a will and a mind
and the ability to write (however poorly) as well, and even the capacity for enj
oyment of such debates. So I find it rather a pity if you are backing out of a d
iscussion in which I am so clearly trouncing you.
RICHARD: This paragraph of yours says it all ... it shows why I understood that
there was not much point in responding to the rest of your post. Where you write
ah, I see you believe I am a fatalist , you are endeavouring to prove your theory
that I have beliefs. I do not. I never believed that you are a fatalist ... I sim
ply noticed that the statement: Nature made it, and who am I to argue with that? is
what is called fatalism and that is what I wrote. If you wish to extrapolate fro
m that that I somehow believe you to be a fatalist, that is your trip, not mine.
You try again by saying if you followed out the rest of your beliefs to their log
ical implications , conveniently ignoring the fact that what you are referring to
are not my beliefs but facts. A fact does not have to be believed ... a fact is
actual and thus is verifiable. Then you say: as fate would have it ... which soun
ds so much like fatalism that anyone can see the complete nonsensical nature of
the case that you are wasting your time building.
You then wrote: I happen to be endowed with ... the capacity for enjoyment of suc
h debates. So I find it rather a pity if you are backing out of a discussion in
which I am so clearly trouncing you .
Why are you engaged in a debate? I am only interested in investigative dialogue
that leads to a mutual understanding of the human condition and thus the complet
e and utter eradication of malice and sorrow from within the human mind and hear
t. If I were foolish enough to adopt your stance then all the wars, murders, tor
tures, rapes, domestic violence and corruption will continue to go on; all the s
adness, loneliness, misery, grief, depression and suicides endemic to the human
condition will continue to flourish. If one diligently pursues the wide and wond
rous path of an actual freedom all the way, one will find oneself here for the v
ery first time as this body only, minus any argumentative and lugubrious I. One wi
ll be innocent and harmless and blithe and carefree and salubrious and sagacious
. As this is a far cry from your simplistic epistemological constructs and your
cavalier dismissal of the reflective pursuit of productive understanding through
the thoughtful discussion of the human condition, you might be well advised to
cease wanting to trounce people and start observing the facts that lie open all
around for those unencumbered with beliefs to see for themselves.
Until then, I see no point in continuing this thread.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista25.htm
description of pure consciousness experience here real/truth versus actual/fact
anger it is all so easy to quote pithy aphorisms
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 |
No. 01
RICHARD: To be here is to be committed. The potential for this commitment is con
ceived at the moment of experiencing the perfection of life in a peak experience
. This potential can lie dormant for years unless reactivated. Once the veil beh
ind which humanity skulks has been lifted even momentarily one has seen for ones
elf that a place beyond human belief actually exists. Because one has visited th
e actual world and walked around in it, it would be thought that one could never
more deny it. But such denial is endemic among humans. The reason for this odd d
enial is fairly obvious: once the person has reverted to normal to being human aga
in perfection here-on-earth becomes merely a concept ... and a concept is not th
e actuality. The grip of reality is so strong that perfection simply does not ex
ist here, it is in another dimension. It is but a faded dream. The potential can l
ie dormant forever.
Meanwhile people thoughtlessly pursue the elusive chimera of Eastern Enlightenme
nt.
RESPONDENT: Back in about 1980 I did a stint in the woods ... in the National Fo
rests for a couple years. I spent almost all my time in the wilderness at that t
ime. On a sunny afternoon, in the backyard of where I was living at the foot of
a mountain ... I had a blanket out doing my yoga exercises when this happened ..
. the phenomenon of suddenly trembling and the mind spinning towards dizziness a
nd potential unconsciousness ... I just stared at my hands. They kept vibrating
and with a shimmery essence and when I looked up suddenly I could see every leaf
on every tree, every blade of grass, all the bugs and grains of dirt, every bir
d on every single branch, in a 180 degree circumference all around my head, all
at the same time, all at once. It was beyond incredible. At the time, I was not
seeking that enlightenment; in fact it freaked me out forever. And I do not know
the intellectual jargon either eastern or western; just that it gave me a unique
perspective on this life. Now that I know the possibilities, how can I just rumi
nate on analysis?
RICHARD: I find your description above to be an accurate portrayal of what I hav
e been calling a peak experience. At other times I have named it an actual intim
acy, which I defined as: the direct experience of the actuality of people, things
and events. It is a condition wherein the psychological distance disappears and
everything is immediate and ultimate. In actual freedom everything and everybody
stands out intense and vivid and dynamic and alive ... the physical world of th
e senses is experienced as having a magical almost fairy-tale like quality where
in the actuality of this corporeal world is indubitably verified and is seen, to
uched, tasted, smelt and heard to be substantial ... and perfect as-it-is.
Yet Hindu and Buddhist philosophy calls this physical world we all live in Maya
... they say it is unreal ... that it does not exist ... that only the Greater Re
ality a supernatural dimension beyond the senses is real. This is why I write so
vigorously as I do. We are already all always living in perfection, here-on-eart
h, if only we acted upon our seeing that this is so in a peak experience ... suc
h as you described so well. They were actual leaves, actual trees, actual grasse
s, actual birds and actual branches, were they not? Perfection is already here .
.. all around us ... we are that perfection. And, of course, it is here in space
and now in time and is only able to be experienced as this body, in this life-t
ime, on this fair planet of ours.
It matters not that you arrived at the experience via yoga ... other people have
arrived via drugs, via sex, via art, via just washing the dishes, via just abou
t anything at all. What matters is that one has the experience, remembers the ex
perience and acts upon the experience. Unfortunately, because of acculturation,
people ascribe it to transcendence or whatever god their society holds in esteem and
go of searching for the Greater Beyond that lies outside of time and space ... in
deed, outside of this very universe we all live in.
It is possible to live the experience you had for the twenty four hours of every
day. I call it being here. I have described it thus: The real world, which I had c
reated out of imagination, is but a veneer pasted over the actual, and to go in
search of a Greater Reality is to go in the wrong direction. One arrives in the ac
tual by becoming involved, totally involved in being here ... not by practicing
detachment. Being here is to put your money where your mouth is, as it were. In
being here one is completely immersed. Being here is total inclusion. One demons
trates ones appreciation of life by partaking fully in existence ... by letting t

his moment live one. One dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the
universes experience of itself.
It is unfortunate indeed to waste this precious moment of being alive by being s
omewhere else but here.
No. 02
RICHARD: It is possible to live the experience you had for the twenty four hours
of every day. I call it being here. I have described it thus: The real world, wh
ich I had created out of imagination, is but a veneer pasted over the actual, and
to go in search of a Greater Reality is to go in the wrong direction. One arrives
in the actual by becoming involved, totally involved in being here ... not by pr
acticing detachment. Being here is to put your money where your mouth is, as it
were. In being here one is completely immersed. Being here is total inclusion. O
ne demonstrates ones appreciation of life by partaking fully in existence ... by
letting this moment live one. One dedicates oneself to the challenge of being he
re as the universes experience of itself.
RESPONDENT: Something about needing to agree on some level on a material reality
in order to manifest one (material reality) with 7.5 billion live beings speaki
ng different languages, from different planes, different ages, past histories, d
ifferent dreams of butterflies. Intellectual jargon provides structure for socia
l interaction; not actual experience. I agree with what you say entirely. As lon
g as a person does not insist that their dream is the only true Truth and no one e
lses ... I am (somewhat) tolerant of the various descriptions of methods of dream
ing.
RICHARD: I was not talking about needing to agree on some level on a material rea
lity in order to manifest one (material reality) , in which you could then say I a
gree with what you say entirely , because you then go on and demonstrate that you
do not agree with me entirely ... it is a conditional agreement only. A leaf on a
tree is not a dream ; it is not a method of dreaming ; it is not a different dream o
f butterflies ; it is not intellectual jargon ; it is not that [my] dream is the only
true Truth and no one elses ... it is a matter-of-fact actuality.
I have written elsewhere: for many years I mistakenly assumed that words carried
a definitive meaning that was common to all peoples speaking the same language .
.. for example real and truth. But, as different persons told me things like: That is
only your truth, or: God is real, I realised that unambiguous words are required. (
To a child, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real and true). Correspondingly I ab
andoned real and true in favour of actual and fact, as experience has demonstrated th
no one has been able to tell me that their god is actual or that something is on
ly my fact. Therefore this keyboard is actual (these finger-tips feeling it subs
tantiate this) and it is a fact that these printed letters are forming words on
the screen (these eyes seeing it validate this). These things are indisputable a
nd verifiable by any body with the requisite sense-organs.
Over the years, many, many people have told me that this world is not real or that
we are only dreaming that we are here or that it is a belief that this world exist
s or something similar. I usually invite them to walk through a wall to demonstra
te that their statement is correct. When they decline, I have always found it us
eful to suggest that they put a peg firmly on their nose and a large piece of st
icking-plaster over their mouth. This way, within less than two minutes as they
rip the plaster off and gasp for breath they have a direct experience of the act
uality of this very physical world that we all live in. Most people continue to
live in a state of denial, however. Such is the strength of belief over fact.
It is unfortunate indeed to waste this precious moment of being alive by being s

omewhere else (in a belief) but here.
No. 03
RICHARD: Time has no duration when the immediate is the ultimate. This moment ta
kes no time at all to be here. It is as if nothing has occurred, for not only is
the future not here, but the past does not exist either.
RESPONDENT: <snip>
RICHARD: Past and future are mental products. They have no independent existence o
f their own.
RESPONDENT: <smip>
RICHARD: Step out of the real world into the actual world ... and leave yourself
behind ... where you belong.
RESPONDENT: <bleep!>
RICHARD: This moment is always here but it is a perennially moving moment, witho
ut duration, in eternal time.
RESPONDENT: <sneep>
RESPONDENT No. 3: The old Zen fogies talk about carrying water, chopping wood, e
ating when you are hungry, and sleeping when you are tired.
RESPONDENT: <snipe>
RICHARD: I am ever-fresh ... I am never boring ... I am ever-fresh. I have never
been here before ... everything is happening for the very first time.
RESPONDENT: <snip>
RICHARD: I am happening for the very first time. A psychological entity that end
ures through psychological time. Whereas I have never been here before. ... and
neither has this moment.
RESPONDENT: <snap> The wonder of moments spent thrashing through virtually price
less trivia seeking the kernel of truth like a needle in a haystack, when by stopp
ing searching, why here we are!
RICHARD: It is indeed unfortunate that you find all this to be thrashing through
virtually priceless trivia . You are missing out on the possibility of the most d
elicious actualisation of a perfect freedom. To be free from the self is to be f
ree from malice and sorrow ... which is peace-on-earth in our time. If you have
been following this thread you will have noticed by now that I am most definitel
y not interested in The Truth. I have written before: Philosophical wisdom, Psychol
ogical knowledge and Spiritual enlightenment have had their day and are proving
themselves to be inadequate to meet the requirements of this modern era. For tho
usands of years maybe tens of thousands of years humankind has known of no alter
native manner of living life on this verdant planet. The passing parade of Philo
sophers and Preachers, Masters and Sages geniuses and thinkers of all descriptio
n have failed abysmally to deliver their oft-promised Peace On Earth ... in fact,
instead of their much-vaunted love and virtue, they have left in their wake much
hatred and bloodshed, the likes of which beggars description.

So I wonder why you think that the snipped sentences you quoted are indications
of seeking the kernel of truth like a needle in a haystack
Also, if one does what you recommend (by stopping searching, why here we are!) the
n all the wars, murders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence and corruption galor
e will continue to go on. If one diligently pursues the wide and wondrous path o
f an actual freedom all the way, one will find oneself here for the very first t
ime ... not, as is popularly supposed, back where we started from. One will be inn
ocent and harmless; happy and carefree; salubrious and sagacious. As this is a f
ar cry from your simplistic solution and cavalier dismissal of the reflective pu
rsuit of understanding through the thoughtful discussion of the human condition,
you might be well advised to cease snipping, sniping and snapping and listen wi
th both ears.
RESPONDENT: Woe unto father time for maintaining the linear mindset to such a degr
ee that people have to think so much just to keep up that they miss the forest for
the trees.
RICHARD: It is all so easy to quote pithy aphorisms, is it not? Much easier than
doing something about eliminating ones malice and sorrow.
RESPONDENT: It is such a good habit to thank people, rather than rank on them an
d pick them to pieces like so much carrion! After all ... we are not all scaveng
ers, but Sensitive New Age Guys in here, are we not?
RICHARD: If you actually meant these sentiments sincerely, then what are you doi
ng with picking [us] to pieces like so much carrion ? I refer you to your own open
ing sentence above: Vis.: the wonder of moments spent thrashing through virtually
priceless trivia seeking the kernel of truth like a needle in a haystack
If that is not picking to pieces I would like to know what is.
No. 04
RICHARD: I must acknowledge that I do not have the faintest notion as to how thi
s [your last three posts] relates to our discussion about the possibility of per
fection here on earth. <snip>
RESPONDENT: This antler-butting against trees are doing the credibilities of many
sensitive peoples a lot of incredulous and jaded harm. People think that they ca
n just deny and invalidate large portions of reality, and it will just go away to
suit their personal needs? This is folly.
RICHARD: In what way is these antler-butting doing harm? The credibilities of many
sensitive peoples are prone to be called into question when they are patently inc
orrect ... given that the self-same credibilities create a reality that has killed a
nd maimed countless hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people over the ce
nturies.
I would call believing in this abominable reality a folly of the highest order.
No. 05
RICHARD: I must acknowledge that I do not have the faintest notion as to how thi
s [your last three posts] relates to our discussion about the possibility of per
fection here on earth. <snip>
RESPONDENT: This antler-butting against trees are doing the credibilities of many
sensitive peoples a lot of incredulous and jaded harm. People think that they ca
n just deny and invalidate large portions of reality, and it will just go away to
suit their personal needs? This is folly.
RICHARD: In what way is these antler-butting doing harm? The credibilities of many
sensitive peoples are prone to be called into question when they are patently inc
orrect ... given that the self-same credibilities create a reality that has killed a
nd maimed countless hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people over the ce
nturies. I would call believing in this abominable reality a folly of the highest
order.
RESPONDENT: This is really a messy, messy post! For one thing, I did not say the
first quote, as seems indicated. Did I say something about the antler-butting?
Now that sounds like something I would say ... all in all, it sounds like you an
d I are in total agreement and commenting upon the same tendencies.
RICHARD: Unless someone is sending me E-Mails in
style, then yes you did say the first quote. And
ut antler-butting? How would I know whether you
that you do not even know what you wrote? A very
your name, address, format and

you ask: did I say something abo
wrote something or not ... given
strange business indeed.
I do, however, fail to see how it sounds like you and I are in total agreement .
.. your posts of late are all about each of us allowing other people to have the
ir own reality (belief) and to stop claiming that one knows the ultimate truth or
whatever. This is similar to the line pushed by the United Nations, for example,
that insists that peoples be allowed to practice their own religious belief rel
igious tolerance, it is called and so all the wars go on ... and on ... and on.
I do not see how we are commenting on the same tendencies for I am very busy antl
er-butting against each and everybodys belief systems, wherever they pop up, in an
earnest endeavour to bring some sensibility onto this fair planet we all live o
n ... and what fun it is into the bargain. You, too, are antler-butting by telling
everybody to stop doing it their way and to start doing it your way which is no
t your way, anyhow, for you have merely adopted the principle of tolerance, as b
eing your own wisdom, from other Great Thinkers that have gone before us. It has a
ll been tried before, to no avail.
Also, from memory, you seem to advocate love as being the cure-all for humanitys
ills ... which is another tried and true principle that has been tried and tried a
gain and again and failed and failed again and again. These time-honoured method
s just do not work it is high time they were ditched in favour of something that
does. Or else the wars will go on and on.
I just thought that I would take this opportunity to point out that you are doin
g the same thing that you implore everyone else to stop doing ... imposing your r
eality upon others to suit your own personal needs.
Is this not your folly in action?
No. 06
RICHARD: Unless someone is sending me E-Mails in your name, address, format and
style, then yes you did say the first quote. And you ask: Did I say something abo
ut antler-butting? How would I know whether you wrote something or not ... given
that you do not even know what you wrote? A very strange business indeed.
RESPONDENT: I did not write the above phrase to you in any way shape or form. I
have not even been in dialogue with you concerning perfection on earth now, have I
? No I have not. If it looks somewhere like I said it, it is the result of messy
posting accountability, and not on my part. My response to your whole last post
, without seeing any reason to repost it, is thus: I do not see what it furthers
your cause to flame someone who is admonishing tolerance for your viewpoints, a
s well as everyones also.
RICHARD: If by flame you mean anger, then your much-touted tolerance is not working,
is it? You got angry ... and angry people are not peaceful people, no matter ho
w much they may preach tolerance ... which is my point.
RESPONDENT: If it hurts another person, like all women, or directly aimed at ano
ther as a flame, like you did to me, it becomes personal.
RICHARD: Of course it is personal ... are you only interested in being impersona
l? Writing a theoretical treatise? Doing abstract philosophy? Peace is a very pe
rsonal thing. An angry person is not and this is personal a peaceful person.
RESPONDENT: I choose to overlook whatever caused you to suddenly turn your penny
ante and picky-uney vengeful wrath on me; it doesnt even interest me.
RICHARD: I wish it did interest you, as you might then do something about actual
ly being a peaceful person, rather than preaching a philosophy that you are clea
rly demonstrating does not work in practice.
RESPONDENT: I choose to overlook the spirit it was written in as misplaced anger
, or projection, and in that way not take it personal.
RICHARD: As I know how I felt when I wrote it I can assure you that there was no
t a trace of misplaced anger or projection (or penny-ante and picky-uney vengeful w
rath ) in me. As you can not know this, I have looked back through my post to see
where it sounds like this ... and for the life of me I do not see it. It reads
very mildly, to me. I was simply pointing out facts and what the actual situatio
n is as opposed to the theoretical situation. So you are choosing to overlook so
mething that does not exist ... outside of your angry imagination, that is.
RESPONDENT: But I certainly hope you were not expecting me to take what you just
wrote me without a grain of salt, as if your points were somehow pertinent to m
y perceptions of the Truth, and actually defend my views from your attack on the
m from you in a reasonable manner???
RICHARD: Well, I rather was expecting you to, actually. Can you indeed be reason
able? Is that possible?
RESPONDENT: Because if you did, the hostility and way you present yourself not o
nly lacks any attempt to communicate with me, and not preach at me, but involved
scurrilous hostility as well.
RICHARD: Well, well, well, so it would appear that I am not only hostile but my hos
tility is scurrilous as well. You do have a problem, do you not, with all this? And
all because I pointed out that your preaching tolerance does not work.
RESPONDENT: So if you could reword your questions more simply, without the hosti
lity, perhaps I would not be obligated to take on your personal problems and pai
ns, just to wade through the post.
RICHARD: I can guarantee for you that you do not have to take on my personal prob
lems and pains as I do not have any it is only your anger that makes you think th
at I do. As you keep on using the word hostility , it sounds to me like there is s
omething worthwhile looking into there ... though that is just a suggestion, min
d you.
RESPONDENT: I would very much appreciate it if you would start over and try agai
n.
RICHARD: Sure can. Your posts of late are all about each of us allowing other pe
ople to have their own reality (belief) and to stop claiming that one knows the ul
timate truth or whatever. This is similar to the line pushed by the United Natio
ns, for example, that insists that peoples be allowed to practice their own reli
gious belief religious tolerance, it is called and so all the wars go on ... and
on ... and on. You have merely adopted the principle of tolerance, as being you
r own wisdom, from other Great Thinkers that have gone before us. It has all been
tried before, to no avail.
Also, from memory, you seem to advocate love as being the cure-all for humanitys
ills ... which is another tried and true principle that has been tried and tried a
gain and again and failed and failed again and again. These time-honoured method
s just do not work it is high time they were ditched in favour of something that
does. Or else the wars will go on and on.
RESPONDENT: Chill out and take five, or something! maybe you need some Tylenol.
RICHARD: But I do not need to ... I just thought that I would take the opportuni
ty to point out that you are doing the same thing that you implore everyone else
to stop doing ... imposing your reality upon others to suit your own personal nee
ds ... which you said was folly.
So I asked: Is this not your folly in action?

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista05a.htm
afterlife actual perfection identity self fact morals Hinduism ecology supe
ion
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
No. 11
RICHARD: Thus you will spend the remainder of your life in suffering whilst wait
ing for physical death to release you into your imagined After-Life.
RESPONDENT: I dont know why you bring up this after-life business when it has not
hing to do with the topic. Just what are you trying to say or justify by this po
int. Remember you brought up this idea, not me.
RICHARD: I beg to differ. It was you who wrote extensively about a Supreme Soul wh
ich is Infinite and Eternal and Unborn and Undying ... or words to that effect. This
is pretty well much basic spirituality and anyone knows that the aim is to real
ise that one is That by whatever name. Then one realises themselves to be Infinite
and Eternal and Unborn and Undying etc. I simply use the words After-Life for eas
e and convenience ... and to show people that by discarding the god of Western r
eligion in favour of the god of Eastern religion (cunningly disguised as spiritu
ality) that they have merely jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. The spi
rituality of the East is the Easts religion.
Some are so confused by it all that they call themselves atheists ... yet all th
e while quoting Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene and so on!
*
RICHARD: Thus it is the sense of identity that is the root cause of suffering (s
orrow and malice). Not just one half of the identity the ego but the other half
the soul as well, is at fault.
RESPONDENT: Here clearly you recognise both ego and soul, albeit it in a very fr
actional half and half way (which is a peculiar sort of thing in itself).
RICHARD: I clearly recognise that it is the belief in both ego and soul as being
ones sense of identity what other people call the reality of same that is at fau
lt ... but I have consistently stated that this identity is not actual. Sorry, y
our attempt to catch me out did not work, because their reality is not actuality.
*
RICHARD: Thus not only must the self dissolve but the Self must psychologically
self-immolate also.
RESPONDENT: Quaint, but what does it mean (re the second part).
RICHARD: Self-immolation means the ending of the illusion of self and the ending o
f the delusion of Self. It means extinction. Annihilation. Extirpation. Psycholog
ical means an emotional-mental construct that has no basis an actuality, hence th
e ending of identity is nothing more than the ending of an illusion and a delusi
on. Nothing substantial happens ... it is all a figment of a super-charged imagi

nation.
The result of psychological self-immolation is ambrosial, nevertheless.
*
RICHARD: After all, the soul along with the ego is the culprit, for all sorrow a
nd malice stem from the continued belief in their reality.
RESPONDENT: This reasoning is absurd. Firstly you say that there are two halves
the ego and soul and both at fault now this is a fundamental premise of your arg
ument (it is right there above in the context you said it in). And then you say
that a continued belief in their reality is the culprit. Yet clearly in the fund
amental premise of your argument you believe in them as they are fundamental to
identity and fundamental to your argument.
RICHARD: Yes, it is belief itself the action of believing that is at fault. Any I
either self or Self (what you call Supreme Soul) is nothing but a belief. Your pur
view includes an I-feeling (ego-self) and a transcended I-feeling (soul-self). Y
ou only think it something different or special because you call it by some othe
r name ... Supreme Soul . It is still an identity.
None of this is actual that is what is fundamental to my argument.
*
RICHARD: As for the confuses mind and soul bit ... it is a confused mind that beli
eves in a souls existence.
RESPONDENT: Yet that belief is the very opening of your own argument in trying t
o prove that identity = ego/2 + soul/2 is the cause of suffering. Now have you t
wisted yourself into a big knot or what?
RICHARD: I do not see the big knot you are referring to ... I still maintain that,
what you so cutely put as identity = ego/2 + soul/2 , is not actual. It is all be
lief. Do you know what belief is? Etymologically it means: fervently wishing to b
e true. Thus a believed thing is not even true ... let alone a fact. None of it i
s actual.
*
RICHARD: When the ego the self dissolves, ones sense of identity remains intact.
Instead of identifying as the ego the self one now as an Enlightened Being ident
ifies as the soul the Self.
RESPONDENT: Now come on make up your mind as to whether its a confused mind that
believes in the souls existence or not.
RICHARD: It most assuredly is a confused mind that believes itself to be a soul
... what you call the Supreme Soul. It is a belief, not a fact.
*
RICHARD: This soul is held to be Eternal and pre-dates birth (the Zen peoples Orig
inal face) and post-dates death in other words: Immortality. An I still exists, tra
nsmogrified now into a super-natural I (the second I of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka
Ramana) fame). Thus I asked myself the question: If I as ego (the self) wreak havo
c, could it be that I as soul (the Self) am the cause the continued suffering?
RESPONDENT: The doer-ship of actions belongs to the I as ego. I can follow that. I
f the doer-ship of actions belongs to the I ego (presumably mind) then how can the
cause of suffering be the soul (the Self) which is not the doer-ship of actions
(because who already state that the I ego is)?
RICHARD: But the doer-ship of actions after the transcendence of I as ego (the sel
f) is I as soul (the Self). That is the nitty-gritty of the problem ... and it has
kept humankind in thralldom for aeons. It has got you too.
For sure, I as ego am no longer the doer-ship of actions ... now the Supreme Soul is
. But I am the Supreme Soul, therefore I (an identity) am the doer. No matter how godl
y I am, I am the problem.
RESPONDENT: But in the very last part you still equate I feeling with Soul?
RICHARD: Yes. Not only feelings but thoughts as well. The soul and Soul are a psyc
hological construct and exist only in imagination. They have no actuality whatso
ever.
RESPONDENT: Yet it is fundamental to your whole argument above. I am fully capab
le of reasoning, but this jumping all over the place I must admit has me stumped
in what exactly you are trying to say.
RICHARD: It is not fundamental to [my] argument above ... you made it so.
*
RICHARD: Here in the actual world and now in time lies the perfection and purity
that humankind is searching for.
RESPONDENT: The actual world being? And the identification of which comes about
from what please go back to square one above and recommence the dialogue.
RICHARD: The actual world being this physical world as-it-is in apperception. No
t reality which is what I make of the actual with my likes and dislikes. What normal
eople call reality is but a veneer pasted over the top of actuality. Actuality is
what is here now when I cease to exist, psychologically.
So, to go back to square one: Step out of the real world into the actual world a
nd leave your self behind ... where you belong. Just make sure that you do not step
into an imagined Reality with a new psychological you ... a psychic Self called the S
upreme Soul.
After all, we do want peace-on-earth ... do you not?
No. 12
RICHARD: The actual world antedates the reality that humankind lives in and the
Reality that Divinity lives in ... and is characterised by perfection and purity
... which you, however, immediately dismissed as being unreal because it is rela
tivistic.
RESPONDENT: The actual world before humankind was as much a moving phenomenon as
it is now. I think you forget that this earth might once have been a hot piece
of molten followed by quite a number of large squid type animals and those thing
s called dinosaurs living on it. In nature that may all have been the age of ins
tinct but that does not make it perfect or pure by any means. It is simply non-v
alue laden nature. Perfect or pure is something you have attached to it as a lab
el as a sense perception (or apperception) and as a partial perception that you

wish to perceive for yourself, thereby limiting what it Actually is thereby deny
ing what it is also which is imperfection. Do you see imperfection as somehow un
related to perfection. Does it annoy you that the imperfect is discernible (rela
tively) while at the same time part of the whole?
RICHARD: Hmm ... a misunderstanding here ... by antedates I was indicating prior to
or before or behind or underneath ... in the sense that actuality is obscured by the r
eality that I as an identity superimpose over the top of it ... here and now. I ce
rtainly was not referring to going back into antediluvian times.
As to me being annoyed ... no, not at all. I have no feelings emotions and passi
ons at all. With the extinction of I in its totality, its calenture also disappear
ed forever.
What you call imperfection is simply human beings acting out of the contents of
their psyche ... all the horrors and terrors have no existence in the actual. Ho
wever, the actions and behaviour stemming from people who still have their I intac
t do have an impact in the physical realm ... which is why we do not have global
peace-on-earth yet. Any imperfection can be remedied simply: By being here at t
his moment in time as a body only bereft of any identity whatsoever.
This lack of global peace-on-earth in no way disturbs the perfection of me being
here as this body only at this moment in time. I have an individual peace-on-ea
rth and if there is never a global peace-on-earth it matters not ... such is the
purity of the perfection. However, we can indeed improve upon blind nature and
make things more comfortable for ourselves as we have done with so many things t
echnologically so far ... and with animal breeding and plant cultivation and so
on.
*
RICHARD: I do not get what point you are making regarding storms and sunsets and
etcetera. Personally I find natures display to be magnificent ... but, as I gath
er you would rather be some place else than here on earth, I suppose you do not
like it.
RESPONDENT: You gather quite wrong and could you stop making these additional as
sumptions at the end of every sentence which bear little relevance to the topic!
In a sense its magnificent but also nature does not think whether it is magnifi
cent or not it is both beauty and destruction and it is also generation birth, g
rowth, decay. The usual spate of huge Australian bushfires is hardly magnificent
to those finding themselves homeless and there were plenty of bushfires before
the white setters as well. Surely you are not expecting people to relish the pur
e sensual stimulation of a very, very hot fire creeping up on them as part of ap
perceptive enjoyment no way the immediate task is to rescue children and women a
nd then run like hell. In which case it makes it difficult to want to enjoy the
moment indeed what motivates is indeed the sense of martyrdom to rescue others (
that type of moment as far more meaning). Note, if you were truly apperceptive Id
expect no labels as to nature being magnificent only or the hamburger being rel
ished only as these are all partial perceptions and seem to contradict what you
are saying. Now it seems in my honest opinion from the tone of your posts that y
ou see apperception as being only a partial recognition, a sort of high to do wi
th magnificence, relishing, etc. a type of denial that the opposite, e.g. destru
ction, awful tastes can also be experienced as part of the Whole apperceptive co
ndition.
RICHARD: Why do I gather wrong? You are the one who keeps on talking about a Supr
eme Soul etc., which we all know survives death ... immortality, in other words,
in another dimension than this earthly one. From this I can only conclude that y
ou do not like being here and look forward to release ... as is evidenced by you
r essay into bushfires, birth, growth, decay and destruction etc. So why is it t
hat I should stop making these observations at the end of every sentence ? And the
y do not bear little relevance to the topic ... on the contrary, they are germane
to it.
The perfection of experiencing this moment of being alive is not affected by wha
tever happens ... which does not take away the ability to do something about som
ething uncomfortable happening. For example, I prefer to sit upon a cushion than
on the hard floor ... but if a hard floor is all that is available, then I sit
upon it with equanimity. I prefer to run away from a bushfire (without fear) tha
n to stay and be burnt; I prefer to rescue people (without panicking) than leave
them to suffer horribly ... and so on. I am not silly, you know, for it is sens
ible to be comfortable.
Apperception is not a partial recognition , it is total. It is yourself
not see the whole. The displays of nature are magnificent even with its
iveness. Which does not mean that we can not do something about repairing
mage ... I am not into that New Age one about dumb acceptance of whatever
s!
that does
destruct
the da
happen
*
RICHARD: As for you saying when considering sense perception (which are fairly li
mited) you somehow miss that I was referring to the actual world that becomes app
arent with apperception ... not perception.
RESPONDENT: Well, you were the one so engrossed in the hamburger not thinking pe
rhaps for one moment where that piece of pseudo-cultural Macdonaldisation came f
rom and how many peoples sense of Nature was destroyed (for one of many hamburger
s) in the process so you can enjoy an end product dished out automatically for m
ass consumption and standardisation the world over. i.e. without recognising tha
t for you to relish someone else may have to have experienced a very different a
lienation of even their own culture.
RICHARD: Actually, I was not engrossed with the hamburger ... it was No. 15s hambur
ger ... I personally do not eat at Macdonalds. It was an illustration, only, to d
escribe how to precipitate apperception. Once apperception happens, one may very
well spit out the remnants of that cultural icon because of the sensibility tha
t apperception imbues one with.
RESPONDENT: The senses dont record facts at all we make the facts. They simply te
ll us what the vibration is that we touch, see, etc. The mind does the construct
ing for its very survival and evolution and expansion in the ever more complex w
orld. The tendencies of mind are far more than the input of the 5 sensory organs
. Is the sense of love an outward relishing experience or an inward content?
RICHARD: We make the facts ... that is the very problem ... we are an illusion and we
think and feel that we make facts. With apperception, we disappear and the facts are
obvious to the senses. This computer screen that you are looking at exists in i
ts own right, you do not make it happen. Its existence is a fact ... it is actual.
Precipitate apperception and you will experience what I am talking about you ar
e trying to understand me intellectually.
And the sense of love is an attempt by the self and the Self to put a gloss over
its grottiness. I, being rotten to the core, wish to embellish my rottenness with
something that appears to look good ... and it manifests love and then touts it
as being the cure-all of humanitys ills. It is not. Love exacerbates an already
grim situation by distracting attention away from the root cause I in any way, sha
pe or form. A loving self is still a self, nevertheless ... and so the wars etc.
go on ... now in the name of love. I am not making all this up history bears th
is out.
*
RICHARD: Time just doesnt make physical reality perfect ? Do you see just how set y
ou are against what is actual?
RESPONDENT: Tell me anything in physical reality that can actually be grasped as
a permanent sensation and if not then is not the apperception simply the need t
o run from one hamburger to another. Is the high of a junkie apperception? Tell
me, whether you would be equally sensuous as a young man touching a young woman
as you would if you were an old man touching an old woman. Do you senses disting
uish between so called beauty and so called ugliness (as many are conditioned to
do). If not then maybe apperception has something going for it.
RICHARD: Simple. This moment is permanent ... it is always here. It is never not
this moment ... and it is always now. If you will come into time by leaving you
r self behind you will experience this permanence for yourself. Then you will see
that it is not the high of a junkie apperception.
As for being equally sensuous vis a vis young-young and old-old man-woman touching
... yes. And yes, I can distinguish between so called beauty and so called uglin
ess and I am not at all encouraged or deterred by it. There is an aesthetic appre
ciation which varies from culture to culture but in the actual freedom which app
erception evokes there is a purity which renders beauty obsolete. The feeling of
beauty with its attendant companion ugliness has ceased to exist ... I no longe
r feel the pull of beauty enticing me into surrendering to Love and Truth. I am
free of all that stuff.
*
RICHARD: You react quite strongly against any suggestion of the possibility of p
erfection being in an earthly domain.
RESPONDENT: If it does not include the imperfect then it is not complete it a de
nial of the Whole, it seems to me a partial and arbitrary choice of what you wan
t rather than a true apperception. Apperception being minds perception of itself
which begs the question of what is mind. I think you will need to give me some i
ndication of what is mind before you can truly tell me what is apperception as o
bviously apperception is linked to minds perception of itself and so far all Ive s
een from you is a type of semi-sensual awareness which does not seem to be real
apperception. So I go back to the point raised before that unless the faculties
of the mind are deflected towards greater apperception, they will keep themselve
s enmeshed in thoughts of petty enjoyment.
RICHARD: Golly, so far you have introduced g/Greater apperception, true apperceptio
n, real apperception, false apperception and now greater apperception. What comes next
There is not all these different types of apperception that you keep on inventi
ng ... I will bet that you had not even heard of the word before I introduced it
several posts ago to another person on the list!
As to what is the mind ... it is not a thing like the brain is ... it is a process
. It is the process of the brain thinking, reflecting and being aware. Unfortuna
tely for everybody, an I has taken up a parasitical residence in there and has arr
ogated responsibility for doing the thinking, reflecting and awareness ... with
disastrous results. I am not needed at all ... in fact I am a liability. The brain c
an think for itself and it is very good at doing so without me and all of my petty d
emands.
*
RICHARD: Do you see how you are in denial of what is obvious? No wonder you wish
to live in a mentally constructed dream-world.
RESPONDENT: Is language a mentally constructed dream world? Is art mentally cons
tructed where do ideas and visions come from? From senses of other ultra-sensuou
s faculties.
RICHARD: No, it all comes from I. There is nothing the matter with the senses when
they are no longer encumbered with an I misinterpreting and misunderstanding what
is going on in this magnificent physical world. I decide that I do not like being h
ere and concoct all types of fanciful dream-worlds and attempt to live in them.
A rare few succeed and are called Enlightened ... and thousands of gullible syco
phants gather at their feet in the vain hope that they too may become as deluded
as their hero.
If it was not for the destructive results it would all be highly amusing.
No. 13
RICHARD: I live in a small village in Australia, not the USA. What are you tryin
g to say? Why does it bother you that perfection is possible here on earth? Do y
ou not wish to live a life of ease and enjoyment?
RESPONDENT: The village has to be Nimbin or Byron Bay or similar this 60s talk ca
n only come from there.
RICHARD: Byron Bay, actually ... but why typecast someone because of their addre
ss? It would be like me looking at your E-mail address [Canberra, the political
capital of Australia] and saying something like typical political prevarication, o
r pollies double-talk and so on. Anyway, what 60s talk? Perfection? Ease? Enjoyment
? Peace-on-earth? If I remember it correctly, the sixties were about drugs, sex
and rock and roll ... the whole peace and love thing was predicated on a turn on, t
une in and drop out type mentality and led to many trekking eagerly and gullibly
to the Himalayas and other exotic locations seeking the esoteric solution to lif
es problems with predictably disastrous results (their children wound up believin
g in Supreme Souls and the such-like). I have no spirituality in me whatsoever, an
d apart from tea and coffee and tobacco, nor do I take drugs (not even alcohol),
and I happen to be a married man with four adult children and seven grandchildr
en. I am retired and living on a hard-won pension in a brick veneered, three bed
room suburban house, in a mini-suburbia ... with a colour TV and VCR in the loun
ge room. Go ahead and typecast that lot!
No. 14
RICHARD: For indeed what I am saying is that the perceiver the self can not ever
know that which is actual through the senses.
RESPONDENT: And right of the bottom of your previous post you stated: [Richard]:
Apperception is when I cease perceiving and perception happens of itself ... which
the brain with its sense organs is patently capable of doing . So can you please
make up your mind as to which is which i.e. senses or non-senses. First you say
you cant know actuality through the senses and then the reverse.
RICHARD: First you say you cant know actuality through the senses ... that is corre
ct: I, the self, can never know actuality through the senses. All that I can know th
rough the senses is reality ... and reality is a purview I paste over the top of a
ctuality. I perceive reality.
In apperception, I cease to exist ... then the brain perceives actuality (which is
the magical world as-it-is that lies hidden under or behind reality). The eyes,
ears, etc., are not separate from the brain they are the brain extended. (The b
rain has eyes on stalks, as it were). For me, there is no I inside my head looking out
through my eyes as if looking out through a window. I am these eyes seeing, and t
hese eyes see directly ... unmediated by any I within.
Why do you not understand this simple fact of the workings of apperception? I th
ought you were the expert on apperception ... what with your ready barrage of ti
mely advice on the merits of g/Greater apperception, true apperception, real appercep
tion, false apperception, synthetic apperception and greater apperception. Does this m
an that you actually do not know what you are talking about? Was that discourse
on apperception you gave me over the last few posts correcting my gross and relativ
istic misunderstanding all guess-work?
*
RICHARD: Of course my PCE is not actual to anybody else ... nothing personally e
xperienced is.
RESPONDENT: Werent you saying that it has nothing to do with subjectivity but all
to do the actual sensate experience. So now there is a recognition that those s
ense experiences do have a subjective component. And previous you asserted that
the I was nothing but something that got in the way. Now please tell me how one
can have a subjectivity experienced when your intention is to remove this aspect t
hrough brain with its sense organs only type of experience?
RICHARD: This is so trite ... and it only reveals your inadequacy. By subjective y
ou know perfectly well that I was referring to individual experience my experien
ce, not someone elses. Personal experience, if you will, not collective experienc
e ... and so on. Please try to comprehend what is being said in order to underst
and, rather than these asinine attempts to pick holes in a straight-forward expo
sition.
As I said before, we can communicate our personal experience via language ... an
d other people who listen to my experience with both ears have their PCE validat
ed as being within the normal realm of human sensate experience. This is what is
called being objective. It is the contents of the PCE that are actual ... the t
rees, the houses, the peoples, the animals and so on. In a PCE these three dimen
sional objects are seen, with a startling clarity, to have an actual existence .
.. and by actual I mean tangible, touchable, substantial, material, corporeal, t
actile and palpable.
*
RICHARD: This is why we communicate our experience via language.
RESPONDENT: And language is what? Subjective patterns of thought finding their f
orm through the motor organ of the vocal chords. So subjective processes play a
greater role than the motor organ/sense organs which are only the vehicle for ou
tgoing and incoming expressions or inferences/waves/vibrations, i.e. senses are
not the ultimate.
RICHARD: Well now, we can argue the toss as to what organ is the ultimate if you l
ike ... but what point would it serve? Apperception is the minds perception of it
self, and the mind is a process engendered by the brain thinking and reflecting
with awareness. Without senses this would not occur, for the brain and its sense
organs are one and the same thing ... if one looks at a medical journal with th
ose clever see-through pages of the body organs one will come across a picture o
f the brain with its eyes on stalks ... and it will become obvious that there is
no separation between the brain and the five sense organs. The brain is these s
enses and the senses are the brain literally.
*
RICHARD: Other people who listen to my experience with both ears have their PCE
validated as being within the normal realm of human sensate experience ... this
is what is called being objective
RESPONDENT: Which means your experiences are nothing unusual. The examples you g
ive are fairly ordinary. I find nothing of PCE in them.
RICHARD: That is because you are not listening with both ears ... you are too bu
sy trying to find fault. Anybody who has had PCEs would recognise the description
s straight away. This actual world is extraordinary when compared to the reality o
f secular normality and the Reality of metaphysical abnormality. Everything and ev
eryone and every event is magical, luminous, vivid, intense, brilliant, direct,
immediate ... and perfect as-it-is. Remember it now?
*
RICHARD: It is the senses in operation without an I and these sensate experiences
include the brain coordinating all the data with the clarity born of the absence
of this meddling and troublesome psychological entity.
RESPONDENT: In general that would be automatism. I mean it can be a defence to c
riminal actions but the idea is to prevent that through using intelligence and n
ot merely instinctual. Getting down to basics. There are five sensory organs: ey
es, ears, nose, tongue and skin. There are also five motor organs: vocal chord,
hands, feet, excretory and genital organs. The characteristic of the sensory org
ans is to run after external objects. Whenever any inferential vibration emanate
s from an object, the sensory organs immediately receive that vibration at the g
ates of the sensory organs and transmit it the mind. The characteristic of the m
otor organs is to act; to establish contact between the organs and external obje
cts. The motor organs carry the idea with the help of nerves and finally give it
an action-form. To be apperceptive one needs to expand the abilities of the min
d not get engrossed in the senses. Therein lies the fundamental defect in your s
ense of apperception.
RICHARD: Automatism? Criminal actions? Instinctual? What are you talking about? I do n
ot operate from instincts, for I have eliminated them; I commit no criminal acts
, for I am happy and harmless; and I am certainly not a robot or a zombie, for I
delight in being here and appreciate each moment again with a joyful freshness.
Did you not experience this too in your numerous PCEs?
It is the characteristic of I to run after external objects. Not the sense organs. W
hy not stop blaming the senses it is you who is at fault.
And one does not have to expand the abilities of the mind to be apperceptive, mere
ly rid the mind of the I. Then the mind can operate perfectly.
You do not know what you are talking about ... therein lies the fundamental defe
ct in your sense of apperception. I suggest that you go back to the drawing board
and invent something that works, this time. Your inexperience and lack of expert
ise in the area of apperception, pure consciousness experiences and peak experie
nces is showing through with a vengeance the more you write.
This discussion is not a competition about which one of us knows the most or is
the cleverest at putting words together. We are talking about the possibility of
your peace and your happiness and your harmony coming about here on earth, as t
his body, in this lifetime. For you to personally experience the ultimate each m
oment again, twenty four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days of the y
ear ... for the remainder of your life.
Perfection is possible for anyone ... here and now.
No. 15
RICHARD: The soul is a psychological entity that has no substance whatsoever, bu
t has a reality in a Greater Reality that keeps one spell-bound in its tenacious
grip. It and its world is nothing but a psychic adumbration and has no actualit
y at all.
RESPONDENT: If it is a psychological entity then it is already a creation of the
mind, and so is part of the mind so you make no philosophical distinction here
whatsoever. As the mind is bound up with the relativities of time and space (the
three exist with each other only as relativities) then if you are talking about
some supramental awareness then that means it can only come from or be the witn
ess of the mind itself. That witness to be truly holistic and apperceptive in th
e Greater Sense (rather than the crude sense of immediate fun and relishment) mu
st of necessity be beyond the mind itself and must be capable of being appercept
ive to everything (not just the fun and relishment). Your sense of fun is purely a
relative phenomenon. True apperception would recognise the whole and all its ex
pressions and not be bothered by fun or displeasure. It would be a timeless witn
ess-ship of the mind and indeed every mind of this creation and indeed of every
thought, word and action and of everything animate and inanimate of ever conscio
usness dormant or active. True apperception (i.e. synthetic apperception rather
than analytic fun apperception which is nothing but mental impressions) must be
of the synthetic type given that for synthetic apperception to exist it must be
capable of binding/synthesising all expressions of this universe, otherwise it i
s only partial reflection and not synthetic apperception, i.e. it would not be a
n understanding of the whole.
RICHARD: Yes, the psychological entity is a creation of the mind and the heart. Yo
ur precious witness is also a creation it is a delusion born out of the illusion o
f self.
Why do you label fun and relishing be crude? Are you a puritan? Why are you bothere
d by fun?
What on earth is synthetic apperception ? Not to speak of Analytic fun apperception
are you not getting a trifle carried away by your own enthusiasm in inventing wo
rds?
*
RICHARD: I advocate application and diligence born out of a pure intent ... whic
h is the intent to actualise the perfection of the pure consciousness experience
wherein apperception is experienced.
RESPONDENT: However, it needs to be added here that consciousness is both attrib
utional and non-attributional. Attributional consciousness from a whole/syntheti
c/cosmic viewpoint (which you have to accept even under your assumptions otherwi
se how can you know the whole) is this expressed universe. Non-attributional con
sciousness is what has given rise to this expressed universe it is the true pure c
onsciousness. It is this pure non-attributional consciousness which has given it
s own permission for its non-attributional nature to be reflected in attributional
form. Only it can be perfect and to be perfect it must transcend and at the sam
e time pervade everything. That in philosophical parlance is called soul. Any id
ea of a unit soul must therefore be one and the same Supreme Soul. It is only th
e covering of analytical I-feeling that covers this true Reality. It is for this v
ery reason that it has been said that the Soul is the Witnessing Consciousness,
i.e. the witness-ship that lies quiescent in every entity is the God/Soul it is
omnitelepathic.
RICHARD: The non-attributional consciousness that you speak of as being true pure c
onsciousness which has given rise to this universe sounds suspiciously like a Creat
or God to me. And it gives permission, does it? Well, well, well ... that is big o
f it. And your unit soul which is the Supreme Soul is but another way of saying: I am
God ... which is delusions of grandeur in anyones language.
So you are omnitelepathic, eh? Are you also omnipotent and omnipresent and omnisci
ent as well? Might as well go the whole hog, you know.
RESPONDENT: The physical sense of the body is telepathised on the mental plate.
In other words the physical sense is awakened in the mental plate due to the ref
lection that follows the impact of the crude physical waves on the mental plate.
Similarly the sense of every crude object is awakened in the mental plate as so
on as the reflection takes place following the impact of the waves of the object
s on the mental plate. Identical mental waves hit the soul entity, causing the r
eflection of those mental waves and this awakens in the unit a sense of its indi
visibility from the soul. If, in the language of philosophy, mental waves, i.e.,
thought, be called thought-waves, then the reflection of the mental waves on th
e Soul-plate will have to be termed telepathic waves. An so in reference to the
Soul-plate, we may say that it is telepathic to the mind. All mundane objects, c
rude, subtle or causal, consist in the mental waves or thought-waves and so in t
he fullest accord with reasoning and logic we may call the soul omnitelepathic.
It is because of this omni-telepathic Atman/Supreme Soul that the existence of a
ll mundane objects, visible or invisible, large or small, find their factual sub
stantiation and recognition. Had there been no Atman, the existence of everythin
g would have been in jeopardy. Knowing that is the true apperception.
RICHARD: Knowing this may be very well be true apperception since you have invente
d that phrase you can make it mean whatever you like. As for me, I will stick wi
th the word apperception as defined in the Oxford dictionary: the minds perception
of itself. It is a lot less convoluted than your elaborate belief system ... and
it is not even yours, anyway, for you have borrowed it from the Hindus. It is n
ot philosophy, it is religion.
RESPONDENT: If you were truly apperceptive (synthetic apperceptiveness rather th
an analytical apperceptiveness) then the question of I doing anything would not
arise. The witness-ship/apperception would most truly be beyond the analytical I
otherwise it could not be true, pure, whole apperception. In fact you could not
discern that your I-feeling is the cause of your apperception. Your attachment
to your I only indicates that you need to chase more and more hamburgers to get
more and more delights and give it the false name of apperception.
RICHARD: But I have said again and again that there is no I-feeling (as you call i
t) in this body. No ego-self or soul-self ... no identity whatsoever. So why say
that I am attached to my I and that I need to chase more and more hamburgers? I do
not. This is a ridiculous discussion ... and you know it is.
*
RICHARD: Like all ideals, their ideals of the good have no basis in actuality and
are merely the opposites to the bad.
RESPONDENT: In a relative sense there is some credence to this. But were you fal
l down is that everything exists within the ambit of evolution and that evolutio
n is from crude to subtle (counter-evolution is admittedly a possibility), so th
at actions whose inner motive is crude will orient the mind to a similar like co
ndition and cannot aid in apperception as the mind becomes fragmentised into a m
atter oriented objectivity. In that sense, anything which halts the march of uni
t consciousness/ones own mind towards true apperception (i.e. the acknowledgment
of the Supreme Entity) is bad. Whereas the converse is good (i.e. it leads to th
e experience of wholeness with the ultimate merger/realisation of mind into/as S
oul which must be the case for true apperception is the witness-ship of everythi
ng which must be beyond the mind itself).
RICHARD: Oh, everything that halts acknowledgment of the Supreme Entity is bad, is
it? So I am now a bad, bad boy for being an atheist. Next you will be telling m
e that I will rot in hell for my hereticism.
RESPONDENT: Well, it can so happen that the bopping back hard enough may, depend
ing on the persons physique and health be enough to kill the person. And if your
intent was not to kill it could certainly result in the crime of manslaughter be
cause you did not care a hoot about what your actions were but nevertheless they
resulted in death. Is this the magnanimity of your silly sense of apperception
of your distrust for moral well being. Control will be there all right. Control
will be there under the moral law. At least lunatic asylums still serve some pur
pose as well. Any sense of irresponsibility means lack of knowledge and therefor
e lack of mental ability to discern the whole. It clearly indicates that the onl
y creed behind such pseudo philosophy is self interest in its most crudest sense
which is the desire and callousness of physical self-pleasure at the cost of an
yone elses welfare. Just because a person bopped you does that give you the right
to play cat and mouse games to bob them back and with intensity to cause harm t
o them even though your automatist apperception cares little for others welfare.
RICHARD: Whose moral law ? Culturally assigned morals purportedly scribed from a g
od are essential only for wayward egos and souls. I do not need controls at all,
for I am happy and harmless ... I am totally without malice and sorrow. As for p
laying cat and mouse ... that is your interpretation and bears no resemblance to
what I said. It indicates what you feel about your self ... and has nothing to d
o with how I am at all. As for me bopping back ... I am no gentle Jesus meek and mi
ld; I do not turn the other cheek; I do not subscribe to that oh look at me I am a n
oble martyr nonsense. If someone bops me, I have the option to bop them back ...
even secular law advocates this very sensible arrangement. And bopping them back
is to care for the others welfare for it may very well give them pause to consider
the result of their anti-social behaviour before they do it again to someone el
se. Under your system the bully-boys of this world run rampage.
*
RICHARD: This physical universe has no personality no identity at all to give th
anks to.
RESPONDENT: And so where did it come from. Now if you had a proper sense of appe
rception this would not be difficult to answer.
RICHARD: It did not come from anywhere ... being infinite and eternal, this phys
ical universe has always been here and always will. Kind of does away with the n
eed for your Creator God, though, does it not?
*
RICHARD: A blissful self is still a self, nevertheless.

RESPONDENT: But it is not the ego-self. And a crude fun and relishing appercepti
on is nothing but self turned into a materialist orientation which ultimately de
limits the capabilities of the mind and the ability to know/apperceive. i.e. a r
ock cannot apperceive itself and any of automatist perceptions of freedom is at
about the equivalent level of understanding.
RICHARD: No, you are right, it is not the ego-self ... it is the soul-self. I have s
urvived the death of the ego only to wreak my havoc on the divine level ... cunnin
gly disguised as the Supreme Soul ... who goes around allowing anti-social people
to bop them on the nose.
No. 16
RICHARD: You give a greater importance to non-material sources as being a more r
eal reality. Thus, for you, consciousness gives rise to matter ... not matter givi
ng rise to consciousness.
RESPONDENT: Well its quite well know that E=mc2. And there are a number of emine
nt scientists who go for the consciousness viewpoint its nothing unusual. Now fr
om the other posts you should be able to discern that firstly Universal Consciou
sness gives rise to matter it is simply an expansion of the Big Bang theory. Eve
rything (including matter) therefore has this consciousness but in matter it is
dormant and inanimate as an individual expressive from (Eco-psychology and Ken W
ilber tend to go toward this now as well). Due to clashes of various kinds life
evolves from minutest particles e.g. viruses and so expands into complex human f
orm and so in a sense matter gives rise to animate consciousness no one seems to
have explained the origins of life from the inanimate to the animate as yet. An
d this analysis is logically deductible.
RICHARD: But where you give capital
icating divinity in some form ... a
it matters not how many scientists
to support your belief, or how much
with, none of this is fact.
letters to Universal Consciousness you are ind

Creator God which requires a belief system. So
with their theories (not facts) you drag in
logically deductible analysis people may play
*
RICHARD: I am discussing a pure consciousness experience (PCE). In a PCE, the se
lf I is temporarily in abeyance so that apperception is operating.
RESPONDENT: So where is it temporarily if its in abeyance. You havent said that i
t is destroyed or annihilated only in suspension and when something is in suspen
sion it still has the scope of expression just that it is not being activated.
RICHARD: Where is it ? The self is not a thing to be put down somewhere (like on a
table or a bench), it is a psychological entity ... that is, an emotional and m
ental belief. The belief is temporarily suspended, so it is not anywhere at all.
Goodness me, surely this is so simple to understand.
*
RICHARD: This physical universe is both infinite in its extent and eternal in it
s scope, then the perfection of infinitude is present here in space and now in t
ime ... for where else could it be. It is only that I am preventing this ever-pres
ent fact being apparent to the minds awareness.
RESPONDENT: So for true liberation one needs to transcend the I permanently and
the most your apperception could do is temporary abeyance. For permanent transce
ndence one has to go beyond the mind, time and form/person/frequency that cant po
ssibly have anything to do with relativity and must have everything to do with a
n Absolute condition it being Soul and all unit souls must, to be truly an exper
ience of synthetic apperception, be also within/as the Supreme Soul (as is every
expression of this creation) the only difference from our relative perception b
e the sugar coating of the I-feeling (which transgresses to I am doing >I done >se
nse experience).
RICHARD: The temporary abeyance was what happens in a PCE as you well know ... you
are becoming quite desperate to clutch at straws like this and think that you a
re still having an intelligent discussion. And the rest of this paragraph is a r
ant about some borrowed Hindu religious belief system which, like all belief sys
tems, has no basis in fact and actuality.
*
RICHARD: It is but the infinitude of this very physical universe. So it is not a
matter of seeing through what looks like matter/actual and appertaining its esse
nce but dissolving the I for it all to be apparent here and now.
RESPONDENT: But you say the I is only in temporary abeyance (as above) and now y
ou talk about its dissolution. If the mind dissolved so would all sense of fragm
entary perceptions of time, place and form and in particular the ability of sens
ory perception would not exist and would simply be transcended because every vib
ration would be perceived as One Whole synthetic consciousness. This is because
to achieve synthetic apperception there has to be something that binds everythin
g together and that can only be consciousness (which may manifest itself as ener
gy and matter). The senses themselves cannot bind things together in terms of a
viewpoint or experience mind does that and the more mind expands to encompass th
e whole the more is the experience of the infinite consciousness that pervades e
verything. As to the physical universe being infinite and its shape, see previou
s post.
RICHARD: The temporary abeyance was in a PCE; the dissolution is when one acts upo
n what is understood as a result of this PCE and, realising the illusory nature
of the self and the delusory nature of the Self, activate their dissolution. The
n the actuality of this physical universe becomes apparent. None of this require
s belief.
*
RICHARD: The point I am making is that the continuation of I (identity) in another
psychic form is the cause of all the problems.
RESPONDENT: The Atman/Soul has nothing to do with psychic form it is timeless, e
ndless and pervades everything. Form is only a relative expression as much as mi
nd and time. Indeed is not all sensory expression simply another psychic form be
cause the mind co-ordinates the experience?
RICHARD: The Atman/Soul has everything to do with psychic form for it is but a belie
f and a Hindu religious belief at that. And, no, sensory experience is not simply
another psychic form ... this is silly.
*
RICHARD: I am not at all concerned about the range or extent of sense experience
, for I am referring to the apperception of the ultimate in the immediate and th
e absolute in the relative. And this is done with whatever is present.

RESPONDENT: So no choices are being made at all all sensory perception is accept
able and there is no question of like or dislike. As for your last point on the
material world being all there is. Well E=mc2 answers that to a significant exte
nt.
RICHARD: No, there is no liker or disliker ... any I doing the liking and disliking is
an illusion.
I rather fail to see the relevance of your throwaway remark about E=mc2 ... has
that something to do with Mr. Einsteins belief in a god?
As to the universe being infinite ... of course, for you, it can not be so becau
se you believe in some metaphysical Creator God who is infinite ... and we can n
ot have two infinities now can we? Therefore one of them must go ... so, for you
, you discard the fact in favour of the belief.
No. 17
RESPONDENT: A rapist could just as easily explain away their behaviour in this w
ay if they wanted to as well. It is a sensory delight to them as well but there
is something wrong in it is there not?
RICHARD: As I have repeatedly spoken of peace-on-earth; of eliminating malice an
d sorrow; of being happy and harmless and so on, I rather fail to see what point
you are trying to make here. I am not and never have been advocating pleasure a
s being the bench-mark against which to judge behaviour and action as being soci
able or anti-social. Where did you get that impression from? Not from what I hav
e written ... so it must come from the hidden recesses of your being. Most peopl
e are afraid of pleasure for the simple reason that they can not (and quite righ
tly so) trust themselves.
The extinction of I in any way, shape or form ensures the elimination of every sin
gle anti-social urge or impulse let alone behaviour in action thus freeing onese
lf to the enjoyment of the harmless pleasures of life. Like eating a hamburger i
f that is ones predilection. Rape is not harmless.
This is all pretty basic stuff ... can you raise your level of debate a bit, ple
ase?
RESPONDENT: Shouldnt be difficult to raise the debate with this sort of view. Tel
l the above to the parents or victims and see what they think.
RICHARD: Are you for real? Tell what to the parents or victims ? That rape is not
harmless? And you want me to see what they think ? I would presume they would agre
e with me. Rape is very harmful.
What was your point, exactly?
No. 18
RESPONDENT No. 15: If I believe something is true it is true for me. (see Richard
on Perfection).
RESPONDENT: It seems Richard going to go through another psychosis with this use
less philosophy.
RICHARD: As this quotation was wrongly attributed to me you may very well be exc
used for responding to it ... but you were very quick to jump in and assume that
I did. You should know by now, after our long discussion over the last few week
s, that I do not have any beliefs whatsoever. Nor do I acknowledge anything to b
e either true or true for me . I am, as I am sure you must realise by now, only inte
rested in facts and actuality ... a point that No. 15 foolishly overlooked when
he engineered this ridiculous caper.
I have entirely finished with having psychotic episodes ... which is what believ
ing oneself to be a Supreme Soul results in.
*
RICHARD: Byron Bay, actually ... but why typecast someone because of their addre
ss?
RESPONDENT: Now you know I couldnt have guessed that from your address I got it f
rom synthetic apperception, i.e. intuition. Which is something you wouldnt unders
tand as its got nothing to do with the all engrossing senses.
RICHARD: Oh, good ... now I know what synthetic apperception is to you ... it is i
ntuition, eh? Who would have guessed? And you are right, for I have no intuition
at all, as that faculty disappeared along with the ego-self and the soul-self.
Also, imagination vanished entirely, too. Thus I am free to see things, people a
nd events as-they-are ... that is, without the blinkers of intuitive and imagina
tive truths.
And do not think that I fall for the blarney that you used synthetic apperception
to ascertain what village I lived in ... my address is on my web page, as being
P.O. Box 1404, Byron Bay.
*
RESPONDENT: Something different ... because Richards sensate all devouring consum
er of worldly passions is going to get someone killed soon.
RICHARD: Going to get someone killed soon ? Are you serious? Did you know that ove
r 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone? Not to mention
all those countless millions maimed, tortured, raped and otherwise having their
lifes work destroyed ... and this is after thousands of years of peoples believi
ng in metaphysical entities gods of some description as being peace-loving model
s to follow.
Yet all the while, salubrity is freely available in the perfection and purity of
being here and now ... for anyone who dares to dedicate their life to ensuring
a peace-on-earth for themselves, as this body only, in this life-time.
RESPONDENT: Human beings have a fully reflected consciousness which makes them c
apable of independent action and also of distinguishing between good and bad. Go
od and bad is a relative idea, but nevertheless must be determined. The object o
f the creation is to liberate every unit and in this make human being emancipate
d in the same way as the Creator is already, i.e. beyond any limitation and thus
Infinite Consciousness. It is with this intention that in the last stage of the
evolutionary movement from crude to subtle, human beings representing a few uni
ts appear with a fully reflected unit consciousness. <SNIP>
RICHARD: And on and on you go with more of your borrowed Hindu religious belief
system. Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they
claim are tens of thousands of years of spiritual living? I have, and it is hid
eous ... and it is also sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West
are eagerly following them down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a se
lf-seeking Divine Immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. Supreme Soul
is simply the Eastern term for God; thus any wisdom designated True Wisdom translate
s easily as Gods Word. The trouble with people who discard the god of Christianity
is that they do not realise that by turning to the Eastern spirituality they hav
e effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality i
s religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the West have been r
aised to believe in. Eastern philosophy sounds so convincing to the Western mind
that is desperately looking for answers. The Christian conditioning actually se
ts up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the insidious doc
trines of the East. At the end of the line there is always a god of some descrip
tion, lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its Teachings.
If it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amu
sing.
No. 19
RICHARD: I can hardly wait to see how you react this time.
RESPONDENT No. 15: My reaction is sorry.
RESPONDENT: Strange, that happened to me the other night with our Richard and I
recall I said the same thing. Seems quite normal.
RICHARD: Well, if you guys keep on making blatant mistakes then you will keep on
feeling beholden to keep on apologising. Seems quite normal to me.
RESPONDENT No. 15: But then I guess youd add the Coda that you mean have a perfect
soul or spirit or do you mean a perfect mechanic, C++ Coder.
RESPONDENT: I think he might mean Object Oriented seems to relate to this appercep
tion business. (Joke in there somewhere). Although that may not be technically c
orrect since an object is a logical entity that encapsulates both data and the co
de that manipulates the data Herbert Schildt. I guess that proves the fallacy of
apperception because one has to manipulate the data anyway.
RICHARD: Sorry to disappoint you and your obscure quote but an object is somethi
ng substantial that exists in its own right, independent of me as an observer. A
nd I would not mean Object Oriented ... I would mean being oriented to this moment
and this place ... what is called being here and now. Apperception reveals that
this moment in time and this place in space is permanently here, now ... and at
no other time and place. Objects and people, of course, come and go. This physi
cal universe, being infinite and eternal, was here long before your and my birth
s and will be here long after our separate deaths. Forever, in fact. Its very ex
istence and continued actuality has nothing to do with me and my observer status
... whereas your Supreme Soul has no existence or reality outside of you and your
imagination (and however many others like you that believe in this Hindu god th
at you have adopted as being true).
*
RESPONDENT: There is a world of difference between a cow and carrot in terms of
its consciousness. There is also a vast difference in ecological impact in reari
ng either of these for food. Food has more to do than just with personal choice
food is political. The vulture has no objection to eating rotten flesh, but the m
yna bird has much objection, and so does the dove.

RICHARD: Of course there is a difference in consciousness between a cow and a ca
rrot ... in fact I acknowledged that where I wrote: some vegetarians maintain tha
t as a carrot does not scream audibly when it is pulled from the ground there is
no distress caused by the consumption of vegetables. Yet the carrot indubitably
dies slowly by being extracted from its life-support system the ground is its h
ome and is this not distressing on some level of a living, growing organism? It
all depends upon the level, or degree, of aliveness that one ascribes to things. As
for the ecological impact, I also acknowledged that, too, where I wrote: when I am
no longer extant there is no believer inside the mind and heart to have any belie
fs or disbeliefs. As there is no believer, there is no I to be harmful ... one is th
en free to not eat meat, or eat meat, as the circumstances permit. It is an act
of freedom, based upon purely practical considerations such as the availability
of sufficient resources on this planet to provide the acreage necessary to suppo
rt the conversion of vegetation into animal protein. It has nothing whatsoever w
ith sparing cattle. It seems to me that you need to read what I write before jump
ing in to inform me of what I already know and have acknowledged.
And to a vulture, rotten flesh is as wholesome as freshly collected food is to u
s humans. The Indian Sage, whom you quoted from, is simply airing his ignorance
in an anthropocentric manner ... this is not wisdom ... not by a long shot.
*
RICHARD: You can not have two infinities.
RESPONDENT No. 15: Here again surfaces the cant be two infinities claim, as if ther
e need be to justify a spirit being, or two rays of light for that matter.
RESPONDENT: Now is this a way of saying that God is one infinity and the Devil i
s another. That absurdity can easily be squashed should the absurdity ever need
debate which I doubt it deserves.
RICHARD: As both God and Devil are both fictional, I would suppose they can both be
as infinite as a believer can imagine them to be, for it is all the stuff of fan
tasy anyway. The absurdity that needs to be squashed is that any god is given an
y credence at all in this day and age. It is all such primitive superstition tha
t I wonder why people dare to call themselves modern ... what with holding such an
achronistic beliefs about Supreme Souls borrowed from another culture and another
time. For what it is worth, whilst the Hindus do not have a Devil as such, they do
have demons ... infinite demons, perchance?
*
RICHARD: And on and on you go with more of your borrowed Hindu religious belief
system. Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they
claim are tens of thousands of years of spiritual living? I have.
RESPONDENT: Yes, and I didnt think much of it. East and West is not that great an
analysis really. It is just a historical fact that much spiritual science has c
ome from the so called East. Of course there is the same in other cultures, e.g.
Aboriginal, Maori, native American Indians I dont have any problems with that bu
t it hasnt been brought to the front-line as much as it could in terms of global
awareness, but probably will in due course albeit much of it now changed with ot
her influences thats fine its not a problem either. it doesnt matter where it come
s from thats irrelevant the point is whether its useful, intuitionally, scientifi
c and practical.
RICHARD: The point is that it ( spiritual science ) is not useful at all ... it is
practically and demonstrably deleterious to both individual and communal well-b

eing. That is why one only needs to look at where this spiritual science has been
practiced for thousands of years to see how badly it has failed to live up to it
s promise of peace and harmony and prosperity for all. India is an excellent exa
mple of this ... but if you wish to bring other cultures into the discussion, th
e same holds true for all native cultures such as the few you mentioned. The Aus
tralian Aborigines had their inter-tribal wars ... as did the New Zealand Maoris
and the American Indians.
Spiritual science indeed! It is all clap-trap, hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo, superst
itious religious stuff dressed up to appeal to the jaded Western mind desperate
for some answers that abstract logical speculation and analytic deduction just c
an not provide. Both the spiritual and the secular methods of producing peace on
earth have each failed miserably ... it is high time for a third alternative to
hove into view ... something new that has never been tried before. Why repeat t
he mistakes of the past when the results of doing so are plain to view in such c
ultures as we have just discussed?
*
RESPONDENT: Mobility does not mean illusion. Illusion is utterly untenable pseud
o-philosophy made up by some spaced out Leary followers trying to relive Woodsto
ck (Peace on earth, Richard).
RICHARD: You just can not resist the temptation, can you? What with references t
o the 60s generation and so on ... and now Woodstock for goodness sake! When will
you give up this notion that I am some spaced-out hippie? What have you got goi
ng about peace here and now that gets up your nose anyway? Why does it bother yo
u that perfection is possible here on earth? Do you not wish to live a life of e
ase and enjoyment? Apart from the obvious benefits of personal ease and enjoymen
t by eliminating sorrow in oneself, there is the social benefit of ridding onese
lf of malice. All the wars, murders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence and chil
d abuse stem from this root cause. Did you know that over 160,000,000 people hav
e been killed in wars this century alone? Not to mention all those countless mil
lions maimed, tortured, raped and otherwise having their lifes work destroyed ...
yet all the while perfection is freely available here and now for anyone who da
res to dedicate their life to ensuring a peace-on-earth for themselves, as this
body only, in this life-time.
Perfection is possible for anyone ... here and now.
No. 20
RICHARD: I thought you were the expert on apperception ... what with your ready
barrage of timely advice on the merits of g/Greater apperception, true apperception,
real apperception, false apperception, synthetic apperception and greater apperceptio
. Does this mean that you actually do not know what you are talking about?
RESPONDENT: Generalisations are good for inspiration and broad brush understandi
ng but in practical sphere it has to be scientifically understandable and workab
le. Thats why E=mc2 makes it concrete and discernible. So distinguishing is a pra
ctical need to see how things work and where and when.
RICHARD: A lovely response I am sure, in scientific circles, but tell me: what h
as it to do with apperception?
*
RICHARD: That is because you are not listening with both ears ... you are too bu
sy trying to find fault.
RESPONDENT: Just trying to work out what youre saying that all. Normally it doesnt
take me that long with but this ones proving difficult.
RICHARD: Something entirely new always is difficult to comprehend straight away.
Ones existing mind-set rather gets in the way ... and raises objections. It is w
orth persevering with, however.
*
RICHARD: Anybody who has had PCEs would recognise the descriptions straight away.
This actual world is extraordinary when compared to the reality of secular normal
ity and the Reality of metaphysical normality. Everything and everyone and every e
vent is magical, luminous, vivid, intense, brilliant, direct, immediate ... and
perfect as-it-is. Remember it now?
RESPONDENT: Magical is quite a metaphor in itself. now if were going to be sensat
e lets steer away from magic. I mean what I discern is that most of the things y
our saying is dependent to a great degree on how you interpret things after they
pass through the senses, rather than they being your true sensate experience do
you get what I mean?
RICHARD: No, I do not get what you mean , for I have repeatedly said that they do
not pass through the senses for there is no I inside to receive and interpret them.
Without an I inside, the brain is the senses ... there is no-one for something to c
ome through to any more.
Then everything and everyone and every event is magical, luminous, vivid, intens
e, brilliant, direct, immediate ... and perfect as-it-is. Magical is a descriptive
expression and I do not mean witches and spells and things like that ... I mean
it in the sense that miraculous would convey if it was not such a religiously ori
ented word.
*
RICHARD: Automatism? Criminal actions? Instinctual? What are you talking about? I do n
ot operate from instincts, for I have eliminated them.
RESPONDENT: Okay, Im a mere mortal and youre not.
RICHARD: Okay, Im a mere mortal and youre not. Thus all the wars, murders, rapes, do
mestic violence and child abuse go on ... not to mention all the loneliness, sad
ness, grief, depression, despair and suicide ... all this is the result of remai
ning a mere mortal . So many people have said: Im only human, or: So Ive made a mistak
, nobodys perfect, or: In an ideal world this wouldnt happen. These excuses for misde
meanours are readily forthcoming whenever someones integrity is questioned. It is
generally accepted that all humans have an inherent fault, a dark side to their n
ature. Consequently: You just have to accept people as they are.
I do not just have to accept people as they are because I know, from personal expe
rience, that it is possible to change and change radically, fundamentally. I hav
e never accepted that I am condemned to remain as I was and I have enquired into
myself and into the Human Condition, with gratifying results. I have been without
an ego for fifteen years and without a soul for the last four ... thus I am at
peace and in harmony with myself and with others. So I know what I talk of; it i
s not theory, it is not idealistic, it is not a pie in the sky.
It is possible for one human being to state, honestly and factually, that perfec
tion is not only highly desirable but it is essential. I am not merely human for I
am, in fact, no longer normal. I do not have a dark side ... nor do I have a good
side. There is no battle betwixt Good and Evil raging inside this body, for there
is simply purity abounding in all directions. The ego that died all those years
ago has never reappeared and the extirpation of the soul that persisted for ano
ther eleven years after that event, made the extinction of the entity final.
I have never been here before, I am perpetually new. I appear as this moment app
ears. As each moment is fresh, new, so too am I novel, artless and innocent. I c
an never gather dust, as it were, for I cast no shadow. I have no presence, no b
eing. I do not exist, psychologically speaking. With no entity within to mess th
ings up, I am actually perfection personified, pure and simple, through no effor
t at all. I can take no credit for my unimpeachable character, it all happens of
itself as the universe intends it to.
*
RICHARD: I delight in being here and appreciate each moment again with a joyful
freshness. Did you not experience this too in your numerous PCEs?
RESPONDENT: Im not making an big claims about having experienced such things.
RICHARD: How come you are such an expert on apperception then? Apperception only
occurs in a PCE. And as for not making an big claims ... here are some of your bi
g claims: g/Greater apperception, true apperception, real apperception, false appercep
ion, synthetic apperception and analytical apperception.
*
RICHARD: This discussion is not a competition about which one of us knows the mo
st or is the cleverest at putting words together. We are talking about the possi
bility of your peace and your happiness and your harmony coming about here on ea
rth, as this body, in this lifetime. For you to personally experience the ultima
te each moment again, twenty four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days
of the year ... for the remainder of your life.
RESPONDENT: Actually doesnt sound that appealing I dont mind a bit of suffering it
s good for the soul.
RICHARD: Peace and happiness and harmony does not sound that appealing ? Are you f
or real? Do you mean to say that you condone wars, murders, tortures, rapes, dom
estic violence incidents and child abuse ... not to forget all the sadness, lone
liness, grief, depression, despair and suicides? Do you really mean it when you
say: I dont mind a bit of suffering? If it was not so serious, I would be rolling a
bout the floor laughing by now, at what you have just written ... for it is ludi
crous. Read it again and see for yourself what nonsense it is.
As for: its good for the soul ... the only good thing about suffering is when it s
tops, period. The soul along with the ego is the root cause of all the ills of h
umankind ... and prevents peace on earth.
*
RICHARD: Perfection is possible for anyone ... here and now.
RESPONDENT: Youve told me that before.
RICHARD: And I will say it again and again ... until it sinks in as an actuality
. In spite of all the jokes about 60s generation stuff ... I actually mean it. Pe
ace on earth is possible now, in this life-time, as this body.
No. 21
RESPONDENT: Richard, I think Ill have to conclude that your posts are merely what
may be called trolling on the Internet, i.e. come in to interrupt and hassle an
d annoy for your own pleasure. I wont be responding to any more of your posts.
RICHARD: Oh, good ... does that mean that I do not have to answer your last five
or six posts? I have quite a back-log to catch up on and I could do with a repr
ieve.
RESPONDENT: Firstly because I cant understand them and the contradictions.
RICHARD: I know that you can not understand them because your belief system crea
tes a mind-set that blocks receptivity ... but what contradictions? I have been
very clear and consistent ... and with nary a contradiction in sight.
RESPONDENT: Secondly its from a troll.
RICHARD: Actually, this List is the only Mailing List I write to, for one at a t
ime is enough. I only came onto the Internet about six months ago ... maybe next
year I will start trolling, but I have yet to finish cutting my teeth here. Besid
es, it all depends upon the level of intelligence that I find.
RESPONDENT: And thirdly Im going on holidays soon up your way by the way in the r
ainforests of Lismore. But I dont intend visiting.
RICHARD: If you do not intend visiting, then why go to the trouble of telling me
your travel plans? Methinks that you would like to have a meeting, but do not d
are suggest it yourself ... so you throw out some bait for me to nibble on. If s
o ... I will bite, for I know that I can stand personal scrutiny. Send me a tele
phone number (by private E-Mail) where you can be reached in Lismore and when an
d we can have a coffee at a caf and chew the fat. There is a rather nice Italian
restaurant with a shady courtyard just off the main street that does a spectacul
ar Veal Scaloppine unless you are a vegetarian that is well worth a visit even i
f you do not take me up on my offer.
If you do, who knows, you may discover that I am living what I say I am living.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista08.htm
intent psychic phenomena challenging belief social identity marijuana guilt vege
tarianism innocence
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 |
No. 01
RESPONDENT: I had something very much like the Kundalini feeling a few days ago.
A surge of energy/electricity shot up my spine and into the back of my neck and
into the base of my skull. My head just did a big jolt and it was really weird.
But this had no real affect on my consciousness. Have you got any ideas what th
at was?
RICHARD: Obviously you are interested in this area of experiential research into
consciousness, therefore various weird phenomena can be triggered off by your i
ntense interest and unwavering desire to manifest something that is: to make som
ething happen. This is the correct approach. One has to have an extreme convicti
on that it is imperative that it is me who will evince a final and complete cond
ition that will deliver the goods so longed for by humanity for millennia. There i
s a curious decision made, deep in your psyche, that it is you who will dedicate
your life to solving The Mystery of Life by actually living it. This decision mak
es this goal the number one priority all other matters are secondary and are use
d to serve this primary purpose.
At times this audacity that it will be me who does it approaches megalomania ...
after all, one thinks, who am I to think that I can break through the impasse t
hat has baffled humankind for millennia? As long as one does not succumb to delu
sions of grandeur, a healthy dose of what appears to be megalomania is appropria
te ... otherwise one is held back by the mediocrity of those who say you can not
do it. You can. The only requirement is that one be a human being and that I he
reby devote my entire life to breaking through to the perfection and peace that
is lying open all around right now ... if only I had the eyes to see it. It take
s great courage and fortitude to fly in the face of all those would bes and want to
bes who, alas, only talk about it. One has to do it ... because, after all is said
and done, it is my life that I am living.
Not all weird phenomena produce a change in consciousness but it indicates that so
mething is happening, something is stirring, deep down in your psyche. I had man
y bizarre things happen electrical bolts of lightning dazzling on my eyeballs; p
ressure-pains in the base of my neck; surges of power travelling up my spine and
up over the back and the top of my head down to the forehead; exalted states of
consciousness; convulsive twitching of limbs; energy surges from the pit of my
stomach up through my diaphragm into the chest cavity through to the throat prod
ucing intense nausea ... many, many weird things. None of them are important in
themselves (some people get caught up in them and manifest Psychic Powers, thus
never proceeding to the final goal), what is important that one takes them as a
sign that a process is underway ... and to rev up the process with ones active co
nsent.
The mark of success is to be willing to do whatever it takes, to proceed with al
l dispatch, employing much vim and vigour ... and have a lot of fun along the wa
y. That last bit of advice is important: do not forget that the goal is to enjoy
life now, to appreciate this moment of being alive now, no matter what is going
on be it good or bad, bearable or unbearable. Ones goal is to defeat blind natur
e, which endowed us with all these instinctual drives and impulses which we wish
to overcome, by using our thinking, reflective brain to understand the need to
become happy and harmless ... that is, to eliminate malice and sorrow. I say blin
d nature for we are born with a self albeit a rudimentary self because it was nec
essary for species survival. Society has overlaid a sense of identity over the e
go and soul (which emerge from this rudimentary self by about the age three and
seven respectively) and this sense of identity can be undone, piecemeal, by exam
ining all the beliefs and values and mores and so on that hold it together.
So there is plenty one can do when there is no weird phenomena going on. Each even
t in your daily life will show you what to do ... once you have made this curious
decision I wrote about. The key factor to remember is: Only I can make it happen
. And: It is only I who is holding myself back.
Nobody has control over you ... it only appears that way.
No. 02
RESPONDENT: I have for the last 5 years been slowly examining all the societal m
ores, norms, beliefs and culture that have been forced upon me from a young age.
Now I do this all the time. I became a vegetarian when I was 7, on my own, agai
nst my families wishes. Im wondering whether this type of reshuffling is useful. Ive
gone a lot further than just being vegetarian, my views are very different to t
he norm. Is your path more about discarding everything? Im very much more into ch
allenging consensus reality.
RICHARD: I like what you write. Yes, it is all about questioning and examining t
he norm for its obvious double-binds and hypocrisies and rather than discarding
them watch with delight as a once-held belief (usually masquerading as a truth) di
sappears out of your life. It is deliciously liberating to be free of a belief t
hat once held you in thralldom ... and you look forward to the next one that wil
l automatically present itself to you in the normal course of your day-to-day li
fe. Once you get the knack of it, they will disappear faster and faster until, o
ne day, you will look around inside of yourself and find that there are none lef
t.
As ones sense of identity is, in part, comprised of beliefs and truths, it would
be starting to wear a bit thin, by now. Another major part of the identity is th
e emotional and passionate investment one makes in supporting these beliefs. In
fact feelings are largely what constitutes ones intuitive sense of being as the New
-Age adage goes: We are all emotional beings. These feelings pollute thought, crea
ting the intuitive sense of being I which, in any way, shape or form, is the spanner
in the works. There is only one thing that I can do, ultimately, to remedy the situ
ation. As I am only real and not actual, I can simply disappear. Psychological selfimmolation is the only sensible sacrifice that I can make in order to reveal the f
ulfilment of the perfection of being here as this body in the world as-it-is at
this moment in time. Life is bursting with meaning when I am no longer present to
mess things up. I stand in the way of the purity of the perfection of the infinity
of the universe being apparent ... my presence prohibits consummation being evide
nt. I prevent the very meaning to life that I am searching for from coming into plai
n view. The main trouble is that I wish to remain in existence to savour the meani
ng; I mistakenly think that meaning is the product of the mind and the heart. Noth
ing could be further from the case.
Dismantling ones social identity so as to access the intuitive sense of being is a
very necessary step to enable the I to self-immolate ... which brings me to your n
ext point.
RESPONDENT: Marijuana helps my journey to proceed faster. I feel that by living
a different reality for a while opens me up to new feelings and ideas, and the r
ealisation that different realities are possible. What are your views on the use
of psychedelic for this purpose?
RICHARD: Psychedelics known technically as psychotropic substances have been use
d for centuries to produce different realities known technically as Altered States
of Consciousness. They can be useful so long as one is clear as to ones intentions
, otherwise one will be led astray by the various mystical phenomena that presen
t itself. If one is guided by pure intent that is, to live the very best that is
possible for both oneself and all of humankind then psychotropic substances can
produce a peak experience, giving rise to apperception. This is not an Altered Sta
te of Consciousness. I have written elsewhere:
Apperception is the minds perception of itself it is a bare awareness. Normally th
e mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its
predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unk
nowable. Apperception happens when the who inside abdicates its throne and a pure
awareness occurs. This is called a peak experience. The experience is as if one
has eyes in the back of ones head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awar
eness and all is self-evidently clear. This is knowing by direct experience, unm
ediated by any who whatsoever. One is able to see that the who of one has been stand
ing in the way of the perfection and purity that is the essential nature of this
moment of being here becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native int
elligence can operate freely because the thinker and the feeler is extirpated. One i
s the universes experience of itself as a human being ... after all, the very stu
ff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe. There is no outside to
the perfection of the universe to come from; one only thought and felt that one
was a separate identity (ego, id, self, identity, persona, personality, lower I a
m, atman, soul, spirit, or whatever) forever seeking Union with That, by whatever n
ame (Higher Self, True Self, Real Self, The All, Existence Itself, Consciousness
, The Void, Suchness, Isness and so on).
Then what one is (what not who) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me
, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is
me, and this thinking is me. Whereas I, the identity, am inside the body: looking
out through my eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through my ears as
if they were microphones, tasting through my tongue, touching through my skin, smel
ling through my nose, and thinking through my brain. Of course I must feel isolated, a
lienated, alone and lonely, for I am cut off from the magnificence of the actual w
orld the world as-it-is by my very presence.
I never advise or encourage anyone to use psychotropic substances. However, if s
omeone already has done so, and intends to do so again of their own accord and v
olition anyway, then I would counsel their very careful and considered use ... t
hat is, that the objective is to gain apperception and a peak experience.
Then one sees for oneself the perfection and purity of the infinity of the unive
rse at this moment in time. A direct experience of actuality is worth more than
thousands of words of description.
No. 03
RESPONDENT: As of now I am a vegetarian, if I discard this belief, what would ha
ppen? Would I eat meat without guilt? The reason I am vegetarian is that I dont t
hink I should cause pain and suffering to fellow sentient beings just for a burg
er. So what would happen to this belief and action if I self-immolated?
RICHARD: There are two ways to answer this question about guilt ... and they are
contained in what I have already written. Allow me to paraphrase for ease and c
larity. Vis.:
(1) When I am no longer extant there is no believer inside the mind and heart to hav
e any beliefs or disbeliefs. As there is no believer, there is no I to be guilty ...
one is then free to not eat meat, or eat meat, as the circumstances permit. It
is an act of freedom, based upon purely practical considerations such as the tas
te buds predilection, or the bodys ability to digest the food eaten, or meeting th
e standards of hygiene necessary for the preservation of decaying flesh, or the
availability of sufficient resources on this planet to provide the acreage neces
sary to support the conversion of vegetation into animal protein. It has nothing
whatsoever with the avoidance of pain and suffering to fellow sentient beings.
(2) Whilst I am still extant I can face the very fact that one is alive means consum
ing nutrients ... and staying alive means that something, somewhere must die in
order to supply these nutrients. This is a fact of life ... and the marvellous t
hing about a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belie
f, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny
a fact pretend that it is not there but once seen, a fact brings freedom from ch
oice and decision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom having
the freedom to choose but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvi
ous, and in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising
over the Right and Wrong judgment. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only
action.
If you followed the discussion thoroughly and see for yourself not merely believ
ing me the actuality of being alive then your feelings of guilt will be long gon
e. For all that I am demonstrating is that feeling guilty is born out of holding
on to a belief system that is impossible to live ... as all belief systems are.
I am not trying to persuade you to eat meat or not eat meat ... I leave it enti
rely up to you as to what you do regarding what you eat. It is the guilt that is
insidious ... feeling guilty is a sure sign that one is being controlled.
RESPONDENT: You say that you have no beliefs. Do you murder people? If not why n
ot?
RICHARD: I have no urge or desire to as I have eliminated both malice and sorrow
from myself ... thus I am happy and harmless. With no vindictiveness or anger,
I have no need to control myself with moralistic injunctions as to what is Right a
nd what is Wrong. It is only people who have a self the genesis of malice with its
hatred and aggression that need to be controlled. Hence morals are essential to
keep the wayward self from running amok.
RESPONDENT: Why do you do some things but not others? What is your drive in life
?
RICHARD: I have no drive, no ambition and no urges whatsoever. I do some things
because they are comfortable, (like sitting on a cushion instead of a concrete s
lab) and other things because they are determined by what is silly and what is s
ensible.
It is silly to be unhappy and sensible to be happy.
No. 04
RESPONDENT: I dont know how you wove religion, sages and an afterlife into E-Mail
, as they have nothing to do with my views.
RICHARD: I beg to differ. You wrote to me about guilt and morals regarding meat
eating and non-meat eating. Morals with their attendant feelings of guilt, conde
mnation, blame, opprobrium, censure, reproach, reproof, reprehension, shame, dis
grace, mortification, humiliation, contrition, ignominy, dishonour, regret, remo
rse, mortification, embarrassment, abasement, self-consciousness, repentance and
so on have every thing to do with your views. I wove (as you so cutely put it) rel
igion, sages and after-life into my reply because it is religion and the Saviour
or Messiah, the Avatar or Prophet, the Saint or the Sage who invented this entir
e insidious edifice of negative feelings (and if you think that I am making this
up or exaggerating, just reflect upon Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene who went about de
claiming: Repent ye, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. As repentance requires tha
t one goes through guilt, regret, remorse and then repentance ... and on to forg
iveness and remission of sins, thus enabling one to enter into his After-Life, t
hen I consider that what I wrote was not woven in but fundamental to a clear under
standing as to why a person would feel guilty about anything at all (eating meat
for example).
These God-intoxicated people invented morals ... and they are all dead and buried
... if they lived at all. The peoples alive today are living and feeling the dic
tates of dead deities. It is utter nonsense, upon sober reflection, to be ruled
by the morals of deluded persons who may, or may not have lived, two, three or f
our thousand years ago!
RESPONDENT: When I was seven years old I asked my mother where meat came from. T
he answer was: animals. I felt guilty after I knew the facts. It was a choice I
made, a moral choice. Just as I try not to harm or kill humans so too with anima
ls. So I guess that means youd kill 5 year old children by the dozen, without gui
lt, for any reason at all. Of course if you would not eat homemade human hamburg
ers youd show a BELIEF that humans are superior animals, as I remember the Christia
ns saying for centuries.
RICHARD: Where you say: I try not to harm ... you give the game away. In actual fr
eedom I do not harm anything or anyone whatsoever. I do not have to try not to ...
harmlessness is my basic nature. It is all so effortlessly easy. With actual fr
eedom, I am pure innocence personified, for I am literally free from sin and gui
lt. I am untouched by evil; no malice exists anywhere in this body. I am utterly
innocent. Innocence, that much abused word, has come to its full flowering in m
e. I am unequivocally able to be freely ingenuous noble in character without any
striving at all. The pure intent, born out of coupling ones intrinsic naivet with
the perfection of the infinity of the universe as unveiled in a peak experience
, is so unlike the strictures of morality whereupon I the entity struggles in vain
to resemble the purity of the actual inasmuch as probity is bestowed gratuitous
ly. I can live unequivocally, endowed with an actual grace and dignity, in a mag
ical wonderland. To thus live candidly, in arrant innocence, is a remarkable con
dition of excellence.
So why do you guess that I would kill children and eat them ... and by the dozen,
too? I have written about this utter freedom before ... have you forgotten? What
are you trying to prove? That it is impossible to rid oneself of sorrow and mal
ice and that one must forever be controlled by the self-whipping feelings of gui
lt that are intrinsic to that application of the morals laid down by these longdead deities? Do you, or do you not, wish to live your life happily and harmless
ly? In perfect purity and freedom? To live in the purity and perfection of the i
nfinitude of this physical universe at this moment in time means not feeling the
slightest urge to be eating children by the dozen or any other bizarre scenario
you might feel inspired to invent. Please, put some thought into your responses
before firing off an ill-considered broadside like: Homemade human hamburgers.
RESPONDENT: So you BELIEVE living for you is GOOD, death for you is BAD ... anar
chy is BAD, invasions are BAD. Fighting invasions is GOOD. Most belief systems a
re BAD. My belief system is GOOD. But since I have no I, I have no belief system
. I shit on my carpet because I see nothing BAD about the smell, or the work inv
olved in cleaning it up. I cannot make any choices, so when I go to get food, I
flip a coin to decide which food I will buy. But first I flip a coin to decide w
hich shop to go too, as no shops are GOOD or BAD, if I made a choice between the
two shops, that means I would BELIEVE one was GOOD and one was BAD ... Explain
some more, or admit some more.
RICHARD: Of course I can only go by the tone of your writing and the liberal use
of emphasis ... but you do sound rather angry for a person who hopes to succeed
in their avowed aim not to harm fellow sentient beings . Anger leads to hatred; h
atred leads to aggression; aggression leads to violence; violence leads to killi
ng. The answer is simple and I do not have to admit some more . It is silly and un
comfortable to defecate on carpets ... and all those other things that you are s
o fired up about. Please, calm down so that you can consider cleanly and clearly
the facts I am writing about ... and look at what your self is making you think a
nd feel and write.
Please contemplate the matters raised attentively before you click send.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista02.htm
Who is Richard fellow human beings description of Pure Consciousness Experience
the PCE is not a matter for the emotions and passions
| 01 | 02 | 03 |
No. 01
RESPONDENT: After so much of what you write about the wonderfulness of living, e
tc., I inject he obviously hasnt had to deal with a teenager. Dont write me back tha
t you are blissfully swimming in a house full of them.
RICHARD: No, I do not have a house full of children. I am a fifty year old fathe
r of four adult children and seven grandchildren from my first marriage. My curr
ent companion and I are, by choice, childless and will stay so ... enough is eno
ugh! I am also retired and on a pension, so I am able to thoroughly enjoy all th
e household tasks if only simply because this is made so much easier now that th
e children are grown up. However, I know full well what is involved in raising t
eenagers ... I raised teenagers myself. In fact, when my first marriage ended in
1983, I became a single parent, looking after three children (the oldest son ha
ving already left home and got work) and I raised a teenage son and two daughter
s on my own.
Actually, I had a wonderful time. I never sent any of my children to full-time s
chool until aged eleven-twelve (so as to avoid the inevitable indoctrination cun
ningly disguised as socialisation) and taught them at home instead. With the fre
edom from authority that this brings the children and I were able to be best frie
nds, in those latter years of parenthood, as I was thus able to experience them a
s fellow human beings living this life for the very first time. Consequently I h
ad no need to be a disciplinarian, which is the invidious position parents usual
ly place themselves in, as in my early years. Being radical as I am, we travelle
d all over the east coast of Australia for some years before heading west and, a
fter some time there, going to India. By this time my second-eldest son had left
home and obtained work and my youngest daughter decided to live with her mother.
Thus my nine year old daughter accompanied me on an exhilarating trip through Si
ngapore, Madras, Delhi and up into the Himalayas where we rented a stone hut abo
ut one hundred kilometres from the Nepalese/Tibetan border in Northern India. Sh
e thoroughly enjoyed everything.
I currently live on the most easterly point of the Australian seaboard in a smal
l village called Byron Bay. I have an affinity for the small-town life as I was
born and raised on a dairy farm in the south-west of Australia.
RESPONDENT: Seriously, I am really interested in what you are saying.
RICHARD: I am genuinely glad to hear this, because I write not only for myself b
ut for my fellow human being. This is my position: We are all fellow human being
s who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war,
murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic ... we no
tice that it is intrinsic to the human condition ... we set out to discover why
this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide t
o be a global incidence ... and we gather that it is also inherent to the human
condition ... and we want to know why. We all report to each other as to the nat
ure of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of
this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not
, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to
make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire
and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being
alive business is actually happening and we are totally involved in living it o
ut ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it. I, for o
ne, am not taking the back seat.
Despite of the fact that every single human being has had at least one pure cons
ciousness experience (PCE) in a peak experience and usually more in their lifeti
me, they somehow can not differentiate between that experience of apperception (
wherein I, the thought and felt being, temporarily quits the scene and the actual wo
rld becomes apparent) and their pre-conceived notions that everyday reality is a
n illusion disguising some metaphysical Greater Reality. The Glamour and the Glory
and the Glitz of the Altered State Of Consciousness has a tenacious grip upon t
he minds and hearts of a benighted humanity. It is indeed strange, to the point
of being bizarre, that so many persons will turn their backs on the purity of th
e perfection of being here of being alive at this moment in time. Here in this a
ctual world, which is where this flesh and blood body is living anyway, is the p
eace that everyone says they are searching for. All that is required is that one
comes to ones senses both literally and metaphorically and spend the rest of ones
life without malice and sorrow. One will then be blithe and benign.
I have no doubts that actualism is for any body and every body ... any body, tha
t is, who is willing to go all the way into what is possible for a human being t
o actualise. And what is possible is a purity that is way beyond normal human ex
pectations; actualism is vastly superior to anything that has ever gone before i
n human history ... and there has been a plenitude of isms to precede this venture
. However, all of these tried and true philosophies and doctrines have failed agai
n and again to produce the promised effect. Actualism works because it produces
the desired results along the way ... the goal in life being to live freely now,
not off in some distant future. After all, this moment is the only moment of be
ing alive; this is the only moment to be happy and harmless in, for the past is
no longer, the future is not yet and the present is but an illusion sandwiched b
etwixt the two. If one examines ones life carefully, one will quickly ascertain t
hat it is always this moment ... and if one is not feeling good right now, then
that is a signal that something is amiss. Consequently, one can rectify the situ
ation and get back on track as swiftly as possible ... the aim being to have feelin
g good as a bottom line in ones life. The essence of actualism is to constantly as
k oneself this:
How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?
To actually see the enormous suffering the massive confusion and untold misery t
hat there is in the Human Condition places radical accountability upon each and ev
ery person to do something now. It is to no avail to hope for some Divine soluti
on for the Sacred has had tens of thousands of years to fix things up ... and it
has not happened. As being Holy has not worked it is up to oneself to fix onese
lf up. Be alive completely alive as this moment in eternal time and as this plac
e in infinite space is happening. It requires a startling audacity to evince wha
t is possible ... to dare to live life fully. If I can do it then anyone can. I
was not someone special ... I had an ordinary birth and upbringing. I went to an
ordinary school and took an ordinary job. I went into an ordinary marriage and
had an ordinary family. All one gains by waiting for some God to step in is yet
more waiting. Is not the evidence of thousands of years of people being on ones o
wn sufficient to demonstrate that one must do it oneself? Reach out and extend o
neself ... live like one has never lived before.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
No. 02
RESPONDENT: If I had not had a PCE just recently I wouldnt know what you were tal
king about. As I read what you say, I say, yes thats it thats what was going on an
d I wasnt there! Impossible to put over to someone in words so unusual yet so, so
real. A lot of words now make sense like emptiness.
RICHARD: I am pleased to hear that not only have you had a PCE recently, but tha
t you can remember it as well. Most people can not and need a lot of prompting t
o retrieve it from their memory. If you would care to describe it in as much det
ail as possible and send it to me, I would appreciate it very much. I will inclu
de here a description of such an event, written by a woman from The Netherlands,
for your perusal and comments.
[quote] One of my PCEs happened in a peak experience on the fore-shore. All of a s
udden, unmediated, I and my world-view had disappeared and an immediate intimacy bec
ame apparent. Although I had lived in this village before and had grown very fon
d of it and its residents, there had always been a distance between me and other
people, which had to be bridged by temporary feelings of love and affection whi
ch were never satisfying for long. Now a shift in seeing had occurred, and looki
ng at the people around me, I noticed that the distance between me and others ha
d miraculously vanished. Not only between me and other people but equally betwee
n me and the trees, me and the houses on the boulevard, even between me and the
ocean. Nowhere was there a boundary. Another dimension had taken its place, whic
h I initially experienced as a closeness closer than my own heartbeat, yet it wa
s certainly not love for all or oneness with everything. It was another paradigm
than the one in which the opposites play their major role ... and to depict it
I needed another vocabulary than words like distant and close, separation and on
eness. Opposites can only be used when there is a stationary benchmark to judge
them by. When I, the standard from which everything was measured, ceased to be, a
pure appraisal of the situation could take place. I saw everybody, including me
as-this-body, and everything else, in its own proper place and nothing was wrong
in any way. The concept of bonding, belonging and relationship could simply not
be applied, not even with my partner, as there was nobody inside to do the rela
ting. This perfect intimacy was everywhere at once, not generated somewhere spec
ific and then diffused to other locations as is the case with love. [end quote].
However, if I am imposing into your private and personal space, then it does not
matter ... and I will understand.
No. 03
RESPONDENT: If I had not had a PCE just recently I wouldnt know what you were tal
king about. As I read what you say, I say, yes thats it thats what was going on an
d I wasnt there! Impossible to put over to someone in words so unusual yet so, so
real. A lot of words now make sense like emptiness.
RICHARD: I am pleased to
t you can remember it as
o retrieve it from their
ail as possible and send
hear that not only have you had a PCE recently, but tha
well. Most people can not and need a lot of prompting t
memory. If you would care to describe it in as much det
it to me, I would appreciate it very much.
RESPONDENT: Here is a description, you may have already seen it as I posted this
in to another mailing list before: Went to New England last month there is a lig
hthouse and a small parking area out on a peninsula sitting there in the car two
geese flew from left to right across the front of the car about 20 feet out and
20 feet or so above the water about eye level. As I remember afterward there wa
s no time just the geese flying their dark eyes, beautiful and wonderful along w
ith a verbal WOW from me but I wasnt there just this timeless happening.
My guess is the mind relaxes and doesnt think so much. The point is that I the you
referred to by J. Krishnamurti below remembered it. The experience was all I was
nt engrossed in the experience at the time I really wasnt there. Only afterward di
d I (thought) reflect on it This was a one of a kind experience for me. I cant ex
plain the realness of it to anyone and dont try (youre an exception because you un
derstand). The timelessness of it was astounding (after it was over) and me not
being there cant be described. The experience does make it easier to see in the m
oment the emptiness of everything. However, nothing has ever been as real as tha
t timeless time.
(Krishnamurti said: Have you ever noticed when you are in a state of complete attenti
on the observer, the thinker, the centre, the me, comes to and end? In that state
of attention thought begins to whither away.)
RICHARD: I am interested in this topic as I had the first PCE that I could remem
ber in 1980 ... and that triggered of memories of similar incidents in my childhood. I had one when I was eight years old and had locked it away, out of sight,
for twenty six years. It proved to be the turning point of my life ... and it c
an be for others as well. It is possible to live like that, twenty four hours a
day, for the rest of your life. This I call an actual freedom. It is here on ear
th, in this life-time, as this body.
Everybody that I have spoken to over the last eighteen years everybody has had a
t least one PCE. It is a universal experience common to all humans from all walk
s of life. It is objectively authentic, unlike religion and spirituality which r
equire belief and faith, and is the genuine peace-on-earth we have all been look
ing for. It is what gives rise to such expressions as: There must be more to life
than this.
Nevertheless, as I said before, people do not usually remember them easily. This
is because, in a PCE, there is no I to record the memory on the affective tape-rec
order, for the PCE is not a matter for the emotions and passions. All other (norm
al) memories have an affective component ... which is why there is nostalgia and
sentimentality in peoples reveries.
Life is great, is it not!

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista05.htm
peace revolution utopia soul apperception sense here
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 |
No. 01
RICHARD: Instead the humiliated penitents obligingly blame themselves for failin
g to achieve release from the human condition. The blame for the continuation of
human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although ha
ving sufficient courage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of the final
goal the Unknowable.
RESPONDENT: End of capitalism and the beginning of a new era? The revolution to
terminate the capitalist era requires the united struggle of the disgruntled wor
kers.
RICHARD: Hmm ... not exactly what I had in mind when I wrote the above. First ce
ase being disgruntled and then see what happens to political systems such as cap
italism. Disgruntled workers could not possibly form a better society so there i
s no point in even bothering to try.
RESPONDENT: Only the intellectually developed or warrior psyche type who are dis
gruntled workers with the will to struggle/fight who have in fact been demoralis
ed into worker-hood have been leaders of revolutions.
RICHARD: Peace on earth will never come through war which is what I gather you a
re advocating by your use of words like warrior psyche type and will to struggle/fi
ght and leaders of revolutions . Any study of history shows that these revolutions
have spilt blood, and I would never countenance such a course of action.
As long as the individual person is trapped within the Human Condition by which
is meant having a dark side which requires a good side to control it there will neve
r be a perfect society. Therefore, all revolutions are doomed to fail, no matter
how idealistic.
RESPONDENT: But everything must be scientific, hey. One of the scientific proces
ses of social change is indeed revolution. In the wake of every revolution, radi
cal changes occur in individual and social life, and far-reaching changes take p
lace in the collective psychology. Dont deny the utter importance of the spiritua
l world view in this and that of the Eco-psychologists. Dont deny the need for a
strong organisations either based on spiritual and neo-humanistic values.
RICHARD: I do indeed deny the utter importance of the spiritual world view I have
been doing nothing else but that. Spirituality has had thousands of years to dem
onstrate its efficacy and has failed again and again to bring its implied promis
e of Peace On Earth. The spiritual world view is sick it is rotten to the very cor
e.
RESPONDENT: The main factor in revolution is the application of tremendous force
to move society forward. Revolution is the application of tremendous force to a
ccelerate the speed of the social cycle of history. But what is force? Crude phy
sical force is an aberration of past conflicts it may, however, still be necessa
ry in future depending on circumstances. This is simply historical realism. True
force is derived from spiritual struggle and effort the urge to better ones psyc
he, understanding and bid for further self and social evolution.
RICHARD: Nothing that is ultimately worthwhile peace on earth can be obtained th
rough force. Not even true force . This is where spirituality is rotten to the cor
e, for at the core lies power.
RESPONDENT: If the reverse takes place, and the social cycle of history moves in
the opposite direction by the application of tremendous force, it is counter-re
volution. In counter-revolution, society is taken backwards towards conservatism
. This creates further staticity in human thought. Spiritual world view removes
internal and external staticity.
RICHARD: The spiritual world view does not remove staticity
been around for thousands of years and it has done nothing
man Condition. In fact, it has endorsed and perpetuated it.
uling for aeons. It is high time for something entirely new
as never been before.
... spirituality has

to ameliorate the Hu
Staticity has been r
... something that h
RESPONDENT: The trouble with spirituality traditionally, but I think this is rap
idly on the way out, is that enlightenment is considered to be in the abode of t
he cupboard the myth of the Himalayas or monastery. Radical redefining of spirit
uality is found in the community of hardworking people with benevolent ideas wor
king with many aspects, e.g. relief work, schools, co-op formulation, etc., who
are willing to take risks even that of isolation in the social setting of dog ea
t dog but knowing other benevolent persons are offering a helping hand when thin
gs get tough.
RICHARD: Noble sentiments well expressed but unfortunately more of the same old t
ried and true methods which people do not seem to see are actually the tried and f
ailed. The only radical redefining of spirituality that I would be interested in is
to redefine it completely out of existence.
There exists another world to the real world that peoples currently inhabit ... an
d it is not the Greater Reality of spirituality. I call it the actual world. The a
ctual world antedates the reality that humankind lives in and the Reality that D
ivinity lives in ... and is characterised by perfection and purity. When this mo
ment lives one as this body only instead of me, as an identity and self, living at
this moment only the actual world exists. The real world and the Greater Reality ha
ve no substance; they both exist only in my imagination. I am a psychological interl
oper, and I am the sole cause of all the ills of humankind. Without me and billions
of other mes war would take place no more. Rapacity, cupidity, duplicity, corrupti
on and so on have no place whatsoever in the perfection of the actual, because f
or the actual to become apparent, I must be no more.
Then there is no need for any revolution.
No. 02
RICHARD: Of course I speak so vehemently and rigidly against all talk of God becau
se of the incredible suffering this ridiculous belief has caused over the centur
ies.
RESPONDENT: Richard, perpetuation of the non-God approach has be far more destru
ctive in communist and Nazi states this century. Although I appreciate what you
are driving at in your post, it seems to me that the non-God philosophies have b
een far more destructive of human incentive, endeavour, kindliness, altruism and
the like.
RICHARD: I agree completely regarding your observations about the communist and
Nazi states being destructive ... the secular approach has not worked either. Th
at is why I advocate something entirely new ... something that has never been be
fore in human history.
*
RICHARD: And cows and dogs have a self, albeit a rudimentary self at that. They ar
e ruled by instincts such as fear and aggression just like humans are. I have el
iminated these instinctual urges, so your attempt at a put-down by comparing me
to animals again just does not work.
RESPONDENT: Is an animal a walking plant and so is a human a rational animal. An
swer to both more likely is no.
RICHARD: Not too sure what you are driving at here ... but if, as I suspect, you
are suggesting it is the rationality versus devotionality debate that you and I
are engaged in then I would hasten to assure you that I, at least, am not advoc
ating that the rational approach is superior to the devotional approach or vice
versa. The faith people put in logic is as useless as the faith people put in in
tuition when it comes to deciding what is the final arbiter for determining the
correct path to pursue. There is a third alternative and it does not need faith,
trust, belief or hope.
It is called apperception.
No. 03
RICHARD: Peace on earth will never come through war which is what I gather you a
re advocating by your use of words like warrior psyche type and will to struggle/fi
ght and leaders of revolutions . Any study of history shows that these revolutions
have spilt blood, and I would never countenance such a course of action.
RESPONDENT: Of course, Im not advocating anything of that nature. In fact the pro
position was that the spiritually associated values of altruism, etc. is the rea
l revolutionary force. However, I do not deny the fact of history that many strugg
les and freedoms have been gained through fights and struggle. One simply cannot
deny that it is written in every history book there was what is to say that it
will change in the future. There is nothing in time recorded history to say that
society will not continue in that way to a greater or lesser extent. That is wh
y I also give utterly no credence to any utopian notions.
RICHARD: I agree that that society will continue in that way to a greater or less
er extent . I am under no doubts that upon the day I die, wars will still be ragi
ng somewhere in the world. You, however, go on to say that you give utterly no cr
edence to any utopian notions so I contend that you must favour a bloody revoluti
on to achieve your ideal society ... unless some Almighty God is going to condes
cend to come down from on high waving a magic wand and setting all to rights in
a twinkling of an eye. Now there is a fanciful notion!
*
RICHARD: As long as the individual person is trapped within the Human Condition
by which is meant having a dark side which requires a good side to control it there
will never be a perfect society. Therefore, all revolutions are doomed to fail,
no matter how idealistic.
RESPONDENT: Of course, there will never be a perfect society, that is fairly obv
ious.
RICHARD: Oh yes, there can indeed be a perfect society. But it can only come abo
ut when each individual person perfects themselves. Judging by what I see about
me among the nearly six billion peoples inhabiting this planet, that will be a l
ong time coming. Maybe five thousand years ... and that is an optimistic view.
If only they stopped believing ... that would be a good start.
*
RICHARD: Nothing that is ultimately worthwhile peace on earth can be obtained th
rough force. Not even true force. This is where spirituality is rotten to the core
, for at the core lies power.
RESPONDENT: Power is a fact of life. You can have crude force or force of a sent
ient nature (e.g. persuasion, humanitarian appeal, etc.). In either case there i
s force. It is totally unrealistic to suggest that application of force of one f
orm or another does not exist in all the diplomacy of history whether it be good
force or negative force. Of course these are somewhat relative but anything tha
t promotes welfare for the collective and individual (and not either in isolatio
n disregarding the other) is useful. It would appear to me that your denial of a
ny application of will/force is a utopian proposition that simply has no practic
al value in this world.
RICHARD: Once again you dismiss something I say as being utopian . Do I gain the c
orrect impression that you consider me naive? If so, good, for I am totally disi
nterested in sophisticated pedantry ... such cultured views only produce minuscu
le changes ... and by force. Even will/force. The only change worthy of the name i
s voluntary change ... anyone who has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a
new world will harbour resentment and ultimately sabotage the new order as has
been the sorry lesson of history.
*
RICHARD: The spiritual world view does not remove staticity
been around for thousands of years and it has done nothing
man Condition. In fact, it has endorsed and perpetuated it.
uling for aeons. It is high time for something entirely new
as never been before.
... spirituality has

to ameliorate the Hu
Staticity has been r
... something that h
RESPONDENT: And what may that be? You offer no suggestion.

RICHARD: But I do and I did ... and you even quoted it back to me, too. Did you
not notice? [Richard]: There exists another world to the real world that peoples cu
rrently inhabit ... and it is not the Greater Reality of spirituality. I call it t
he actual world. The actual world antedates the reality that humankind lives in
and the Reality that Divinity lives in ... and is characterised by perfection an
d purity ... which you, however, immediately dismissed as being unreal ... [Respo
ndent]: Such perfection and purity cannot be found in any relativistic expression
as all relativistic expression is subject to change and movement and in that th
ere is systaltic growth and decay, up and down, positivity and negativity otherw
ise there would simply be no movement (and that is a totally unreal proposition
it is simply untenable).
Thus you dismiss it because it is relativistic . Nevertheless, for the person who
dares to go all the way in being here here on earth at this moment in time as a
body only discovers that the immediate is the ultimate. The infinite and eternal
character of this physical universe is happening right here and just now ... wh
ich means that what people mistakenly seek in an After-Life is already available
. The absolute is to be found in the relative. Thus perfection and purity are he
re on earth in this actual world that our bodies inhabit. All it takes is that o
ne gets ones mind out of the real world reality and the Greater Reality and join th
e body. To live in the actual world, one must come to ones senses ... both figura
tively and literally.
However, you have probably stopped listening by now and will already be dismissi
ng it as utopian.
*
RICHARD: When this moment lives one as this body only instead of me, as an identit
y and self, living at this moment only the actual world exists. Rapacity, cupidi
ty, duplicity, corruption and so on have no place whatsoever in the perfection o
f the actual, because for the actual to become apparent, I must be no more.
RESPONDENT: However, it is patently obvious that the body does not live very lon
g and so is by no means a perfect thing at all. The body with its millions of ce
lls dying every minute and new cells regenerating but not enough to maintain any
kind of perfect physical condition. Hardly perfection and sounds very utopian w
orldview.
RICHARD: Oops, there goes that word again! Utopian eh? Just what you have got agai
nst a utopia by which I presume you mean some sort of paradise earth I do not know
, because you react quite strongly against any suggestion of the possibility of
perfection being in an earthly domain. Is it your belief in perfection only exis
ting in a metaphysical realm that is being threatened by the notion of peace-onearth?
Or is it the finality of death that causes you to look
ial of deaths oblivion causes people to seek recourse
y netherworld of belief and run to the succour of some
heavenly kingdom. Fear rules the human world and gives
asies.
past the obvious? The den

from the cryptic and shadow
imagined and indefinable
rise to all kinds of fant
And all the while one overlooks what is right under ones nose.
No. 04
RICHARD: Is not the desire for Immortality the perpetuation of I on into an Afterlife selfish? If selfishness is the cause of suffering, then the eradication of I
in any way, shape or form is essential if we are to have peace on earth.
RESPONDENT: There will never be peace on earth in its fullest sense because of r
elativity and different expressions. The best that can be achieved is sublime le
adership through spiritually evolved consciousness which will in due course find
its way into political, economic and other institutional structures, existing,
arising and new.
RICHARD: But I already have individual peace-on-earth ... so it is possible for
anybody else. To state emphatically that there will never be peace on earth in it
s fullest sense because of relativity and different expressions is to close yours
elf off from the perfection of the actual and live in a cognitive and affective
construct. Thus you will spend the remainder of your life in suffering whilst wa
iting for physical death to release you into your imagined After-Life.
Also, all the wars, murders, rapes, tortures, domestic violence and child abuse
will continue ad infinitum. So too will sadness, loneliness, sorrow, depression,
despair and suicide continue to persist. Is this the fate you condemn humanity
to? And all on the promise of something better after death?
*
RICHARD: Thus it is the sense of identity that is the root cause of suffering (s
orrow and malice). Not just one half of the identity the ego but the other half
the soul as well, is at fault. Thus not only must the self dissolve but the Self
must psychologically self-immolate also.
RESPONDENT: Cant agree with blaming the soul. This is not possible confuses mind
and soul.
RICHARD: I know that you can not agree with blaming the soul, for your entire be
lief system would come crashing down ... but it is possible. After all, the soul
along with the ego is the culprit for all sorrow and malice.
As for the confuses mind and soul bit ... it is a confused mind that believes in a
souls existence.
*
RICHARD: When the ego the self dissolves, ones sense of identity remains intact.
Instead of identifying as the ego the self one now as an Enlightened Being ident
ifies as the soul the Self. This soul is held to be Eternal and pre-dates birth
(the Zen peoples Original face) and post-dates death in other words: Immortality. A
n I still exists, transmogrified now into a super-natural I (the second I of Mr. Ventk
ataraman Aiyer aka Ramana fame). Thus I asked myself the question: If I as ego (th
e self) wreak havoc, could it be that I as soul (the Self) am the cause the contin
ued suffering?
RESPONDENT: But in the very last part you still equate I feeling with Soul?
RICHARD: Yes. Not only feelings but thoughts as well. The soul and Soul are a psyc
hological construct and exist only in imagination. They have no actuality whatso
ever.
Here in the actual world and now in time lies the perfection and purity that hum
ankind is searching for.
No. 05
RESPONDENT: How can apperception be the fullest expression of knowledge-Intuitio
n or be infallible valid knowledge when the Absolute is beyond the realm of the
apperceptive mind-entity.
RICHARD: When you capitalise the word Absolute you are referring to some metaphysi
cal entity a god by whatever name so of course it is beyond the realm of the appe
rceptive mind-entity . The Absolute exists in imagination only and can only be ac
cessed by such dubious and notoriously unreliable tools such as intuition and me
ditation-induced trance states. And you shot yourself in the foot by writing appe
rceptive mind-entity because for apperception to occur (apperception: the minds pe
rception of itself), the mind-entity must cease to exist. Methinks you have grabbe
d hold of this word apperception and tried to create the impression that you know
what you are talking about. You do not.
RESPONDENT: The apperceptive mind can only ever apprehend the reflection and not
the Source unless the faculties of the mind are deflected towards g/Greater app
erception. If the mind faculties are not so deflected/trained, they will keep th
emselves enmeshed in thoughts of petty enjoyment. The fullest expression of intu
ition itself, and the infallible knowledge of Cognition is surely beyond the rea
lm of the apperceptive mind.
RICHARD: More of the same bombast and blather ... what on earth is g/Greater appe
rception when it is at home? And the fullest expression of intuition itself, and t
he infallible knowledge of Cognition is to be in praise of the affective and inte
llectual tools of determination for ascertaining the perfection and purity of th
is moment in time and this place in space ... something they are patently incapa
ble of doing. The closest approximation to the actual that I, the self, can attain
via thought and feeling can only ever be visionary states produced from hopeful
ideals that manifest themselves as hallucinatory chimeras. The mind, in cahoots
with the heart and held hostage by humanitys wisdom, is a fertile breeding-ground
for fanciful flights of imagination, giving rise to the fantasies and phantasms
so loved and revered and feared by humankind. They never completely satisfy for
they never last ... they have no substance, no intrinsic viability and doubt is
never far away. In a valiant attempt to remove doubt, faith is brought into play
.
RESPONDENT: If the apperceptive mind is not trained to be deflected towards the
Great (towards a realisation of the Infinite), then it surely will only continue
to be directly assailed by its own propensities of a lower bearing so that it c
annot give full expression to its inner capabilities. That is people will say th
at only what they see is truth when it is really a mish-mash from a relative com
ic strip.
RICHARD: Here again you have taken the word apperceptive, grabbed hold of the word
mind... and stuck it after it as if it means something profound. It does not. In
apperception there is no Great (with a capital to signify divinity) for the mind t
o be deflected towards ... whatever that means. Also to be directly assailed by its
own propensities of a lower bearing seems to be so much gobble-de-gook that I ca
n hardly be bothered to translate it ... perhaps it is what you write, and not m
e, that is what is a mish-mash from a relative comic strip.
RESPONDENT: This is surely obvious when one considers that the characteristic of
the sensory organs is to run after external objects. Whenever any inferential v
ibration emanates from an object, the sensory organs immediately receive that vi
bration at the gates of the sensory organs and transmit it to the apperceptive pla
te of the mind, which is the site of the minds dealing with the same and therefore
the reactive momenta that is to result from such dealings/deeds. One only appreh
ends a cause and generates an effect. This may give rise to sense coming into bein
g but only at the lower levels of mind e.g. sense perception. All the forces of
the world that are perceived there only prove their existence in this dynamic.
RICHARD: The apperceptive plate of the mind ? Really, you are going to have to do
far better than this if you wish me to take you seriously. And I thoroughly enjo
yed trying to understand this bit: the site of the minds dealing with the same and t
herefore the reactive momenta that is to result from such dealings/deeds.

You really do not like being here on earth, do you?
No. 06
RICHARD: Oh yes, there can indeed be a perfect society. But it can only come abo
ut when each individual person perfects themselves.
RESPONDENT: Thats just dreaming life generation doesnt work that way new entities
are born who mess it up and learn while old entities who are learned have depart
ed. At best there is some ticking of the meter over in a positive way because ev
olution of consciousness is moving forward, but as mentioned the new babes must
learn what the old ones departed with and so no simultaneous mindset possible.
RICHARD: I presume your thats just dreaming is your replacement phrase for thats just
utopian ? Why is it that the possibility of peace on earth should be dismissed o
ut of hand by so many people? That is to give up before one even starts. I begin
to think that people actually like war, murder, rape, torture, domestic violenc
e and child abuse. Plus sadness, loneliness, sorrow, depression, despair and sui
cide. Strange stuff indeed!
Of course new babies must learn what the old ones departed with ... so shall we ch
ange what the old ones think and feel to be true? That include you too, you know
. Where all the old ones have your kind of attitude, new born babies just do not s
tand a chance.
RESPONDENT: The actual world is subject to storms, tempests, fire and on the oth
er side nice sunsets, good beaches and lush forests. A spectrum of possibilities
across the polarities. The ultimate passing fragment of time is what the immedi
ate when considering sense perception (which are fairly limited).
RICHARD: I do not get what point you are making regarding storms and sunsets etc
. ... personally I find natures display to be magnificent ... but, as I gather yo
u would rather be some place else than here on earth, I suppose you do not like
it.
As for you saying when considering sense perception (which are fairly limited) you
somehow miss that I was referring to the actual world that becomes apparent wit
h apperception ... not perception.
*
RICHARD: To live in the actual world, one must come to ones senses ... both figur
atively and literally.
RESPONDENT: Well if you want to go to that extreme we will all be carrying aroun
d microscopes, telescopes, and all those fancy instruments that scientists use s
o that we can experience the extremities of sense perception because we certainl
y cant see it all with our own little sense organs. And to carry those things aro
und (if at all feasible) means we aint going to travel very fast (if anywhere). S
preading those tools out is a better option leave it to one group of scientists
to use and for the philosophers to challenge what they come up with.
RICHARD: Bit of a strange rant ... I do not need microscopes and so on for I see
with remarkable clarity, being that I am without a distorting self lurking abou
t within ... and what do you mean by to go to that extreme ? What have you got again
st the senses? Oh, I remember now ... they interfere with your carefully constru
cted belief system because they record facts. And facts spoil fantasies any time
. Reminds me of that adage: Dont let the facts interfere with a good story ... or w
as it: Dont bother me with facts ... I am after The Truth?
Just who is dreaming?
RESPONDENT: Time just doesnt make physical reality perfect. New growth and decay
of old is the essence of the humdrum of the physical world. Metaphysical if by t
hat you mean mental well ideas are a darn challenge anyway and dont give any peac
e .
RICHARD: Time just doesnt make physical reality perfect ? Do you see just how set y
ou are against what is actual? Do you see how you are in denial of what is obvio
us? No wonder you wish to live in a mentally constructed dream-world that promis
es (but never delivers) some obscure metaphysical salvation.
If your ideas and they are borrowed ideas anyway do not give you peace then why
persist with them. This is crazy ... you defend the indefensible and then admit
their intrinsic lack of being able to be consummated. If I remember correctly, t
his is properly called martyrdom ... being willing to suffer for a belief.
*
RICHARD: Or is it the finality of death that causes you to look past the obvious
? The denial of deaths oblivion causes people to seek recourse from the cryptic a
nd shadowy netherworld of belief.
RESPONDENT: The obvious (i.e. I presume everything in front of me sensed by sens
e perception) is also subject to death. Does the mind die, is the Soul absolute
might be better questions. Physical death that is too obvious its hardly a bothe
r unless one wants to take the whole world with them and their money in the bank
attachment is the bother not the death.
RICHARD: No. By the obvious I mean the ability to be here in space and now in ti
me. This is the point where the infinity of space and the eternity of time come
together, as it were, as this body and one realises that one is already here and
it is always now ... and it is perfect.
Yes, the mind does die. Yes, the Soul is absolute ... absolutely a fantasy, that
is. And of course, for you, physical death is hardly a bother because you belie
ve that you are going to a better place. One can not take anything with them whe
n they die for there is nowhere to go to and no-one to go anywhere anyway. Death
is oblivion. The end. Finish. If you do not experience perfection here and now
you never will.
Such is the power of believing that it over-rides the actual.
No. 07
RESPONDENT: It seems to me all you are saying is that true knowledge is beyond t
he scope of the perceiver perceiving something in its fractional proportions thr
ough the senses. Now I dont disagree with that while the scope of perception thro
ugh senses may be valid and with instruments becomes more valid in terms of scie
ntific knowledge it still cant be everything, otherwise why would we bother about
inventing more and more subtle instruments to get more and more knowledge because
we know what we have got with the senses is not enough.
RICHARD: This starts off good, because we can agree upon something, for indeed w
hat I am saying is that the perceiver the self can not ever know that which is a
ctual through the senses (I am happy enough for now to call it true knowledge ). H
owever, where you go off again on the subject of scientific instruments (like mi
croscopes, I presume) you do miss the point. I am not bothered with having to ex
amine objects with ever increasing magnification ... that is the method of gathe
ring scientific knowledge, not seeing true knowledge (what I am calling the actual
just for now so as to ease communication). Peering through a microscope with th
e self intact will only magnify the real worlds reality ... after all, I was talk
ing about apperception and I know of no scientist looking through a microscope w
ith apperception.
RESPONDENT: The concept of their god is actual is a strange one. Is your PCE actua
l to anyone else? If you are talking about a purely internal experience because of
revelations in the higher states of mind then it will be actual all right but g
iven its subtlety it wont be expressive in the material crude sphere in the way y
ou perceive it internally because of the difference in the media being used. E.g
. you may have a peak experience but to the average onlooker they will see you a
s slightly insane because they have no understanding of the experience, as their m
inds are inclined not to understanding where youre peaks come from but rather to
the ordinariness of experience from limited sense perceptions.
RICHARD: Yes, indeed the concept of God being actual is a strange one ... it alw
ays stops anyone in their tracks who is attempting to convert me to their partic
ular belief system by protesting that their god is real. I have always found it
useful to differentiate between real and actual for this reason ... otherwise, appar
ently, someone only has to state that the belief that there are little green men
on Mars is real, for example, for it to be given the validity of being a true be
lief a truth thereby implying it is as valid as anything actually verifiable by the
senses. Thus I have forsaken the words real and truth in favour of actual and fact.
Of course my PCE is not actual to anybody else ... nothing personally experience
d is. This is why we communicate our experience via language. Other people who l
isten to my experience with both ears have their PCE validated as being within t
he normal realm of human sensate experience ... this is what is called being obj
ective.
It is the contents of the PCE that are actual the trees, the houses, the peoples
, the animals and so on. In a PCE these three dimensional objects are seen, with
a startling clarity, to have an actual existence ... and by actual I mean tangi
ble, touchable, substantial, material, corporeal, tactile and palpable. No god i
s. Nor your Supreme Soul .
RESPONDENT: Further, if no one can tell you that something is only my fact then ar
e you saying it is just not unique to yourself and has some commonality with oth
ers Im not disagreeing with you on that. And if it is considered to be common to
others then does this not imply that the mind and psychic structure of each person
is similar in potentiality but some of us are using higher faculties but others
are not, e.g. some people are more intelligent than others but that does not me
an that people who are not using intelligence dont have it (or more realistically
they use it less often) it only means they are not using it. Similarly, those w
ith peak experiences must be using some other faculties not commonly used in whi
ch case how can it be to do only with uses of senses, and therefore what it is,
is the use of mental/psychic faculties generally dormant or unexpressed by other
s.
RICHARD: No it is not mental/psychic ... nor intuition or any of those dubious f
aculties that predominate in the spiritual peoples range of bizarre experiences.
It is the senses in operation without an I and these sensate experiences include t
he brain coordinating all the data with the clarity born of the absence of this
meddling and troublesome psychological entity. This is apperception, which can b
e called a pure consciousness experience when operating in a peak experience. Ap

perception is when I cease perceiving and perception happens of itself ... which t
he brain with its sense organs is patently capable of doing.
Maybe what I write about has become somewhat clearer.
No. 08
RICHARD: Therefore this keyboard is actual (these finger-tips feeling it substan
tiate this) and it is a fact that these printed letters are forming words on the
screen (these eyes seeing it validate this). These things are indisputable and
verifiable by any body with the requisite sense-organs.
RESPONDENT: But if you look at it closely it is a collection of particles or the
se days more like waveforms/vibrations come together to give the impression of m
atter, i.e. energy functioning within the scope of matter and the energy conside
red by some to be consciousness functioning with the scope of energy. So what ar
e the senses enjoying other than the things of this shadowy world. No matter how a
ssiduously you try, you can never bring into your grasp any shadowy object. Your h
ands (if youre into touch perception) cant e.g. hold onto something forever. So th
is is all quite relative understanding.
RICHARD: But I was merely demonstrating that things are actual ... that is: tang
ible, touchable, palpable, material, corporeal, tactile and substantive. It is o
f no particular concern to me whether the latest scientific theory talks of part
icles or whatever hypothesis they will dream up next ... or the latest fad in th
e spiritual circles which may be waveforms/vibrations or microvitae or whatever
nonsensical belief they will come up with in the future. What is of importance i
s that things are actual ... they have a demonstrable existence that is neither
theory or belief. And the fact that you call it an impression of matter indicates
to me that the belief system you hold has a similarity to the Hindu and Buddhist
religious belief that things are an illusion. Where you go on to say that it is
held by some (some including yourself perchance?) to be consciousness functioning wi
th the scope of energy I become more and more convinced that you give a greater i
mportance to non-material sources as being a more real reality. Thus, for you, con
sciousness gives rise to matter ... not matter giving rise to consciousness. It
is your version that sounds pretty shadowy to me.
And where you go on to say that my understanding is all quite relative understand
ing , you fail to remember or conveniently overlook that fact that I am discussin
g a pure consciousness experience (PCE). In a PCE, the self I is temporarily in ab
eyance so that apperception is operating ... wherein it becomes obvious that the
immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the absolute. And if you think ab
out it sensibly which is all you can do whilst you are not experiencing appercep
tion you will come to reasonably understand that, as this physical universe is b
oth infinite in its extent and eternal in its scope, then the perfection of infi
nitude is present here in space and now in time ... for where else could it be.
It is only that I am preventing this ever-present fact being apparent to the minds
awareness. Thus perfection can be found in imperfection ... and all quite proper
ly carried out by the brain and its sense organs.
Precipitate an apperceptive experience of actuality and you will see what I mean
experientially.
RESPONDENT: I still cant see what you mean by the actual on the one hand you talk
of touching the keyboard (which cant be actual itself it only seems actual to th
e senses) and on the other a PCE experience (pure consciousness) which obviously
implies seeing through what looks like matter/actual and appertaining its essenc
e. It seems to me the above two paragraphs are somewhat contradictory (but caveat
there because depends on what you mean by the actual), in that I prevents real me
aning and then you say direct experience is the actual (are you saying that?). If
I prevents real meaning then one would have to go beyond the I feeling to experi
ence real meaning (OK that can be done I dont doubt that).
RICHARD: By the actual I am referring to what you call essence being apparent ... an
d, quite simply enough, when I abdicate the throne it becomes obvious as a sensate
experience that the essence is the actual world of people, things and events. It
was here all the time, only I prevented it from being evident. However, I must has
ten to add that the essence is not divine or sacred in any way, shape or form ...
it is but the infinitude of this very physical universe. So it is not a matter o
f seeing through what looks like matter/actual and appertaining its essence but di
ssolving the I for it all to be apparent here and now where it has already always
been. One does not go beyond the I feeling to experience real meaning, I disappear.
If I go beyond then I will project myself into some ethereal realm as a godlike spirit
ual entity and confuse fact (infinitude) with fantasy (God).
*
RICHARD: Apperception, as I said, is the minds perception of itself it is a bare
awareness. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data rec
eived according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ...
it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception happens when the who inside abdicates
its throne ... This is knowing by direct experience, unmediated by any who whatsoe
ver.
RESPONDENT: Well who is witnessing the direct experience. If you know it is a direct
experience then how do you know it other than by some faculty of minding impres
sing upon you that it is, i.e. even if you do perceive right through the fractio
nal nature of senses (i.e. transcend that fractional experience), you still expe
rience something which you internally verify. If it is not the mind verifying it
then what very subtle perception gives you the understanding. And if it is not
mind then what part of your consciousness verifies the direct experience for you
for certainly some verification is there on your part. I dont dismiss at all any
higher consciousness as part of the scope of mind. But if it beyond the mind it
must be beyond relativity and it must be absolute (and I dont dismiss that eithe
r).
RICHARD: In a PCE, as there is no who doing the perceiving (as in normal life), th
us there is no witness. The direct experience is the apperception of the absolute
being the relative and the immediate being the ultimate. The faculty you are refer
ring to is apperception itself ... the brain functioning of its own accord, bere
ft of an interfering I which normally interprets and translates sensory experience
into being only relative because of its transience. With apperception it is see
n that the transient is always happening ... therefore transience is permanence
in operation (which is what everyone is searching for, when all is said and done
). Thus no transcendence is required for who is the I that does the transcending b
ut the very problem in the first place! It is amazing what I will do to stay in ex
istence ... even transcend this physical world and deny its actual existence in fa
vour of some intangible essence (as in a godly sense). This direct experiencing of
apperception is not a higher consciousness operating it is the pure consciousness
of being these bodily senses here on earth and now in time.
Only I prevent this faculty operating.
*
RICHARD: One is the universes experience of itself as a human being ... after all
, the very stuff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe.
RESPONDENT: First part sounds somewhat impractical and far fetched. Second part
well assumes an understanding of the stuff of the universe and what that is. And
as mentioned above it cant be just physical/material expression because in fact
that can be broken down into waveforms. So the stuff of the universe is a lot more
subtle than our senses impression of materialism. And if you can see through th
at a practical reality of life then please practically explain the process/metho
d (I dont doubt that it cant be done).
RICHARD: Yet it is not impractical and far fetched ... or are you suggesting that
we are God experiencing Himself as a human being? If so, I would call that notio
n impractical and far-fetched. As for the second part it does not assume an under
standing of the stuff of the universe ... the stuff is apparent because of appercep
tion. It is not more subtle than our sense impressions because it is the presence
of an I that prevent what you call subtlety being apparent to the brain with its sen
se organs.
*
RICHARD: There is no outside to the perfection of the universe to come from; one o
nly thought and felt that one was a separate identity (ego, id, self, identity,
persona, personality, lower I am, atman, soul, spirit, or whatever) forever seekin
g Union with That, by whatever name (Higher Self, True Self, Real Self, The All, E
xistence Itself, Consciousness, The Void, Suchness, Isness and so on).
RESPONDENT: I dont doubt the first few lines, but all the words in brackets might
just have some different characteristics philosophically speaking, e.g. what is
your basis for saying ego and Atman/Soul are the same (the former may spring fr
om the other but characteristically are they the same) it would appear to me tha
t the better view is that the I-feeling is a covering over of the soul and that an
y unit soul is the same as Absolute Soul except for the cover and it is merely a
n issue of transcending the cover so that true apperception is known?
RICHARD: No ... it is okay ... you have simply misunderstood what I was explaini
ng. The list I gave (by no means exhaustive) was merely an example of what the I c
an identify as. I was in no way suggesting that ego and Atman/Soul are the same,
for they are not. The ego must die for the Atman/Soul to manifest (in spiritual
terms). Where you go on to describe this process as being a transcendence, you
unwittingly demonstrate the point I am making which is that the continuation of I
(identity) in another psychic form is the cause of all the problems.
There is only apperception not true apperception or its counterpart false appercepti
on. Apperception can only occur when I am not. It is the presence of an I that creat
es true or false. Without I, all is indubitably obvious.
*
RICHARD: Then what one is (what not who) is these sense organs in operation: this se
eing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this sm
elling is me, and this thinking is me.
RESPONDENT: But fact is sense organs cant pick up everything. Dogs hear different
frequencies to humans and the like. So the sense organs in operation cant compre
hend the whole at all. Yet you say some comprehension of it is possible (see abo
ve) but offer no practical means or inherently natural process (at least as far
as I can discern).
RICHARD: Yes I do. The practical means is apperception itself ... apperception is
the inherently natural process. Of course dogs can hear different frequencies and
the like I am not at all concerned about the range or extent of sense experience
, for I am referring to the apperception of the ultimate in the immediate and th

e absolute in the relative. And this is done with whatever is present. There are
no degrees of apperception it either is in operation or it is not. The dog exam
ple is like the microscope example you gave in another post ... and has nothing
to do with what I speak of.
Is this all becoming clearer? It would be good if it is, for you will begin to r
ealise the thrilling actuality of what you are searching for in spirituality as
being already here in space and always now in time.
And the good news is that it is this once-despised material world!
No. 09
RICHARD: You must be referring to that adage about life being a journey ... and
that the journey is it. I do not concur with this erudition. I am not actually g
oing anywhere, I am already here.
RESPONDENT: Where is here? And surely you will soon be taking a next step somewh
ere else and so will your mind. So where is your mind now?
RICHARD: Where is here ? Are you serious? You really do not know where here is? Un
glue your eyes from the computer screen and look about you ... precipitate apper
ception and bingo! ... you are here.
And when I take the next step somewhere else ... it will still be here. Wherever o
ne goes, it is always called here. One can not get out of being here and likewis
e it is always now.
My mind is here, of course.
*
RICHARD: Although the journey itself is thrilling it is utterly blithesome to ar
rive.
RESPONDENT: See above re no journey. Please explain??
RICHARD: The journey is the trip one takes through the illusion of being I ... and i
t is thrilling. But it is utterly blithesome to arrive. Try it and see for yours
elf. Arriving is called being here now, where one has always been all the while on
e thought and felt that one was coming from somewhere and going somewhere. One w
as not. It was all an illusion.
*
RICHARD: How can unconditional happiness, twenty-four-hours-a-day, possibly be b
oring? Is a blithesome life all that difficult to comprehend?
RESPONDENT: Unconditional happiness please explain (Im not saying it is not possibl
e) but needs explanation. If you say Love with a capital L that is okay by me.
RICHARD: Unconditional happiness can also be described as uncaused happiness ...
that is, not dependent upon people, things and events.
As for Love with a capital L ... that is the sugar coating the I pastes over itself
to try to make out that it is a Good I. It is part of the delusion commonly called
the Self that arises out of the illusion of being a self ... you call the Self th
e Supreme Soul.
*
RICHARD: Why persist in a sick game and defend ones right to do so? Why insist on
suffering when blitheness is freely available here and now? Is a life of perenn
ial gaiety something to be scorned?
RESPONDENT: Depends on what it leads to and what results it achieves. Gaiety in
the form of substances of various intoxicating types all have a reaction which i
s hardly nice. Have you transcended the possibility of every reaction to your ac
tions?
RICHARD: It leads to harmony betwixt people ... peace on earth, it is called. An
d you know perfectly well that I was not referring to intoxicants ... that is a
red-herring and does not become you.
I have not transcended anything. There is no I left to be able to transcend anythi
ng ... transcending is but a way to appear to be doing something constructive ab
out peace-on-earth whilst being able to remain in existence as an I. What you call
I-feeling (as an ego-self) you advocate transcending and identifying as the Supr
eme Soul ... which is still an I-feeling (now a soul-self). It is still a self, n
evertheless. It is still an I. This sleight of hand (or should I say sleight of mi
nd) has been going on for thousands of years, to no avail. Hence the dearth of p
eace-on-earth.
*
RICHARD: The whole point of achieving perfection is that there is nothing left t
o improve. No more training or striving ... a lifetime of ease and enjoyment is
yours for the asking.
RESPONDENT: Since when has ease and enjoyment amounted to perfection? And if you
think it does why does it ?
RICHARD: You manipulated the sentence to score a cheap point. Perfection is the
goal of life ... and upon achieving perfection, ease and enjoyment is a bonus. A
fringe-benefit, if you will.
Really, the quality of your debate is slipping, in this post.
No. 10
RESPONDENT: A rapist could just as easily explain away their behaviour in this w
ay if they wanted to as well. It is a sensory delight to them as well but there
is something wrong in it is there not?
RICHARD: As I have repeatedly spoken of peace-on-earth; of eliminating malice an
d sorrow; of being happy and harmless and so on, I rather fail to see what point
you are trying to make here. I am not and never have been advocating pleasure a
s being the bench-mark against which to judge behaviour and action as being soci
able or anti-social. Where did you get that impression from? Not from what I hav
e written ... so it must come from the hidden recesses of your being. Most peopl
e are afraid of pleasure for the simple reason that they can not (and quite righ
tly so) trust themselves.
The extinction of I in any way, shape or form ensures the elimination of every sin
gle anti-social urge or impulse let alone behaviour in action thus freeing onese
lf to the enjoyment of the harmless pleasures of life. Like eating a hamburger i

f that is ones predilection. Rape is not harmless.
This is all pretty basic stuff ... can you raise your level of debate a bit, ple
ase?
RESPONDENT No. 5 (Part Two)

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista15.htm
enlightenment faith apperception death how am I thinking creator-god instinct

ing)
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 |
No. 01
RICHARD to No. 4: Unless, of course, all of the Enlightened Beings that have eve
r existed are wrong in saying that their state (Enlightenment) is won only when
it is permanent ... Enlightenment is reached only when one has dissolved the ego
permanently.
RESPONDENT: Richard. Im not taking sides or anything, but ... the way I read his
post he did not dispute a state of permanence, simply gave it a different label
Perfection I think it was.
RICHARD: The accepted use of the term Enlightenment throughout the world refers to
an Altered State Of Consciousness wherein the ego has permanently dissolved ...
what is known as ego-death or death of the ego. No. 4 claims that he is enlightened
. However, by his own words, his ego has not dissolved it rears its ugly head . Th
erefore, he is not enlightened.
In order to get around this blatant misrepresentation he shifts the goal-posts a

nd rewrites definitions to suit himself. Enlightenment then becomes for him, and
anyone else he can fool, a temporary version of perfection . As every single huma
n being on this planet has had, at some stage in their life, a temporary version
of perfection glimpses or flashes of perfection known in the west as peak experiences
hen by his definition, every person on earth is enlightened ... which makes nons
ense of a terminology referring to a permanent state of ego-lessness.
This way he can include his favourite heroes like Mr. Soren Kierkegaard and Mr.
Otto Weininger in his list of enlightened persons. They, however, did not claim
enlightenment for themselves and carried their egos to their graves.
*
RICHARD to No. 4: By your own words you can not be justified in using the word en
lightenment to describe your attainment because it tallies with the traditional us
e of the term, as you have just stated that: Labels clearly have no inherent meani
ng to them.
RESPONDENT: Either Im missing your point, or youre grabbing at straws .
RICHARD: You must be missing the point because I am not grabbing at straws . No. 4
says that he values logic and reason. The internal logic of his own post is inc
onsistent which is what I was pointing out. When he does not like being pinned d
own by a definition he dismisses it by several methods, one of which is calling
it a label. Yet when it suits him to stick with an accepted usage of a word it mys
teriously ceases being a label and becomes a definition ... and a traditional use of
the term into the bargain!
I was merely being logical and reasonable.
*
RESPONDENT No. 4: What I call enlightenment involves a tremendous breakthrough i
n consciousness in which ones intellectual understanding of Reality reaches perfe
ction, leading one to directly experience Reality itself. In this moment, the na
ture of the spiritual path is grasped, the scriptures are understood, the Zen Ko
ans are solved, and one passes beyond all doubts, there being nowhere further to
go. If the word enlightenment is to have any meaning at all, it can only mean thi
s.
RICHARD: Precisely. There is no further to go . If, however, as you wrote about yo
urself the ego rears its ugly head again, then you do have further to go.
RESPONDENT: What I think he means here is during that specific encounter with re
ality that you peak, and not that you remain there (hes already informed us he ca
lls that Perfection.)
RICHARD: I know that he calls remaining there Perfection. He is the only one to do
so ... all other people I have read categorise remaining there as one of being in
a permanently Altered State Of Consciousness called Enlightenment. And they are a
rare few. Look, as far as I am concerned he can call remaining there whatever he
likes, that is not the issue. The issue is that in order to claim Enlightenment
one has to fit certain established criteria ... the main one being a permanent a
bsence of ego.
*
RESPONDENT No. 4: This is what I call perfection. Unfortunately, this is not som
ething which can be successfully accomplished overnight. In other words, it is s
imply not possible for us to suddenly eliminate the whole of our egos in one fou
l swoop. The ego is essentially a conglomeration of deeply ingrained false habit
s which have formed since the day of our birth, and possibly even earlier in the
womb.
RESPONDENT: Like I said, he agrees with the Enlightened Masters, but he calls th
em Perfected Masters. Whats in a name anyway!
RICHARD: There is a lot in a name when its misuse confuses people and he is so c
onfused that he thinks he is something he is not. He does not agree with the Enli
ghtened Masters or the Perfected Masters because he wishes to be acknowledged as be
ing one of them by cunningly by-passing the requirements.
*
RICHARD to No. 4: I would venture to say that your response to my post is demons
trating who is the fool. You claim to be Enlightened yet all the while your ego r
ears its ugly head (as it invariably does) . You are digging yourself deeper and
deeper into a mire of your own making ... and on your own list, too!
RESPONDENT: Goodness, how dramatic!
RICHARD: I am glad that you appreciate drama. It is so great to let loose with t
heatrical gestures ... is it not?
*
RICHARD: I am sure that anyone else who has read what I have written understands
that this seeing is a goal to be achieved by eliminating both the ego and the s
oul the self and the Self.
RESPONDENT: Huh?
RICHARD: Huh indeed ... after all, I did write: Anybody else who has read what I
have written understands. Obviously you have not read it. That is okay, it is jus
t that that subject is a different thread, that is all. Which explains why you w
rote: [Respondent]: In my opinion, the root cause is faithlessness, so all the ef
fort we can muster is wasted energy in response to my post. Vis.: I have written c
onsistently about the intense level of patience, perseverance, application and d
iligence required in eliminating the root cause of all the wars, the murders, th
e tortures, the rapes, the domestic violence, the corruptions, the sadness, the
loneliness, the sorrows, the depressions and the suicides ... ad infinitum.
The root cause is not faithlessness because faith falls into the same category a
s trust, hope and belief.
I have had no use for faith at all: to have faith is to invite deception. It is
the same with expectations ... to have expectations is to set yourself up for di
sappointment again and again. Etymologically, faith loyalty to The Truth is in the
same category as trust a covenant with The Truth and both are aligned with belief
. Belief means fervently wishing to be true. There is not much difference ... pe
rhaps trust is used more in spiritual circles, whereas faith and belief are more
aligned with the religious ... as a generalisation. Trust seems to have more so
lid connotations than faith to the spiritual aspirant, who scorns religion and a
ll its trappings yet, essentially they amount to the same. They all give rise to
hope. Hope, the antidote to despair, is what most people live on. Living in hop
e having faith or trusting that The Truth will bring release is a poor substitute
for the living purity of the perfection of the actual.
The mind is a fertile breeding ground for fantasies and hallucinations; if one b
acks it up with faith, trust, belief and hope then anything weird can eventuate.
Instead, make full use of a confidence born out of the apperception that can oc
cur in an unadulterated peak experience; the surety that comes from a solid know
ing ... an irrefutable knowing, not a flight of fancy from some religious epipha
ny or spiritual vision or mystical revelation ... or any metaphysical occurrence
.
No. 02
RESPONDENT No. 27: I do not believe it is possible to be an objective judge of o
nes own abilities or state of purity. As a student of human nature you must know
how easily deluded we are, and I cant imagine what sort of mechanism one would ne
ed to purge self-delusion.
RESPONDENT: Excellent point. I hope someone can follow up on this.
RICHARD: The mechanism does exist. It is called apperception.
No. 03
RESPONDENT: I see very few list members (and Im guilty of this) humbly admitting
that they just dont know or just arent sure. Im impressed by the unknowingly wise m
an (or woman). Id sooner believe a foolish-sounding humble soul than I would a fu
ll-of-him/herself self-proclaimed master of philosophy.
RICHARD: Goodness me are you seriously suggesting that we all hobble ourselves b
y obeying the dictates of what is essentially a religious or spiritual value, ar
e you? One of the chief attributes of a freedom from a self or a Self and from belie
ving in a God and a Greater Reality, is a completeness ... an absence of the need to
control a wayward I with moralistic injunctions. Personally I have no humility wh
atsoever and, of course, neither am I proud ... one needs to see the place pride
and humility plays in ones life.
Humility is merely the antidote to pride and they feed off each other, continuou
sly. For example, one can not but feel proud of ones accomplishment of self-abasi
ng humility ... it is in the nature of the self to do so. A humbled self is still
a self, nonetheless, leaving one proud of ones performance. It is a popular misco
nception that one can do away with a bad emotion whilst hanging on to the good one.
In actual freedom the third alternative always applies. Good and Bad, Right and
Wrong, Virtue and Sin, Hope and Despair, Gratitude and Resentment, and so on, al
l disappear in the perfection of the purity of the actual.
When one realises how silly all this is; when one sees that the opposites are st
anding in the way of freedom from all self-centred activity, something astoundin
g occurs. I, the self vanish entirely. I am simply here where I have always been ...
and pride, with its companion in arms, humility, have disappeared along with al
l the other feelings. I am free to be here in the world as-it-is. Unadorned and
unencumbered, I can stand on my own two feet, owing allegiance to no-one and not
hing at all.
RESPONDENT: I think we could benefit from being a bit more civil to each other,
and permitting each other to say whatever we desire, and in the words of our cho
ice.
RICHARD: Mostly people who join this list endeavour to be civil friendly, polite
, considerate, thoughtful but No. 12 and No. 4 see everybody as sitting ducks an
d line up their entire range of artillery and let fire. I think they mean well .
.. this is only speculation but I guess they somehow kind of see themselves as s
ome kind of latter-day cyber-zen masters giving each and everyone who ventures o
n the list a Whack!! every time they venture to speak. It is their infantile att
empt to give people a wake-up call, for they both openly and foolishly believe t
hemselves to be Awakened. And when all is said and done they are in cahoots with
each other anyway. This is their lifes little adventure, as you will notice if y
ou take the time to read what they have to say.
Other people before you on this list have called for moderation and courtesy ...
to no avail. So, my advice is to see it all as a good joke and get stuck into t
hem with as much verve and vivacity as you will. Let your fingers fly on the key
board and give them as good as they dish out to others ... just call it their kar
ma and all will be well, apparently. (That is the magic word that allows for anti
-social behaviour in the metaphysical world). Personally, whilst I have no desir
e for argumentation and disputation, it does not mean that I will not. I simply
prefer not too ... if the circumstances require a robust discussion, I can oblig
e with much rigour and fortitude. And after all, do you really wish to stifle a
lively discussion ... and nobble my fun into the bargain?
RESPONDENT: What would they who we regard as truly enlightened or perfected bein
gs think of this if they could see us now? I dont think they would be very impres
sed.
RICHARD: But then again, I am not at all impressed with those truly enlightened o
r perfected beings, so I care not what their opinion would be. Philosophical wisd
om, Psychological knowledge and Spiritual enlightenment have had their day and a
re proving themselves to be inadequate to meet the requirements of this modern e
ra. For thousands of years maybe tens of thousands of years humankind has known
of no alternative manner of living life on this verdant planet. The passing para
de of Philosophers and Preachers, Masters and Sages geniuses and thinkers of all
description have failed abysmally to deliver their oft-promised Peace On Earth ..
. in fact, instead of their much-vaunted love and virtue, they have left in thei
r wake much hatred and bloodshed, the likes of which beggars description.
Millions of well-meaning followers have diligently put their Teachings into prac
tice, prostrating and belittling themselves like all get-out in a hopeful attemp
t to live the unliveable. Yet no-one, it seems, dares to question the Teachings
themselves; instead the humiliated penitents obligingly blame themselves for fai
ling to achieve release from the human condition. To seek freedom via profound a
nd lofty thought or sublime and exalted feelings is to blindly perpetuate all th
e horrors and sufferings that have plagued humankind since time immemorial. The
time has come to put to an end, once and for all, the blight that has encumbered
this fair earth for far too long. It behoves one to question all of the receive
d wisdom of the centuries, all of the revealed truths ... all of the half-baked inan
ities that pass for understanding. Then, and only then, there is a fair chance t
hat one can come to an actual freedom a freedom the nature of which has never be
en before in human experience.
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 Unk
nown, stopped short of the final goal the Unknowable. Notwithstanding the cessat
ion of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the Self ...
and an ego-less Self is still an entity, nevertheless. In spite of the glamour a
nd the glory of the Altered State Of Consciousness, closer examination reveals t
hat these Great persons had and have feet of clay. Bewitched and beguiled by the p
romise of majesty and mystery, they have led humankind astray. Preaching submiss
ion or supplication they keep a benighted humanity in appalling tribulation and
distress. The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the self in
its entirety is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over
all and everyone.
No. 04
RICHARD: Humility is merely the antidote to pride and they feed off each other,
continuously. For example, one can not but feel proud of ones accomplishment of s
elf-abasing humility ... it is in the nature of the self to do so. A humbled self
is still a self, nonetheless, leaving one proud of ones performance. It is a popu
lar misconception that one can do away with a bad emotion whilst hanging on to the
good one.
RESPONDENT: Richard, if I could take your humility from you, who would you credi
t?
RICHARD: I must admit I puzzled over this response and I am not too sure if I un
derstand what you are getting at. As I am entirely without any humility you can
not take it away from me anyway. If I did have some left, and you were to take i
t away from me, I would credit the both of us for being able to winkle out of me
something deleterious to my salubrity. All transactions of this nature take the
two of us to do it. But more importantly than giving credit to someone, I would
more be pleased that the world is rid of at least one measure of a pestilential
affliction.
*
RICHARD: Pride, with its companion in arms, humility, have disappeared along wit
h all the other feelings.
RESPONDENT: I have had no trouble identifying the strong feelings you have proje
cted in this generous exposition, and I believe it was a good thing.
RICHARD: Other people have also said that I write with feeling yet I can assure yo
u that there is not a trace of emotion or passion in me. I write deliberately, h
owever, to convey an alternative to all the suffering that pollutes this fair ea
rth that we all inhabit ... did you know that over 160,000,000 people have been
killed in wars this century alone? Not to mention all those countless millions m
aimed, tortured, raped and otherwise having their lifes work destroyed ... yet al
l the while perfection is freely available here and now for anyone who dares to
dedicate their life to ensuring a peace-on-earth for themselves, as this body on
ly, in this life-time.
Yet the revered Teachers of humanity urge us all into selfishly pursuing a fallaci
ous Immortality in some specious After-Life thus actively perpetuating all the m
alice and sorrow by keeping the self transmogrified into a Self intact and thus
able to continue to wreak its havoc unimpeded.
*
RICHARD: The passing parade of Philosophers and Preachers, Masters and Sages gen
iuses and thinkers of all description have failed abysmally to deliver their oft
-promised Peace On Earth ... in fact, instead of their much-vaunted love and virtu
e, they have left in their wake much hatred and bloodshed, the likes of which be
ggars description.
RESPONDENT: Can they be held responsible for the actions of those maladjusted on
es that mis-understand them ?
RICHARD: Of course not. But they can and must be held responsible for delivering
a fatally flawed message. They have led everyone astray for millennia for selfserving reasons and it is high time they were brought to account. They have been
getting away with sanctimonious hypocrisy, for all the while they preach humili
ty and penitence, they practice arrogance and complacency and avoid recriminatio
n through wily dissimulation. But they mean well, by and large. It is just that
they lack the requisite intestinal fortitude to go all the way into self-annihil
ation ... into oblivion ... extinction.
I do consider that they should either put up or shut up.
No. 05
RICHARD: Yet the revered Teachers of humanity urge us all into selfishly pursuing
a fallacious Immortality in some specious After-Life thus actively perpetuating
all the malice and sorrow by keeping the self transmogrified into a Self intact
and thus able to continue to wreak its havoc unimpeded.
RESPONDENT: Can you help me see the logic here? Ive re-read it three times. I mus
t be dense.
RICHARD: No, you are not dense, it is just that all we humans were brainwashed b
y the people who were already here when we arrived as babies. As children the ne
west recruits to the human race we knew nothing and were gullibly ready to imbib
e anything ... we all took the bait hook, line and sinker. We were unable to dis
criminate because we knew no other alternative to the tried and true ... and on th
e few occasions where we dared to question the received wisdom we were told thin
gs like: Thats how it is, or: Who do you think you are?, or: Dont get uppity and so o
Consequently it is difficult but not impossible to see a fact for itself.
The logic of the above statement is this: If, as it is commonly agreed, to be eg
otistical is to be selfish (and thus acting in a way that is not conducive to so
cial harmony) then it follows logically that I, the self as ego, must psychologica
lly self-immolate for the good of society in general and the individual in parti
cular. The resultant Altered State Of Consciousness is called Enlightenment.
Enlightenment has been held to be the Summum Bonum of human existence for at lea
st three thousand years ... if not more. Yet there is still as much suffering no
w as there was back then. Therefore, something is not working to produce the des
ired result ... peace on earth. Why is this so?
When the ego the self dissolves, ones sense of identity remains intact. Instead o
f identifying as the self, one now as an Enlightened Being identifies as the sou
l the Self. As a generalisation only, the ego is located mostly as being in the
head and the soul as being in the heart. This soul is held to be Eternal and pre
-dates birth (the Zen peoples Original face) and post-dates death in other words: I
mmortality. An I still exists, transmogrified now into a super-natural I (the second
I of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame). Thus I asked myself the question:
If I as ego (the self) wreak havoc, could it be that I as soul (the Self) am the ca
use the continued suffering?
Is not the desire for Immortality the perpetuation of I on into an After-life self
ish? If selfishness is the cause of suffering, then the eradication of I in any wa
y, shape or form is essential if we are to have peace on earth. Thus it is the s
ense of identity that is the root cause of suffering (sorrow and malice). Not ju
st one half of the identity the ego but the other half the soul as well, is at f
ault. Thus not only must the self dissolve but the Self must psychologically sel
f-immolate also.
The belief in Immortality is a denial of deaths actuality.
*
RICHARD: But they can and must be held responsible for delivering a fatally flaw
ed message.
RESPONDENT: Hows that Richard. We can never know whether the message is flawed, o
r the meaning is not grasped. Or if it was from the mind or revelation.
RICHARD: If you understand what I have just written you will realise that we can
know whether the message is flawed. We can know that it is not because the meaning
is not grasped. Instead of obligingly blaming ourselves for not doing it properly
according to the Teachings, it behoves one to question these self-same Teachings for
the obvious flaws they carry. This leads to questioning the Teachers ... if one c
an only get past the reverence they are held in. Then one questions the source o
f the Teachings ... the God that these Teachers have surrendered to in order to lose t
heir egos. This is the Power and Authority that is deemed to be Unknowable. It is di
scovered to be the self in disguise.
Thus, when the ego and soul dissolve the death of self and Self God and Truth di
sappear. The Power and Authority are no more ... it was all a projection of the se
lf. Then, and only then, is there peace on earth.
And as to whether we can know if it was from the mind or revelation ... appercepti
on provides the irrefutable answer.
No. 06
RICHARD: Is not the desire for Immortality the perpetuation of I on into an Afterlife selfish?
RESPONDENT: Can you not conceive of one seeking Immortality with the understandi
ng and belief that to achieve it would require a complete dying of ego, and a re
sulting renewal of self whos only inclination is to be a conduit of love to the w
orld?
RICHARD: No, I can not ... I used to live like that until I ascertained that a re
newed self is still a self, nevertheless. And it is the self or the Self that is
the root cause of all the suffering of humankind.
As for being a conduit of love to the world ... to be a loving self is to gild the
lily. People mistakenly think and feel that the dark side of human nature can be
dealt with by cultivating a good side, and one of these ways is to be loving. As l
ove has such a bad track record as regards being the cure-all for humanitys ills,
I no longer countenance such a course of action for even one second.
RESPONDENT: Trading our finite pleasures of attachment for Immortality seems lik
e quite a deal to me. Could it be that you dont believe in mans capacity to do thi
s, which would mean your own. Or is the obstacle in the other direction, that is
, you choose not to believe in Immortality. In either case, it is an issue of no
t believing something.
RICHARD: But Immortality is a belief, not a fact. There is no trade to be made .
.. except in ones imagination. When one is dead, one is dead. Finish.
As for our finite pleasures of attachment ... you are not the only one to consider
that I write about hedonism. I am not advocating that at all ... I am talking a
bout being devoid of any concept or belief in the egos reality or the souls Reality. T
his way, the ego and soul are seen to be concepts that is, the self and the Self
may be real but they are not actual and their dissolution can proceed post-hast
e. Then one is being here as this body only. One is the universe experiencing it
self as a sensate, reflective human being. One is living the infinity and eterni
ty of this physical universe as an actuality here on earth and now in time.
Finite pleasures are but a bonus on top of this ambrosial and on-going experienc
e.
RESPONDENT: To he who believes such things comes a peace greater than the world
has ever seen.
RICHARD: I beg to differ. To he who believes in such things comes the believed p
eace that has been duplicated by great persons throughout recorded history. They h
ave left such hatred and bloodshed in their wake that one wonders why they are s
till fervently followed and believed. The facts speak for themselves ... actual
peace has yet to be lived by humanity at large.
Individual peace-on-earth is instantly available to one who dares to go all the
way into ridding oneself of any identity whatsoever.
No. 07
RESPONDENT: Okay, Richard. Ill take the bait. Ive looked up the word apperception, b
ut what it means to you is what counts. Tell me about this philosophy, who it he
lps, why is it the best choice, will it bring peace but if you do, be prepared f
or honest debate.
RICHARD: But I have been doing nothing else but being honest. I am being factual
, down-to-earth, practical and pragmatic. I am being sensible, literal, accurate
and authentic. How much more honest can one be?
The Oxford dictionary defines apperception as being the minds perception of itself.
It is where I, the self, cease to function as a perceiver and perception happens
of itself. This is known as a pure consciousness experience (or PCE for short) and
is remarkably obvious during a peak experience. A peak experience is when every
thing is seen to be already perfect it always has been and always will be and th
at I, the self, have been standing in the way of the perfection being apparent.
The self, whilst being real sometimes very real is not actual. For many years I
mistakenly assumed that words carried a definitive meaning that was common to al
l peoples speaking the same language ... for example real and truth. But, as differe
nt persons told me things like: That is only your truth, or: God is real, I realised
that unambiguous words are required. (To a child, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fair
y are real and true). Correspondingly I abandoned real and true in favour of actual
t, as experience has demonstrated that no one has been able to tell me that their
god is actual or that something is only my fact. Therefore this keyboard is act
ual (these finger-tips feeling it substantiate this) and it is a fact that these
printed letters are forming words on the screen (these eyes seeing it validate
this). These things are indisputable and verifiable by any body with the requisi
te sense-organs.
Any sense of self is an identity ... the persistence of identity even into enlig
htenment is legendary by now: I am God, I am That, I am The Supreme, I am Emptiness,
even just I am. It is the continuance of identity I in any way, shape or form that i
s the spanner in the works. There is only one thing that I can do to remedy the situ
mess things up. I stand in the way of the purity of that perfection being apparent
... my presence prohibits consummation being evident. I prevent the very meaning to
life that I am searching for from coming into plain view. The main trouble is tha
t I wish to remain in existence to savour the meaning; I mistakenly think that meani
ng is the product of the mind and the heart. Nothing could be further from the c
ase.
The closest approximation to the actual that I can attain via thought can only eve
r be illusory states produced from visionary ideals that manifest themselves as
hallucinatory chimeras. The mind, held hostage by humanitys wisdom, is a fertile br
eeding-ground for fanciful flights of imagination, giving rise to the fantasies
and phantasms so loved and revered and feared by humankind. As for feelings ...
one can disregard feelings too, for emotions and passions beget the esoteric, th
e psychic world of materialisations and apparitions. One can easily become bewit
ched by the bizarre entities that inhabit the Supernatural Realms; one can becom
e beguiled and enchanted by the promise of the Glory and Glamour and Glitz of th
e Altered State Of Consciousness ... one will become a victim of that most insid
ious aspect of vanity: Power and Authority.
So much for thought and feeling there is this third alternative: Apperception. A
pperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience
of the actual.
Apperception, as I said, is the minds perception of itself it is a bare awareness
. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received acc
ording to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is ta
ken to be unknowable. Apperception happens when the who inside abdicates its thron
e and a pure awareness occurs. The PCE is as if one has eyes in the back of ones
head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-eviden
tly clear. This is knowing by direct experience, unmediated by any who whatsoever.
One is able to see that the who of one has been standing in the way of the perfec
tion and purity that is the essential nature of this moment of being here becomi
ng apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely
because the thinker and the feeler is extirpated. One is the universes experience of
itself as a human being ... after all, the very stuff this body is made of is t
he very stuff of the universe. There is no outside to the perfection of the univer
se to come from; one only thought and felt that one was a separate identity (ego
, id, self, identity, persona, personality, lower I am, atman, soul, spirit, or wh
atever) forever seeking Union with That, by whatever name (Higher Self, True Self,
Real Self, The All, Existence Itself, Consciousness, The Void, Suchness, Isness
and so on).
Then what one is (what not who) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is m
e, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is
out through my eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through my ears a
s if they were microphones, tasting through my tongue, touching through my skin, sme
lling through my nose, and thinking through my brain. Of course I must feel isolated,
alienated, alone and lonely, for I am cut off from the magnificence of the world a
s-it-is the actual world by my very presence. Any identity whatsoever is a delusio
n.
Without me, the immediate is the ultimate.
No. 08
RICHARD: However, the whole concept of Enlightenment has seduced people away fro
m the possibility of achieving perfection here and now ... the perfection of Enl
ightenment is predicated upon there being a permanent self an I called the Self th
at exists for all Eternity. Thus they look to an After-Life wherein one becomes
Immortal. This is selfishness taken to the extreme. It is the perpetuation of se
lf in whatever form that is the sole cause of suffering.
RESPONDENT: Well, you didnt explain why a seeking after enlightenment/immortality
, how ever selfish a goal, prevents a person from becoming perfect. Havent you ever
worked for something very hard with intent to distribute the fruits of your lab
our to others? That has as its goal selflessness, not selfishness. And exactly ho
w are you defining a perfect person, one who is totally selfless from square one
, or/and some other way?
RICHARD: But I did explain how seeking Enlightenment prevents a person becoming
perfect. Enlightenment perpetuates and endorses the self by promoting it to the
dizzy heights of being a Self existing for all of Eternity. That is self-glorifi
cation and self-aggrandisement taken to the extreme! The perfection of Enlightenme
nt is but a pale imitation of the perfection of the actual. It is but a cognitiv
e and affective construct ... a house of cards. I define a perfect person as one
without a self in any way, shape or form. After all, is that not what selfless
(self-less) means ... without a self? Then one is totally free of malice and sor
row.
*
RICHARD: The dead are dead, and death is the end. Finish. It is us who are still
here who must deal with suffering ... and it is possible for suffering to be el
iminated now .. and not have to wait for physical death for reprieve.
RESPONDENT: Why do you feel that believing its over at death will contribute to
either our selflessness or to achieving perfection?
RICHARD: It is not a matter of believing its over at death it is indeed over at dea
th. Death is the end. Finish. Understanding the actuality of death to cease bein
g in a state of denial is to understand that there is no Immortal Self that will qu
it the body and continue on in some nebulous After-Life. Death is the end of bein
g both a body and a self.
One can actualise this end of being a self whilst this body is still alive and b
reathing by understanding that any intuition of being is a psychological construct
only. The self may be real sometimes very real but it is not actual. The ending
of this being is when the actual can become apparent.
Then there is an actual perfection, as this body only, in this life-time, here o
n earth.
No. 09
RICHARD: The Oxford dictionary defines apperception as being the minds perception
of itself. It is where I, the self, cease to function as a perceiver and perception
happens of itself. This is known as a pure consciousness experience (or PCE for s
hort) and is remarkably obvious during a peak experience. A peak experience is w
hen everything is seen to be already perfect it always has been and always will
be and that I, the self, have been standing in the way of the perfection being app
arent.
RESPONDENT: Very interesting. Okay, so much for the theory. Give me some nuts an
d bolts. How do I do this while eating a hamburger?
RICHARD: By appreciating the fact that, at this moment of biting into this hambu
rger, this is the only moment that I am actually alive. All past mes and all futur
e mes have no actuality at all. I am only ever here, now. Likewise, all past hambu
rgers and all future hamburgers do not exist at this moment ... they are either
memory or expectation and have no substantial existence. Of all the hamburgers I
have ever eaten or will ever eat, only this one actually exists. This hamburger
and I and all that is around and about me at this moment are it what we are liv
ing for. To experience this moment in time and this place in space fully is the
whole point of existence. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, re
flective human being ... and I am biting into a hamburger.
The taste buds on the tongue are relishing the explosion of sensation; the nasal
receptors are satisfying their ability to smell the delicious aromas that waft
endlessly past; the eyes are delighting in the colours and the form of whatever
is in view; the ears are pleasing themselves in being able to hear the sounds of
this moments happenings; the fingertips are enjoying the touch of the texture of
this hamburger; the skin is gratifying itself with the feel of the air all abou
t ... all this and more the awareness of all this happening is me at-this-moment
.
I do not exist over time or from place to place. I am only ever here now. Any I th
at appears to have a duration is a psychological entity a cognitive and affectiv
e construct which in no way is substantive. This construct is that intuition of b
eing a presence that one mistakenly thinks and feels oneself to be. One has been in
he past, one is being in the present, and one will be in the future. That being is wha
t one calls I, taking it to be me; me as-I-am. I was, I am, I will be ... this sens
ntinuity, a psychological entity called me existing over time, is not me as-I-am.
I do not exist over time; I exist only as this moment exists, and now has no dur
ation. Everything is immediate and direct. This is apperception. Apperception is
when the immediate is experienced as the ultimate.
Time has no duration when the immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the
absolute. This moment takes no interval at all to be here now. Thus it appears t
hat it is as if nothing has occurred, for not only is the future not here, but t
he past does not exist either. If there is no beginning and no end, is there a m
iddle? There are things happening, but nothing has happened or will happen ... o
r so it seems. Only this moment exists. This moment has no term, it takes no tim
e at all to occur ... which gives rise to the inaccurate notion that it is timel
ess. This is an institutionalised delusion, for it stems from the egocentric fee
ling that I am Immortal, that I am Eternal.
Apperception which is the minds perception of itself reveals that this moment is
hanging in eternal time ... just as this planet is hanging in infinite space. Th
is moment and this place are in the realm of the infinitude of this actual physi
cal universe. This physical universe is infinite and eternal. It has no beginnin
g and no ending ... and therefore no middle. There are no edges to this universe
, which means that there is no centre, either. We are all coming from nowhere an
d are not going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go to
. We are nowhere in particular ... which means we are anywhere at all. In the in
finitude of the universe one finds oneself to be already here, and as it is alwa
ys now, one can not get away from this place in space and this moment in time. B
y being here as-this-body one finds that this moment in time has no duration as
in now and then because the immediate is the ultimate and that this place in spa
ce has no distance as in here and there for the relative is the absolute. I am a
lways here and it is already now.
This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetually here for the term of my
natural life as this moment is; I am not Eternally Present. It is the universe
that is eternal ... not me. As one is the universe experiencing itself as a sens
ate human being, any I always on the look-out for self-aggrandisement grabs the un
iverses eternity for itself. Also, what helps to create the feeling that the pres
ent is timeless is that human beings as an identity are normally out of this uni
verses eternal time. Yet time is as intimate as this body being here now at this
moment. It is so intimate that I as a body only am not separate from it. Whereas
I, as a human being, have separated myself from eternal time by being an entity. To b
e an ontological being is to mistakenly take this body being here as containing an
I, a psychological or psychic entity. To be is to take this moment of being alive p
ersonally ... as being proof of my subjective existence. I am an illusion; if I think
and feel that I do exist, then I am outside of eternal time. I am forever complaining
that there is not enough hours in the day, or I am always running out of time, or I a
m always catching up with time, or I am always behind time. All this activity is co
nsidered normal, as it is the common experience of humankind.
To be an entity is to be forever locked-out of eternal time. Complete security l
ies inside eternal time. I will never look into eternal time; for me eternal time is
an enemy to be avoided at all costs. I condemn myself to the endless creation of gr
andiose schemes to save my soul; I concoct all kinds of fantasies about Other-Worl
dly Dimensions. I have to believe in multitudinous Heavenly Kingdoms wherein I can r
eside as an Immaculate Spirit for all of Eternity. I am driven to spin dreams and
illusions because I refuse to see what lies here on earth ... right under my nose, a
s it were. I can never live inside eternal time ... whereas I as this flesh and bl
ood body can only be here now. Inside this body there is no being ... nothing psyc
hological or psychic left for I am extinct. Time is a blessing, not a curse. I can
never be out of time, nor anywhere but here, for I have actualised my destiny .
.. here on earth and now in time.
Little do people realise that what they are looking for lies just under their no
se; the actuality of peace-on-earth is no further away than instantaneously now
in time and properly here on this planet in space. It only takes a determination
to evince for oneself something infinitely better than that which has been prom
ised but never delivered. It only takes a sincerity of purpose and a pure intent
to instigate a beginning of the end of woe and malevolence. It only takes a ded
ication to the actualisation of freedom to uncover and make apparent the factual
perfection that lies open all around for those with the eyes to see. It only ta
kes the devotion of ones every waking moment to the delightful task of allowing t
he instant bestowal of individual universal peace at this moment in time ... bef
ittingly here in the ultimate immediacy of this juncture in space.
I am mortal. Mortality is a fact and if one is to be at all exact, one must stic
k to the facts. To avoid a fact is to avoid involvement ... and there is no grea
ter involvement than being here on earth now, at this point in time. Time and mo
rtality are inextricably linked. Mortality is essential in order to be here, in
time. I am glad that I am mortal; if it were not for death, I could not be free
to be here. Perennial happiness is only possible because of death and extinction
. This physical universe is perfect to the nth degree and I would not presume to
change one little bit of it. To live with the fact is to live completely. Nothi
ng is missing, nothing has ever been missing, nor ever will be missing. Life is
already complete.
By avoiding death which is avoiding the fact I am standing in the way of the exqui
site purity of being alive. By searching for Eternal Life, I shut myself off from th
e perfection of being here. I am wasting my time in the most insidious way possible;
but then again, I am by nature cunning and deceitful. I will do anything but face t
he fact of my own demise. With my psychological death, however, comes release from the
fears of physical death. All of the unnamed terrors surrounding death arise fro
m apprehension as to what will happen to me as a being. I regard death with equanimi
ty; when it happens I will welcome it as I do the oblivion of deep sleep each ni
ght. Like sleep, it is an agreeable actual occurrence.
The search for meaning amidst the debris of the much-vaunted human hopes and dre
ams and schemes has come to its timely end. With the end of me, the distance or se
paration between me and my senses and thus the external world disappears. To be the
senses as a bare awareness is apperception, a pure consciousness experience of t
he world as-it-is. Because there is no I as an observer a little person inside ones
head to have sensations, I am the sensations. There is nothing except the serie
s of sensations which happen ... not to me but just happening ... moment by moment
... one after another. To be the sensations, as distinct from having them, enge
nders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release.
Consequently, I am living in peace and tranquillity; a meaningful peace and tran
quillity. Life is intrinsically purposeful, the reason for existence lies openly
all around. Being in this very air I live in, I am constantly aware of it; I br
eathe it in and out; I see it, I hear it, I taste it, I smell it, I touch it, al
l of the time. It never goes away nor has it ever been away. I was standing in the
way of meaning.
I am completely happy to be here, securely inside time and space, eating this ha
mburger.
RESPONDENT No. 15 (Part Two)

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista15a.htm
benevolence fact belief I anger infinity peace suffering, hope for peace is a
substitute for the actuality of peace
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
No. 10
RESPONDENT: I like what you are saying. Im not sure about the rest of the world,
but this concept of apperception is nothing new to my experiences, as I have bee
n at this place on many a perennial moment. Ideally, Id like to be at this place
continuously, as would Im sure yourself (assuming you have not quite yet perfecte
d it so as to be there continuously).
RICHARD: I am pleased that you have been at this place on many a perennial moment
because we can communicate more easily when we know what we are referring to. To
be there continuously ones self in its entirety must become extinct ... I know wha
t I talk about as it is my on-going experience of life, twenty four hours a day.
RESPONDENT: You seem a bit too sure that such is completely (all perennial momen
ts) attainable by every soul, however mad they may be. Its wonderful that you hav
e mastered it, but you should not project your success upon all else. You have n
o idea (neither do I) what torment some are going through, so much so at times t
hat even if apperception is the key to releasing them from their hell, they are
much too disturbed to even know it is right there right in front of them.
RICHARD: No, it is not attainable by every soul as the soul must be extinguished b
efore one can actualise an on-going experience of freedom here on earth. The sou
l is a psychological entity that has no substance whatsoever, but has a reality
in a Greater Reality that keeps one spell-bound in its tenacious grip. It and it
s world is nothing but a psychic adumbration and has no actuality at all.
Anybody can actualise this condition of freedom ... but I am not so idealistic t
o consider that many will. Just look at the opposition on this list to the possi
bility of an individual peace-on-earth (I had about twenty people writing agains
t me a couple of months ago it is in the archives or I can send you a copy priva
tely if you are interested). I receive the same resistance here in this country
with most people I meet physically. Mostly, people would rather stay true to the
ir beliefs than come down to earth and experience the purity of the perfection o
f this moment in time and this place in space as this body only. Yet, strangely
enough, the spiritual people keep on muttering about being here/now ... all the wh
ile acting in the way which shows that they prefer to be anywhere but here and a
nytime but now!
But that is okay by me, for I am having so much fun.
RESPONDENT: The unconscious operations of the mind are not easily quieted seem t
o have a life of their own, both when one is awake and when one is asleep. Im sur
e discipline and practice is the cure. Some will pull it off to varying degrees.
The best will do best. The raving lunatics wont so much as hold still long enoug
h to consider it.
RICHARD: I advocate application and diligence born out of a pure intent ... whic
h is the intent to actualise the perfection of the pure consciousness experience
wherein apperception is experienced. This gives rise to a patience and persever
ance unequalled in ones life thus far. One becomes so dedicated and devoted to th
e challenge of actualising an individual peace-on-earth for the benefit of onese
lf in particular and humankind in general that ones interest in life, the univers
e and what it is to be a human being becomes so fascinating that what amounts to
an obsession ensues.
Discipline is thus not required ... which is a forced imitation of the eagerness
and willingness engendered by the thrill of realising that perfection is possib
le, as this body, here on earth, in this life-time.
RESPONDENT: Then of course, there is the question of the nature of the blessing
an apperceiving mind has to humanity. I dont doubt it one bit, as to my own exper
iences. But how can we know how all will react? Can we say that the greatest of
apperceives, he who has mastered it perfectly, will be a totally selfless being?
How will this one keep a check on the inevitable violence of our natural world?
RICHARD: The blessing is beyond price. As to how all will react ... if my experi
ence is anything to go by it would be with delight and joy that perfection is al
ready always here and not in some dubious After-Life. And yes, such a person who
has mastered it perfectly that is, actualised it is totally selfless. After all,
that is what the word selfless means, does it not ... self-less? That is: without
a self. Such a persons thoughts and deeds are innocence personified and bear litt
le or no resemblance to religious, spiritual or humanitarian ideals of selflessn
ess. Like all ideals, their ideals of the good have no basis in actuality and are
merely the opposites to the bad. Their selflessness is merely the idealistic opposit
e to selfishness ... and is properly called unselfishness.
As to violence in the natural world ... in actualism one is totally happy and ha
rmless with the extirpation of the identity both malice and sorrow are eliminate
d and not merely transcended as in Spiritual Enlightenment so one does not have
to practice pacifism. There is no turning the other cheek and having to endure nob
le martyrdom in actuality. If someone is so stupid as to bop me on the nose I ha
ve the option to freely bop them back ... being without sorrow or malice all of
ones actions are freely exercised. Veritably, actualism is a wonderful freedom, w
ith no need for controls at all.
RESPONDENT: And what to do with those perennial moments? Must thinking be entire
ly eliminated? Or is it contained to only the present moment? (i.e. Should I buy
that life insurance?) And what if one, preceding the consumption of the hamburg
er, chooses to give thanks for it to the sustaining universe or God as he unders
tands it.
RICHARD: Oh dear ... have you actually had many experiences of apperception? If
you have, what is all this talk of God? God is a fantasy ... a delusion born out
of the psychological entitys projection of itself into an almighty entity. It is
egotism self-promotion and self-aggrandisement taken to the extreme. Appercepti
on is the minds perception of itself ... not I perceiving my mind. It is a bare aware
ness bare of any me whatsoever.
As for the choosing to give thanks for it to the sustaining universe ... without t
he pernicious I living a parasitical psychological existence within this body, the
n what I am is this body only. And as this body bereft of a who I am the universe
experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. This physical universe
has no personality no identity at all to give thanks to. There is no need for h
umiliating gratitude in actual freedom ... it is free!
And thinking happens of itself ... the brain is entirely capable of thinking its
own thoughts. As there is no I in there to generate thoughts there is no need to

discipline oneself with that spiritual nonsense of trying to stop thought so as
to enter into a trance state. A blissful self is still a self, nevertheless.
RESPONDENT: And what can you say about attitudes of attachment to things or othe
r.
RICHARD: There is no I to be attached ... or detached. One neatly sidesteps that o
nerous discipline by the simple action of psychological self-immolation. A detac
hed self is still a self ... it cleverly avoids attachment so as to survive and
wreak its havoc on this fair planet once again. The I will do anything to stay in
existence ... even become so deluded as to believe itself to be that imagined go
d.
Actual freedom is a freedom the likes of which has never been before in human hi
story.
No. 11
RESPONDENT: Richard. Isnt it possible then, that what you are now, is pure God? A
plain, brief and straight-forward response appreciated, if you know that is.
RICHARD: Yes, I do know. Plainly, briefly and straight-forwardly ... no, I am no
t pure God .
No. 12
RESPONDENT: Richard. Isnt it possible then, that what you are now, is pure God? A
plain, brief and straight-forward response appreciated, if you know that is.
RICHARD: Yes, I do know. Plainly, briefly and straight-forwardly ... no, I am no
t pure God .
RESPONDENT: Richard. Im surprised by your remark. How is it that you know you are
not God???
RICHARD: I know that I am not God for I was for eleven years from September 1981
until October 1992 ... whereupon it become obvious to me that I was living in a
massive delusion.
In 1980 I had a peak experience wherein I saw that everything was already perfec
t as-it-is and that I, the psychological entity, was standing in the way ... and n
o-one else was preventing me from achieving the ultimate goal of being a free hu
man. In that peak experience I saw myself. I was the end product of society and noth
ing more. I was an emotional construct of all of the beliefs, values, moral, ethic
s, mores, customs, traditions, doctrines, ideologies and so on. I was nothing but
an emotional-mental fabrication ... a sense of identity with its conscience. I a
lso saw that I was a lost, lonely, frightened and a very, very cunning entity. Jus
t as those Christians who are said to be possessed by an evil entity and need to
be exorcised, I saw that every human being had been endowed with a social entit
y ... and it was called being normal. To say that I was amazed rather fails to a
dequately describe the feeling of relief that after all there was a solution to
the human situation here on earth. I was ecstatic.
That proved to be my undoing as far as an actual freedom is concerned. Ecstasy l
ed to euphoria and euphoria led to bliss. In the blissful state I manifested and
became Love Agap which led to an emanation of Divine Compassion for all living b
eings who were suffering and in sorrow by virtue of the fact that they were igno
rant of the Divine Order of things ... for an Absolute had been revealed to me i
n that Love and Compassion it was that Love Agap and Divine Compassion and I had
been chosen to bring this self-same Love and Compassion to earth. I was to go th
rough a process, when I returned to normal, that would result in my being well-p
repared to usher in this new age of peace and prosperity to all humankind. As th
is revelation continued, I saw a new me coming into existence ... a grand Me, a glor
ious Me and a spiritually fulfilling Me. I was the Saviour Of Humankind!
(As all this was happening, a passing thought occurred to me, which was briefly
contemplated ... then banished: Who or what was it that was observing these two m
es the social me and the grand Me? This trifling question was to be of immense benefi
t years later when I realised that I was living in a delusion and that there was
an actual freedom lying beyond ... but I jump ahead of myself.)
Three nights later I had a similar experience and what I had witnessed on the fi
rst revelation was confirmed. Then nothing untoward happened for the next five m
onths this had been in late July 1980 until on the first day of January in 1981w
hen I began a process that was to last for nine months, culminating in my Divine A
wakening on a fine September morning. The process was both prosaic and extraordina
ry: on the one hand I began undoing all the social conditioning that I had been
subject to since birth and on the other hand I generated love for all and sundry
. I examined all the social traditions and customs etc., one by one, and release
d myself from their iron grip. I diminished hate and anger and sadness and lonel
iness by surrendering to and living in love and oneness ... which is the best th
at a normal human could do by virtue of the socialisation process. I moved in an
d out of Sacred States of Heavenly Bliss and Love Agap and Divine Compassion and
immersed myself in the entire process with dedication and resolution. I adopted th
e principle of pacifism (turn the other cheek) and developed Goodness of the highe
st order. I cleansed and purified myself of all impure thoughts and deeds and wo
rked both hard and industriously in my daily work. I practised honesty and humil
ity in all my interactions with other people and pondered the significance and r
amifications of the Divine Order.
I totally believed in and had supreme faith in The Absolute and its ability to b
ring about the Peace On Earth so long promised. That I was to play the central r
ole in this Divine Plan no longer came as a surprise to me, as I began to realis
e that I had long yearned to be part of the Salvation Process. I understood that
I had to die and be reborn and, consequently, went into a catatonic state that
resulted in my being carted off to hospital and kept under intensive care for fo
ur hours until I came out of it. I was never to be the same again, as Divinity h
ad been working on me whilst I was catatonic and from that date forward I was pe
rmanently in a state of human bliss and love ... I could do no wrong. About six
weeks prior to 6th September 1981 I had a revelation that I was going to really
die this time, not become catatonic again, and that I was to prepare myself for
it. I mustered all of my faith and resolution, renewed all of my trust and dedic
ation, and awaited the day. The night before I could hardly maintain myself as a
thinking, functioning human being as a blistering hot and cold burning sensatio
n crept up the back of my spine and entered into the base of my neck just under
the brain itself. I went to bed in desperation and frustration at my apparent in
ability to be good enough to carry this process through to its supreme conclusion.
The next morning I awoke and all was calm and quiet. Expressing relief at the ce
ssation of the intensifying process that had reached an unbearable level the night
before, I lay back on my pillows to watch the rising sun (my bedroom faced east
) through the large bedroom windows. All of a sudden I was gripped with the real
isation that this was the moment! I was going to die! An intense fear raced thro
ughout my body, rising in crescendo until I could scarcely take any more. As it
reached a peak of stark terror, I realised that I had nothing to worry about and
that I was to go with the process. In an instant all fear left me and I travelled
deep into the depths of my very being. All of a sudden I was sitting bolt uprig
ht, laughing, as I realised that this that was IT! was such a simple thing ... a
ll I had to do was die ... and that was the easiest thing in the world to do. Th
en the thought of leaving my family and friends overwhelmed me and I was thrust
back on the bed sobbing. Then I was bolt upright once more laughing my head off
... then I was back on the pillows sobbing my heart out ... upright, laughing ..
. pillows sobbing ... upright laughing ... pillows sobbing. At the fifth or sixt
h time something turned over in the base of my brain in the top of the brain-ste
m. I likened it to turning over a L.P. record in order to play the other side ..
. with the vital exception that it would never, ever turn back again.
It was over. I had arrived. I had become Awakened to the Greater Reality. I was
Love Agap and Divine Compassion ... there was no separation between me and The Ab
solute. I was It. I had a Divine Sense of Mission to spread The Word and I embar
ked on fulfilling my Sacred Duty, gathering some disciples on the way, until 198
4. Then I started to question just what I was doing and just what had happened t
o me. Something seemed to be wrong ... this had all been done before by other Ma
sters and Messiahs, Saints and Sages, Avatars and Saviours, to no avail. In fact
, instead of bringing Love and Peace, they had left in their wake much bloodshed
and hatred ... and I was one of them! Accordingly I travelled to India to find
out for myself exactly what was amiss with this whole Enlightenment business by
meeting some of these hallowed Gurus and imbibing the centuries of Eastern Spiri
tual Tradition for myself, instead of merely reading about it in books.
It was to take me eleven years to get out of this massive delusion I was living
in and go beyond it to arrive at where I am today. It was eleven years of coming
to terms with the understanding that what I was living was a delusion of grande
ur ... and that it was what every human being believed in, in some way, shape or
form ... but that is another story. Today, I am no longer an Enlightened Master
living in an Exalted State of Being ... I am me-as-this-body only, a fellow hum
an being who has no sorrow or malice whatsoever to transcend; hence I am both ha
ppy and harmless. I am what I was on that fateful night in 1980 when I asked the
question: Who or what was it that was observing these two mes the social me and the
grand Me? I am these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is
me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this think
ing is me. Whereas I, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through my eyes
as if looking out through a window, listening through my ears as if they were micr
ophones, tasting through my tongue, touching through my skin, smelling through my nose
, and thinking through my brain. Of course I must feel isolated, alienated, alone an
d lonely, for I am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ... the world
as-it-is ... by my very presence.
Any identity, such as I am God, is a delusion.
No. 13
RESPONDENT: You successfully explained why you are not any vision of a kind of i
maginary God you once believed in, or that the ignorant world looks to. You have
nt shown, however, how you can know you (i.e. your mind that is) are/is not in fa
ct pure true real God manifest in your body? I suggest you cannot know what you
claim to know, that is, that you are not God. You have not forgotten the old fal
se images you at one time embraced, and this emotional memory may be responsible
for your knowing the unknowable.
RICHARD: But I do know that I am not in fact pure true real God manifest in my bo
dy because by having eliminated any identity whatsoever the ego and the soul I ca
n ascertain, with clarity, that there is no self or Self in this body or anywher
e else outside of a persons imagination. Likewise is it that any god which is a p

rojection of self exists only in the human psyche and not in the actual world. The
refore it follows that I can know, by direct experience, that I am not the pure t
rue real God because such an entity has no actuality.
Without an I, I have no emotions. Hence no emotional memory. Knowing the unknowable is
only possible for a body bereft of any identity complete with its emotions and
passions at all. This knowing is a direct experiencing of the actuality of peopl
e, things and events. It is a direct experiencing of the infinitude the infinite
and eternal character of the universe here and now. It is a direct experiencing
of the purity of the perfection of being here at this moment in time, as this b
ody only, here on earth. It is a direct experiencing of the fact that I am the u
niverse experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being ... and that ex
perience is ambrosial.
I am without sorrow and malice, therefore I am both happy and harmless. Apart fr
om the personal benefits of achieving perfection, the social benefit is enormous
.
It means peace-on-earth.
No. 14
RESPONDENT No. 16: It always seemed to me that the Zen type of existing totally
in the moment was like an evolutionary regression. Birds and fish achieve this m
ental state quite well and effortlessly.
RICHARD: As far as human beings can ascertain, animals can not think and reflect
as we do.
RESPONDENT: Certainly some of these differences exists between human and animal,
but it appears to me you are evading the point.
RICHARD: And what point is that? No. 16 was expressing an opinion which has no b
asis in fact ... no bird or fish can ever be considered Enlightened, which is wh
at Zen is all about. It is a ridiculous statement to make and I corrected this a
ll-too common petty fault-finding that is often made by inexperienced and carpin
g critics who demonstrably do not know what they are talking about (not that I a
m at all impressed with Zen, mind you, I was merely setting the record straight)
.
RESPONDENT: There is no reason to believe any state of being, such as appercepti
on, is mutually exclusive with some non-reflective (characteristic within an) an
imal.
RICHARD: I demur ... there is every reason in the world! The sheer fact of think
ing and reflecting sets the human species apart from all other animals. For exam
ple as I went on to say animals do not have a history to discuss with other anim
als and compare notes. Animals are not aware of their impending death nor talk a
bout that with their compatriots in an effort to understand life, the universe a
nd what it is to be an animal ... like humans do. I was born and raised on a far
m and have had vast experience with animals throughout my life. I made a study o
f the differences between animals and humans by reading countless scholarly stud
ies made by enterprising people; by watching many a television program on animal
life and by often visiting zoos because I am vitally interested in life on eart
h. To attribute human characteristics to animals is called anthropomorphism, and
many people make this mistake (like that person who was channelling dolphins a
number of years ago).
Ms. Enid Blyton and Ms. Beatrice Potter and their ilk have a lot to answer for.
RESPONDENT: Richard, is I more cunning than what is left of you the sensing, body,
mind, etc. (can I say non-I). How does the non-I deduce the truth about the I being n
ot there? Do you as a person simply just feel like, just know somehow, that I is gone
(which may do it, I dont know)?
RICHARD: It is the I only that is cunning, not more cunning than what is left when i
t is gone ... what is left has no need to be cunning. You see, the I knows that it
is a fiction and that it should not be here ... and it lives in mortal fear of
being found out and exposed for the fraud that it is. Hence its cunning nature.
As to how the non-I deduces the truth about the I not being here ... I would say it is
your concept of non-I that is making it difficult to understand, for how can an a
bsence deduce anything? It is far better to discard that spiritual term (non-I) an
d stick to the facts. Where there is no I whatsoever, the apperceptive mind is emi
nently capable of discerning for itself that there is no identity (be it either
an I or a non-I ) lurking about in the inner recesses of this body.
*
RICHARD: Some early Greeks had the earth supported by their gods shoulders Mr. At
las while the Hindus had it supported on four elephants standing on a turtles bac
k swimming in the cosmic ocean ... or some such thing. Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene w
as a flat earth god ... and so on. Such is the stuff of genius.
RESPONDENT: I wonder how much you really know of the real Jesus Richard. Or how
much you could know.
RICHARD: Which real Jesus are you referring to? The one of the New Testament gospe
ls? Or the one of the Gnostic Gospels? Or the one of the Dead Sea scrolls? Or th
e one that visited the Americas (as recorded in the Book Of Mormon)? Or the one
of Book of Essenes? Or the one of the gospel of St. Thomas? Or the one that went
to India and is buried in Kashmir? Or the one in that latest fad The Course of M
iracles? Or the one that visits people in visions?
There are so many people claiming to have knowledge of the Real Jesus that I have
personally lost interest entirely. Besides, there is serious scholarly studies w
hich point to the distinct possibility that there never was such a flesh-and-blo
od person at all ... along with many other Saviour god-men like Mr. Krishna, Mr.
Gotama the Sakyan, Mr. Lao-Tzu, Mr. Zoroaster and so on. Apparently they all fi
t an archetypal pattern that includes being born of a virgin mother, performing
miracles, walking on water, curing people, raising the dead, being sacrificed an
d so on. More than thirty claims of beings invested with divinity have come forw
ard to contest the verdict of Christendom in having proclaimed Mr. Yeshua the Na
zarene as The Christ ... the only son and sent of God. Thirty-odd Messiahs, Saviours
and Sons of God, according to tradition, have in past times descended from heav
en and taken upon themselves the form of men, clothing themselves with human fle
sh, and furnishing incontestable evidence of a divine origin ... and these god-m
en laid the foundation for the salvation of the world, and ascended back to heav
en.
About the flat earth remark that I made: If Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene could take the
time to do such a trivial thing as turning water into wine at a wedding, do you
not think that he might mention in passing say around the campfire at night som
ething to the effect of: Hey guys ... by the way, while I think of it ... the ear
th is round, not flat, and you can sail from Europe to the Americas without fall
ing off the edge. Just thought Id mention it. He could then go back to the serious
business of curing a few peoples blindness with spittle and mud. It would not ha
ve taken him long to correct humanitys mistake about the earth being flat, now wo
uld it?
*
RICHARD: Personally, by the extirpation of the self and the Self I have eliminat
ed all of those debilitating instincts which blind nature endowed me with at bir
th.
RESPONDENT: Im having trouble with this one Richard. Anyone writing here on the l
ist has at the very least retained their instinct to eat and drink. Just as the
child instinctually suckles the breast. At this point you will need to explain t
he distinction. You can reason that to eat is not a debilitating instinct, but w
ith an intact I, it certainly can result in debilitation.
RICHARD: For sure the infant suckling is an instinct ... but I am not an infant.
The stomach secretes a chemical when empty which triggers a receptor in the bra
in that gives rise to a sensation we non-infants call I am hungry. Indeed, tests h
ave been done by people who delight in doing these things, wherein the chemical
was injected into volunteers who had just eaten a full meal.
The chemical caused them to feel hungry despite their distended stomachs.
RESPONDENT: So then, its not the instinct that is debilitating, but the action th
at proceeds from it. Your I-lessness may provide the freeing you experience, but
not by elimination of instincts, it appears. In some other way then.
RICHARD: All creatures are born with a rudimentary self that is integral to the
instincts that blind nature endows us with. The elimination of self in its entir
ety is the elimination of those instincts. Instincts are not set in stone, they
are only included in the bodily package to give us a start in life. Now that a t
hinking, reflective brain has developed over the top of the primitive lizard brai
n at the top of the brain-stem where the instincts and basic emotions lie, we can
improve upon blind nature as we have done in so many other ways. It is possible
to be entirely free from all instinctive impulses ... I have no furious urges,
no inherent anger, no impulsive rages, no inveterate hostilities, no evil dispos
ition ... no malicious tendencies whatsoever. I do not need instincts to functio
n and operate in this world of people, things and events ... they may have been
necessary in the wild but with a now civilised world they are detrimental to pea
ceful and harmonious co-existence. The 160,000,000 people killed in wars this ce
ntury alone testify to this.
So yes, it is the instincts that are debilitating.
No. 15
RESPONDENT: As regards killing and eating and the harmlessness you claim for you
rself ... Im not exactly sure to who you believe yourself to be harmless! You make
some excellent points here. The elimination of malice, the drive to survive, eat
, what have you. The need to kill that follows this. The reality of predilection
you experience as a sensate being. For myself, this is cause for great wonder.
Since as you say, whether it be a cow or a carrot, one just the same brings abou
t the cessation of life. Well then, outside of the obvious fact that it would be
illegal and there exists the risk of consequence what would be the problem with o
ne having a predilection to killing and eating human beings? And exercising such
a preference in societies where, or in a situation where, one perceives no risk
? Would you say that an I-less mind, such as your own, somehow has an innate abi
lity to make an almost moral distinction here? I see no reason why it would.
RICHARD: Not only an I-less mind but a I-less heart as well and this is a very impor
tant distinction that points to the marked difference between Enlightenment and
an actual freedom. Physical force is only ever applied as required by the circum
stances the elimination of self in any way, shape or form enables one to automat
ically conduct a free appraisal of the situation and that leads to appropriate a
ction ... usually pacifistic. When one lives in this actual freedom that I talk
about, one is living in a magical, fairy tale-like world of perfection and purit
y the likes of which makes it impossible to believe it can exist here on earth,
and in this perfection and purity the feeling does not exist nor even the though
t arise of initiating the harming of ones fellow human being. No feeling existing
or thought arising equals no evil deed to later regret. Therefore there is no nee
d for morals to control wayward emotions and passions and thoughts as is require
d in the real world. In fact, with the extirpation of self in its entirety, one
eliminates all feelings emotions and passions and all instinctual drives, thus o
nes thoughts are free to be only benevolent and magnanimous ... which is an estim
able condition to be in.
Altruism and philanthropy come spontaneously and easily and are thus no longer a
virtue.
No. 16
RICHARD: The sheer fact of thinking and reflecting sets the human species apart
from all other animals. For example as I went on to say animals do not have a hi
story to discuss with other animals and compare notes. Animals are not aware of
their impending death nor talk about that with their compatriots in an effort to
understand life, the universe and what it is to be an animal ... like humans do
. I was born and raised on a farm and have had vast experience with animals thro
ughout my life. I made a study of the differences between animals and humans by
reading countless scholarly studies made by enterprising people; by watching man
y a television program on animal life and by often visiting zoos because I am vi
tally interested in life on earth. To attribute human characteristics to animals
is called anthropomorphism, and many people make this mistake (like that person
who was channelling dolphins a number of years ago).
RESPONDENT: Here I see you again bringing in the reflective nature as if it is s
ynonymous with apperception, but it seems not, based on how you define it. In an
y case, this can be nothing more than a matter of opinion, yours or mine or whoe
ver. We have a difficult enough time understanding our own nature, let alone som
e other creature. Science can only progress so far, and not error free as far as
it goes. Certainly you can choose to believe what like about it. I can respect
that.
RICHARD: Please be careful with the liberal use of we as in we have a difficult eno
ugh time understanding our own nature, because I do not have any difficulty whats
oever ... that is one of the major attributes of an actual freedom. I know mysel
f thoroughly, through and through, and thus because of my genus I know the human
nature extensively. With this understanding and knowledge, coupled with the app
erception of life as-it-is, I can observe animals in a value-free manner and see
for myself that as I so carefully detailed above an animal can not think and re
flect ... as in asking why?, how?, when? and where? and so on. I can see that I do no
oose to believe what like I about it , for I am not interested in believing somet
hing; I am only interested in facts and actuality. Beliefs and the act of believ
ing have got humankind into disastrous trouble over the years, thus I no longer
believe. I observe facts, and the facts speak for themselves.
The marvellous thing about a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can arg
ue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: neve
r. One can deny a fact pretend that it is not there but once seen, a fact brings
freedom from choice and decision. Most people think and feel that choice implie
s freedom having the freedom to choose but this is not the case. Freedom lies in
seeing the obvious, and in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberati
on, no agonising over the Right and Wrong judgment. In the freedom of seeing the fac
t there is only action.
*
RICHARD: Where there is no I whatsoever, the apperceptive mind is eminently capabl
e of discerning for itself that there is no identity lurking about in the inner
recesses of this body.
RESPONDENT: Well, I can read your words here all right, but you put forth no sup
porting argument. Which does not surprise me really, for what could you say? Aga
in, as with the suggestion (I have made) that you may now be pure God, this can be
nothing more than disbelief, which you are certainly entitled to embrace. The I,
after all, could be even more cunning than you? can imagine. Lets face it Richard,
one would have to know exactly what it is it isnt to know it isnt it. To say with c
ertainly that you are not now pure God can be nothing more than nonsense, regard
less of whether its true or not. You seem to be a reasonable person. I cant imagi
ne how you could not see the clear possibility you may be mistaken. Not that you
are, but that you could be mind you. Based on your other writings, you appear t
o be retaining a healthy prejudice toward religion, and have tossed out the baby
with the bath water. You havent explicitly claimed to be all-knowing, but you se
em to be behaving so. Sounds God-like to me. This not to detract from the richne
ss of what you have truly contributed here in these discussions. Im eternally gra
teful.
RICHARD: Once again, it is not a matter of belief or disbelief ... it is a matte
r of knowing. This does not require great intelligence, it requires a total abse
nce of the interfering I, because any sense of self distorts facts and actuality.
Freedom from I is freedom from distortion. Therefore, for me to say that I am not n
ow pure god is a statement of fact ... it is not nonsense and has got nothing to
do with being true or not. People make something to be true or false by passionately b
elieving something to be so faith with conviction born out of belief. Etymologic
ally, belief means fervently wishing to be true, which means that the something be
ing believed in is not even true ... let alone a fact. And faith means loyalty to
that which is believed to be true ... to face a fact means someone must betray t
heir truth, and people are so reluctant to be a traitor to their feelings. Yes, I
have tossed the baby out with the bath-water ... and my life is infinitely blessed
by so doing.
The baby was rotten to the core.
RESPONDENT: It could be that your suppressed anger and rage is blinding you to t
he fact that the majority of what Jesus did, said and experienced is not recorde
d.
RICHARD: You say anger and rage? But I have no feelings emotions and passions to s
uppress or express, so I can not possibly be blinded to the fact that the majority
of what Jesus did, said and experienced is not recorded . Of course it is not so
recorded if indeed such a person even existed as a flesh-and-blood body but so w
hat? What is your point? This is what you alluded to in a previous post, is it n
ot? That was where you said: I wonder how much you really know of the real Jesus
Richard. Or how much you could know. It would appear to be that this is a ploy yo
u successfully use to stifle sensible discussion with others, but it does not wo
rk with me. If it is not recorded it does not exist so it is useless to even mak
e such a statement. We can only go by what is written down ... and that has gene
rated such dissension and disputation regarding translations that one can not be
at all sure about anything at all regarding Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene.
So I disregard it all.
The reason I, personally, can so freely do so is supported by the fact that for
eleven years I was living in a similarly deluded State Of Being as is so patently
ascribed to Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene and others of his ilk. Thus I have an inside
knowledge of what is thought, felt, experienced and said by a person in such a
state ... it is not a matter of conjecture and speculation, but a solid knowing
born out of a direct experience of the reality of being so self-deceived as to b
elieve that not only was there a god as a reality but that I was that god! Thus,
while I appreciate that you can discern that I have a healthy prejudice toward r
eligion I must assure you that I do not ... assuming that any prejudice can be hea
lthy that is. I have examined religion meticulously before discarding it ... as I
have similarly dispensed with spirituality and mysticism. I have no need for re
course to anything metaphysical at all. In actual freedom, everything is apparen
t, open to view, self-evident and obvious.
*
RICHARD: All creatures are born with a rudimentary self that is integral to the
instincts that blind nature endows us with. The elimination of self in its entir
ety is the elimination of those instincts.
RESPONDENT: A question here for you Richard. Do you believe that all instincts r
emain until such time as the self is eliminated? I was wondering if some may dro
p off earlier ... in your opinion.
RICHARD: I do not believe one way or another about anything, as must be obvious by
now. It is in my experience not in my opinion that the instincts that blind nat
ure endowed one with at birth disappear along with the extinction of self. The s
elf is those very instincts ... the instincts give rise to the self. When one is
thus duly endowed with a self, all kinds of nonsense are generated. For instanc
e: the desire for immortality in some after-life is born out of the will to surv
ive which arises out of the instinct for self-preservation ... instincts are a dr
ive, an imperative, and one is impelled by them, willy-nilly, into all sorts of sil
liness. Ones native intelligence is thwarted from carrying out what it is so emin
ently capable of doing operating and functioning effortlessly in the world as-it
-is.
*
RICHARD: For sure the infant suckling is an instinct ... but I am not an infant.
The stomach secretes a chemical when empty which triggers a receptor in the bra
in that gives rise to a sensation we non-infants call I am hungry. Indeed, tests h
ave been done by people who delight in doing these things, wherein the chemical
was injected into volunteers who had just eaten a full meal. The chemical caused
them to feel hungry despite their distended stomachs.
RESPONDENT: This is a bit weak since the chemical/receptor/brain thing may simpl
y be the mechanism for instinctual drives and knowledge of its operation does lit
tle to support your belief.
RICHARD: Why is it a bit weak ? And why do you attempt to belittle exact science b
y saying it is my belief ? It is an established fact borne out by strict experimen
tation and duplication that hunger is not an instinct but a simple chemical acti
vity. Suckling is instinctual and necessary for survival in the early stages of li
fe but hunger is not.
It is all so simple, actually.
No. 17
RESPONDENT: Ive struggled to see the difference Richard, considering you seriousl
y, but somehow youre not able to see, that you are not able to see, through the e
yes and mind of other creatures.
RICHARD: I am not suggesting nor have I ever suggested that I can see through the
eyes and mind of other creatures . I was born and raised on a farm and have had
vast experience with animals throughout my life. I made a study of the differenc
es between animals and humans by reading countless scholarly studies made by ent
erprising people; by watching many a television program on animal life and by of
ten visiting zoos because I am vitally interested in life on earth. I observe an
imal action and behaviour and ascertain from research how an animal is likely to
perceive itself and the world. For example: I have seen a dog acting in a way t
hat can only be called pining; I have seen a cat toying with a mouse in a manner
that can only be dubbed cruel; I have seen cows spooked and then stampede in what
must be described as hysteria; I have seen bulls displaying what can only be la
belled aggression; I have watched many animals exhibiting what must be specified
as fear ... and so on. Only recently a National Geographic television programme
was aired here on chimpanzees in Africa about studies made over many, many year
s of them in their native habitat and I was able to see civil war, robbery, rage
, infanticide, cannibalism, grief, group ostracism ... and so on. It is easily d
iscerned by those with the eyes to see that animals do not have peace-on-earth.
This insistence that the animal state being a natural state and therefore someho
w desirable that is held by many people is just nonsense ... I am glad that I am
human and that we are living in a civilised society with all that technology ca
n offer. We have already improved on nature so much in the areas of technology,
animal breeding and plant cultivation, for instance, that there is no reason why
we can not continue this fine work of overcoming the limitations imposed by bli
nd nature and eliminate sorrow and malice from ourselves. Then and only then wil
l we have global peace-on-earth.
However, for the person who dares to go all the way in eradicating any trace of
identity whatsoever comes an individual peace-on-earth that is so magnificent th
at global peace matters not.
*
RICHARD: Now I understand ... you believe in a Creator God. Of course, for you,
the universe can not be infinite because a god is infinite ... and you can not h
ave two infinities.
RESPONDENT: Here again surfaces the cant be two infinities claim, as if there need
be to justify a spirit being, or two rays of light for that matter. The mathemat
ician in us can so conveniently write infinity on paper, and even perform some bas
is arithmetic operations with it. Heres were our minds are fooled, that we can kn
ow it closely enough to arrive at conclusions about it. If this wasnt so sad I wo
uld laugh. As Ive said before, reasoning is necessarily retired when considering
the (unreasonableness) of infinite reality.
RICHARD: I was not talking of an abstract mathematical infinity of which there a
re many examples showing a marked lack of understanding on the part of mathemati
cians of the nature of infinity but the infinite character of physical space. Th
is, coupled with the eternal character of time, produces an infinitude that can
be understood experientially by one who is apperceptive. To grasp the character
of infinitude with certainty, the reasoning mind must forsake its favoured proce
ss of intellectual understanding through imagination and intuition and enter int
o the realm of a pure consciousness experience. In a PCE, the essential characte
ristics of infinitude are transparently obvious, lucidly self-evident, clearly a
pparent and open to view. It is understood experientially that this physical uni
verse is infinite and eternal. It has no beginning and no ending ... and therefo
re no middle. There are no edges to this universe, which means that there is no
centre, either. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for th
ere is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go to. We are nowhere in particular
... which means we are anywhere at all. In the infinitude of the universe one fi
nds oneself to be already here, and as it is always now, one can not get away fr
om this place in space and this moment in time. By being here as-this-body one f
inds that this moment in time has no duration as in now and then because the imm
ediate is the ultimate and that this place in space has no distance as in here a
nd there for the relative is the absolute. I am always here and it is already no
w.
And nary a god to be seen anywhere at all.
RESPONDENT: I want to assure you that I have not (consciously) made a ploy to do
anything at all. Im sorry you feel that way. I have seen others not (appearing t
o deal) with you sincerely and perhaps you are thinking its happening here. Sens
ible discussion is primarily what I seek, so to attempt to stifle it doesnt fit f
or me. If I wanted to stifle sensible discussion with you I wouldnt be here typin
g right now. There are not enough hours in my day to waste any on senseless talk
, and Im sure youd agree. That would be a dishonour to both you and myself. If I a
m to take you as seriously as you would like, that is, that all your views are r
ooted in fact, I have to conclude from your statement above that you feel you ce
rtainly know that I have made a ploy. It follows then that we have reached an impass
e since we are in clear disagreement. Perhaps with the passage of time this will
resolve itself. In the interim, there may be little point in continuing our tal
k under these circumstances .
RICHARD: Ouch! Did I touch a raw nerve? Has a behaviour trait long hidden been e
xposed to view with painful results? For a ploy is a ploy whether it is consciou
s or not ... and that is what had been happening. For anyone to say things like:
I wonder how much you really know of the real Jesus ... or how much you could kn
ow and then: The fact that the majority of what Jesus did, said and experienced is
not recorded is to use a very successful device whether used unwittingly or not
to stifle sensible discussion. The person receiving this type of response can do
nothing with it at all for it conveys no useful information and it adds naught
to investigation, exploration and discovery. You are saying, in effect, that wha
t we are discussing can not be known ... what then is the point of discussion? T
hey are statements that bring deliberation to a grinding halt.
Maybe you will be somewhat mollified if I rephrased it to say that your sentence
s had the effect of stifling sensible discussion?
Incidentally, I do not claim omniscience ... I did not know that you made a ploy , i
t was an inference ... in fact my very words written above were: it would appear
to be ... , which means that I was reasoning it out from the text and not knowing i
t as a fact. But if you wish to remain as you are, then that is, of course, your
business entirely. It is your life you are living and only you can reap the rew
ards or pay the consequences for any course of action or inaction you may or may
not take ... including holding on to an anachronistic belief system that has no
basis in fact and actuality.
And all this while the radio is doggedly re-playing Christmas Carols like: Peace
on Earth; Goodwill to all Mankind.
No. 18
RESPONDENT: Well Richard, what am I to do here. You have all the answers that ca
n be had. And you have them all right. What point is there in my attempting to t
each if you are the only one here capable of doing so? With this realised, why d
ont you simply provide me, all of us, with all there is we need to know to find t
he perfection you have attained for yourself, out side of what youve already expl
ained since that would be repetitive. Some may be greatly blessed. But I doubt i
t. Words alone wont pull it off. And that is all we can give each other here is w
ords, isnt it.
RICHARD: You ask: what point is there in my attempting to teach ? As far as I am c
oncerned, none whatsoever, for what you are teaching is Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene stu
ff ... and his teachings have had two thousand years to take effect and work as
in producing happy and harmless people freed from malice and sorrow and they hav
e not. There is as much suffering now as then ... how much longer must we give t
he tried and true the benefit of the doubt before we see that it is the tried and f
ailed? Personally, I consider two thousand years plenty of time to be given to a T
eaching to demonstrate its efficacy ... when I look around me, I do not see peace
on earth. Nor do I see harmony even ... to take what is happening in Israel as
only one example, I see three religions fighting over the Holy City of Jerusalem,
namely: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
And as for your statement about words alone not pulling it off, then we might as w
ell throw away the New Testament along with the rest of the Holy Bible, because that
is all that book is words. Yet you keep on quoting those words, so obviously yo
u see some merit in doing so. And if you are right in that words will not do it,
then we might as well all pack up our computers and go home, given the fact tha
t all we can give each other here is words. However, I for one will not give in to
this kind of defeatist talk, because I have no doubts whatsoever that words can
and will do it. We think in words and our world view our purview on life is mad
e up of words. Words, along with our ability to reflect and muse, is one of the
things that set us apart from other animals, so it is up to us to make use of th
is ability and press on regardless. The English language has, if I remember corr
ectly, some 650,000 words in it ... so there are many more nuances of expression
we have yet to call on to convey whatever we wish to convey.
Incidentally, I do not teach, for I only write of what I live. All of my words com
e out of my own experience, moment-to-moment, and I share that experience with m
y fellow human beings. I look around me and I see facts and actuality ... and I
merely point out these facts and this actuality to others who are obviously not
seeing them. I too, could not see them all those years ago when my adopted belie
fs and values stood in the way of direct seeing.
RESPONDENT: As far as the Jesus stuff goes; it all began when you made the flat e
arth statement, proceeding to attempt to disqualify him by virtue of some silly a
rgument that went something like ... Well if Jesus knew so much why didnt he tell
his disciples ... I thought this was a foolish thing for one to say since it sh
ould be obvious to the average mind that not all Jesus said and did was passed o
n to us. So I went ahead and mentioned, as politely as I could, how foolish a st
atement it was. And I went on to deduce that perhaps it came about as a result o
f what I see clearly to be strong negative feelings. But of course you dispute t
hat, and I know you will also dispute that it was a plainly foolish thing to sug
gest. In any case, this is the truth and the reality of how the logic of the dis
cussion progressed, so when you accused me of making a ploy to stifle sensible di
scussion (my words used here) you were way off the mark. Its kind of difficult for
sensible discussions to follow nonsensical implications such as the one you mad
e. 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 thi
s discovery to be particularly useful in my own understanding many years ago. Lo
ok, Christians state unambiguously that Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene is God ... and t
he Creator God at that. If anyone knew that the earth was round and not flat it wo
uld be him that created it. Given all the problems that this lack of knowledge p
rovided people with up until Mr. Christopher Columbus epic voyage of discovery, I
consider that was remiss of Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene not to have mentioned it. I
am not being flippant or frivolous here ... look also at the difficulties Mr. G
alileo Galilei went through to convince the Church that the earth went around th
e sun despite the Churchs 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 eno
ugh, or not, to be included in Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene teachings, but rather as b
eing an indication that Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene 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.
RESPONDENT: Even if we examine you claim objectively, what was the problem? Sens
ible discussion could have continued indefinitely. Such as: Me: The majority of w
hat Jesus experienced was not recorded, and then you could have said, if you wan
ted sensible discussion to continue: Well [Respondent], its true what you say tha
t Jesus could have told someone that the world was not flat, but it never was sh
ared since it would have interfered with Jesus mission due to the enormous effect
it would have had etc., or you could have said: Yes, that was a silly thing to
say ... or: No, I feel that is one fact that would have definitely made it to th
e writings and been hotly disputed. So it was in our power to keep sensible discu
ssion in place, but it seems your paranoia decided to make an appearance posing
as intuition or something. Not that I dont have such moments too, I do (and yes,
I know you dont, no need to explain). So at the very least, I see this as a case
of both misjudgement and lack of creative thinking.
RICHARD: If you have read and grasped what I have just written above, maybe now
you will see that it is not a case of both misjudgement and lack of creative thin
king . It is not a case of whether or not the earths flat-ness or roundness was in
cluded or not in the New Testament, it is a case of checking the mans bona fides. Is
he, or is he not, the Creator God come to earth to deliver a message that will el
iminate the suffering of humankind for all time? This is important because, as y
ou have already made clear, for some people words alone wont pull it off ... so the
words must be charged with supernatural meaning. Hence the claim to divinity di
vinity imbues the words with a numinous immanence and all kinds of things ensue
as a result of reading the Holy Word that is now glowing with this innate Authority.
Thus it is important to examine the mans credentials.
As the New Testament was written at a time when human understanding was not blesse
d with later scientific research nowadays satellite photographs that revealed th
at the earth is round and not flat (and travels around the sun and not vice vers
a) then it follows that Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene was but a man and not a god. Let
alone The One and only God; let alone the Creator God. Then, and only then, can his
words his Teachings be examined for usefulness according to their efficacy in res
olving the Human Condition and putting an end to suffering forever. And ... !lo an
d behold! ... they do not meet this requirement. They have, as I have already sa
id, failed abysmally. They have, in fact, caused far more suffering than they ha
ve ameliorated.
End of story.
RESPONDENT: You should (but dont seem to) realise that a person making claims suc
h as you make will be met with great skepticism. Have you forgotten all the tria
ls and confusion that preceded your present state? You cannot reasonably say tha
t just because you made a decision one day that gained you perfection, that all
you went through before that was not part of bringing you to that point. Yet, yo
u expect others to just accept your philosophy immediately. You often make state
ments such as (my words here) Why is it you cannot accept the idea of perfection
right now, in your body, etc. And you say it as if you somehow know that all th
at preceded your first day of perfection played absolutely no role in bringing y
ou to the point where you could attain it. You allowed yourself all these experi
ences yet you imply that one need not hit all the same dead ends experientially
as you had, only to listen to you and thats all it will take to set up the condit
ions. Well people just dont operate that way, Richard. People learn the hard way
for the most part.
RICHARD: I am well aware that my words will be met with great scepticism for I h
ave been speaking with people for many years now (I did not just start recently
when I came onto the Internet). Of course I do not expect others to accept what
I say immediately, but they do not have to go through all the trials and confusio
n that preceded my present state for they have only to heed my story and avoid al
l the pitfalls that I fell into. I always liken it to the physical adventure tha
t Captain James Cook undertook to journey to Australia two hundred plus years ag
o. It took him over a year in a leaky wooden boat with hard tack for food and im
mense dangers along the way. Nowadays, one can fly to Australia in twenty-seven
hours in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching
an in-flight movie into the bargain. It would be silly to ignore the findings a
nd discoveries of the trail-blazer and forge along in another leaky wooden boat.
The people who learn the hard way for the most part will be the ones who will not
listen to what I have to say.
So be it.
RESPONDENT: And outside of that, people are persuaded when they become aware of
self-sacrifice, because people are great doubters, and it takes more than words
to move people, it takes love, something Jesus exemplified with his very life, a
nd death. Show me your nail holes, Richard.
RICHARD: It takes more than love to move people obviously because love has had two
thousand or more years to do this moving and no-one has moved. There is no peace
on earth, even after all this while of very earnest peoples, throughout the cent
uries, assiduously practicing love the tried and true which promises, but never de
livers, peace on earth. Just take a look at the news on television or the headli
nes in any newspaper. There are as many wars, murders, tortures, rapes, domestic
violence incidents and child abuse now as there was then ... not to forget all
the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression, despair and suicides ... love, the tr
ied and true has a lot to answer for ... it is the tried and failed.
As for nail holes ... if I ever manifested that stigmata I would retire from publi
c life and live in silence and isolation as an abject failure that deserves the
utmost censure. I met a man many years ago who indeed had nail holes he showed me
his hands and I saw for myself and he invited me to join him as his disciple. He
was preparing to start his Ministry and he needed, apparently, twelve followers.
When I politely declined he moved on ... and when I enquired around town I was t
old that he had been involved in the Pentecostal Church until they had expelled hi
m in despair some time previously. When I met him, he had obviously been off his
medication for some time, because as I was told for the most part he was normal
ly rather stable and likeable.
RESPONDENT: There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for
the sake of his friends.
RICHARD: True. True indeed. So true that people do actually do this very thing.
I too believed in this wisdom ... oh ... so many years ago now (I as in I, the self
the ego and soul that lurked about inside this body that is). This belief sent m
e to a war-torn foreign country in 1966, as a volunteer soldier, not a conscript
, to lay down my life for my friends and my country. That phrase (there is no gre
ater love than this, that a man lay down his life ... ) is carved in marble in th
e many war memorials that dot this country. In the stone mausoleum that passes f
or architecture in the city of Melbourne, Australia (if my memory serves me corr
ect) it is so arranged that a peephole in the roof far above allows a ray of sun
light to strike the marble inscription on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day
of the eleventh month of each year ... and highlight the words in awe-struck spl
endour. And so the new generation of gullible youth go off to war.
This wisdom has only added to the appalling suffering of ones fellow human beings .
.. did you know that over 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this centu
ry alone? Not to mention all those countless millions maimed, tortured, raped an
d otherwise having their lifes work destroyed ... yet all the while perfection is
freely available here and now for anyone who dares to dedicate their life to en
suring a peace-on-earth for themselves, as this body only, in this life-time.
Enough said? Or shall I go on ... ad nauseam?
No. 19
RESPONDENT: As I understand (imperfect) human nature, returning fire with fire t
ends to greatly decrease any hope for a peaceful existence. Yet, you may find th
e need to bop someone, on the nose I believe you said, if they had done such to yo
u. Not that you would necessarily do so under all circumstances, but that you ma
y decide its the best approach (we can only hope you conclude correctly (would th
at be an intuitive determination?). So, in an ensuing post, you clarify that one
condition (so far, any others?) would be if you (believe? knew? thought?) that
to return fire with fire would have redeeming value (the other guy would change
for the better (not necessarily right away) thanks to your blow to his nose. (we
are not talking self-defence here by the way, which is almost always resolved b
y either running or restraining, but your comments about redeeming value of reci
procating harm). Now Ive always seen this as a bad approach due to the risk that,
the imperfect mind, with ego and soul intact, will magnify the evil, which has be
en shown to perpetuate the wars and rapes and murders you feel folks like yourse
lf will eradicate. Now there is no way to guarantee what the other guy is going
to do when you bop him. So there will be times when you will lessen hope for pea
ce with your approach. No doubt about it. In fact Id say more often than not if e
xperience is any clue. And I cannot accept that, and wonder how you can.
RICHARD: Bopping someone back has a deterrent value, not a redeeming value. You
may say that we are not talking self-defence here by the way ... but I was. You ma
y change the context in which I was writing about physical force being used and
I was most definitely talking about self-defence but you will only end up talkin
g to yourself. And where you go on to say which is almost always resolved by eith
er running or restraining , I must point out that you are showing extreme ignoran
ce of facts and actuality because in my personal experience in the military it w
as almost always resolved by hitting back ... and very little by restraining and
virtually nil by running away. In fact, running away was classified as cowardice u
nder fire, or desertion in the face of the enemy, and incurred severe penalties, up
to and including Capital Punishment.
As for your comment that this approach lessens the hope for peace , I must point o
ut that when you are under fire there is no hope for peace already. One is at war
and one must deal with a war situation ... and turning the other cheek does nothin
g whatsoever to produce peace, it produces a cessation of hostilities via defeat
and subjugation. Hitting back likewise does nothing to produce peace, it produc
es a cessation of hostilities through conquest and domination ... which is the p
referred option. It is not the optimum option, however, but it will make the oth
er person think twice before initiating hostilities again, hence my comment abou
t bully boys ruling the world. I was not talking about producing peace by bopping s
omeone on the nose, I was talking about making it difficult for aggression to tri
umph unimpeded by declining to be a walkover. There never has been Peace On Earth
yet, there has merely been a truce between warring parties from time to time ...
and a truce is not peace.
Peace on earth comes about only when malice and sorrow have been eradicated enti
rely within the individual human being.
*
RICHARD: I do not have a false feeling of superiority towards animals ... I am sup
erior. And they are indeed expendable without the slightest trace of consequence
to ourselves (apart from the dependence we have on being a part of a healthy ecol
ogical food-chain).
RESPONDENT: What are you trying to say here? How are you superior? Are you sayin
g dominion over. Where does being superior to the animals leave you? And what are
the implications as concerns the taking of their lives for food?
RICHARD: I am not trying to say anything, I am pointing out the facts and the actu
ality of the situation. Human beings simply are superior to animals. You ask how
are you superior? ... to which I am inclined to respond with a couple of obvious
questions as my answer: have you ever seen a horse saddle up a human being and r
ide that person wherever it wants to go? Have you ever seen a dog throw a stick
for a human to fetch? This sounds very much like dominion over to me. And as to wh
ere being superior leaves me, it leaves me where we humans have always been in c
harge and with all that entails. As to the implications of taking animal lives f
or food ... there are none. None, that is, unless you are talking of psychologic
al implications ... which only occur where one is weighed down by the bleeding he
art syndrome.
Eradicate malice and sorrow and all your problems are solved in one fell swoop.
No. 20
RICHARD: Personally, I consider two thousand years plenty of time to be given to
a Teaching to demonstrate its efficacy ... when I look around me, I do not see pe
ace on earth. Nor do I see harmony even ... to take what is happening in Israel
as only one example, I see three religions fighting over the Holy City of Jerusale
m, namely: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I sense your disappointment and share it as well. Many have
been misled by pie-in-the-sky Christianity. This message is much different than w
hat youve come to learn. Im not able to fully explain right here, but I can make a
few comments, provide some statements, that may help you understand that youve b
een lied to.
RICHARD: You sense incorrectly I am not at all disappointed. I expect these kind
s of things for the Teaching is fatally flawed ... but I see that you say you are
disappointed. Fair enough that you are, for you have placed all your faith and c
onviction in something that just has not worked for two thousand years and never
will. But may I ask what pie-in-the-sky Christianity is? And what message is much di
fferent than what youve come to learn ? Are you saying that about one billion Chri
stians have got Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene message wrong and that you alone have got
it right?
RESPONDENT: Jesus suggested we could find a peace, an internal peace, perhaps si
milar to what you currently enjoy. (quote) Peace I leave with you; my own peace
I give you. Not as the world gives, I give to you. (quote) These things I have s
aid to you that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation
; but have courage, I have conquered the world!
RICHARD: What Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene described is not at all similar to what I
experience. The actual world is entirely peaceful and I do not have any tribulat
ion in it whatsoever.
RESPONDENT: Again, just to shed some light on things here, not that I expect thi
s would please you either! As far a planetary peace is concerned: (quote) Do not
suppose that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peac
e but a sword. (quote) Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? I say t
o you, No, but divisions.
RICHARD: I am puzzled as to why you would quote something that is fuel to my arg
ument, but here goes: Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene is not interested in peace-on-eart
h as he believed it not possible. Hence salvation in some metaphysical after-lif
e wherein one can have eternal peace. I, however, have peace on earth, in this l
ife-time, as this body. Individual peace-on-earth is possible for anybody daring
enough to go all the way into being here in actuality, which ushers in the poss
ibility of global peace-on-earth.
*
RICHARD: And as for your statement about words alone not pulling it off, then we
might as well throw away the New Testament along with the rest of the Holy Bible, b
ecause that is all that book is words. Yet you keep on quoting those words, so o
bviously you see some merit in doing so.
RESPONDENT: Well of course! Words are much more effective when extraordinary hum
an behaviour has given birth and power to them. (quote) Even heaven and earth wi
ll pass away, but my words will never pass away.
RICHARD: The extraordinary human behaviour translates easily into deluded human beh
aviour ... Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene (a man) believed himself a god (I and The Fathe
r are One). Other people, apparently, decided that this surprisingly common psych
iatric disorder was blasphemy against their own religion and killed him for it.
These days, such a person is given medication and psychological counselling unti
l they are capable of discerning reality over delusion. As for your quote ... as
the my words you refer to are dependent upon printed pages and peoples memories, I
rather consider that when this earth is no more, then my words will indeed pass aw
ay ... and heaven exists only in peoples imagination, anyway, and passes away remark
ably easily when one stops believing in it.
*
RICHARD: And if you are right in that words will not do
l all pack up our computers and go home, given the fact
other here is words. However, I for one will not give
st talk, because I have no doubts whatsoever that words
it, then we might as wel

that all we can give each
in to this kind of defeati
can and will do it.
RESPONDENT: Outside of appealing to ones heart (i.e. Christ-likeness) or to ones m

ind (logical truths), words are wasted.
RICHARD: What about the appeal of coming to ones senses? I have discovered that w
ords work very well in achieving this, as I use no other method than words of co
mmunicating this information and thus sharing my experience.
*
RICHARD: Look, Christians state unambiguously that Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene is Go
d ... 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 d
iscovery, I consider that was remiss of Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene not to have ment
ioned it.
RESPONDENT: Here again the misguided, misguided you. Jesus is not God! Does this
sound like God speaking: (quote) No one knows about that day or the hour, not e
ven the angels of heaven, neither the Son, except the Father. (quote) I am not s
eeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it. (quote) Why do you call
me good? No one is good except God alone.
RICHARD: So, according to you, Mr. Yeshua
e that about one billion Christians would
yours. And selective quotes which do not
will not persuade me that you alone know
her quotes which indicate the opposite to
the Nazarene is not a god ... I am sur

challenge you on this understanding of
include the I and the Father are One bit
Christianity correctly as there are ot
be the case.
*
RICHARD: Is he, or is he not, the Creator God come to earth to deliver a message t
hat will eliminate the suffering of humankind for all time?
RESPONDENT: Where did you get your information anyway?! And whats 2000 years as c
ompared to eternity?
RICHARD: I got my information from where everyone else gets it ... from the prin
ted words of Christianity (In the beginning God created ...). As for eternity ... th
at is but a belief. If you do not achieve peace here on earth and now in time yo
u never will. When you are dead, you are dead.
Finish.
*
RICHARD: This is important because, as you have already made clear, for some peo
ple words alone wont pull it off ... so the words must be charged with supernatural
meaning. Hence the claim to divinity divinity imbues the words with a immanence
and all kinds of things ensue as a result of reading the Holy Word that is now gl
owing with this numinous Authority. Thus it is important to examine the mans creden
tials.
RESPONDENT: Tricky business at this point wouldnt you say. Nevertheless, misunder
standings of doctrine dont change the facts, whatever they may have been. This is
where belief in and communion with a God of Truth can enlighten where logic fal
ls short. (quote) For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the u
nderstanding of the intelligent will frustrate. Where is the wise man? Where is t
he scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the w
isdom of the world? Because all the wisdom which God had given was not sufficien
t for the world to know God, it pleased God to save those who believe by the sim
ple gospel. For the Jew demand signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; But we p
reach Christ crucified, which is a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to
the Gentiles. But for those who are called, Christ is the power of God and the
wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weaknes
s of God is stronger than men.
RICHARD: This demonstrates my point entirely that divinity imbues the words with
a numinous immanence. The power of the Christian word revolves around the crucifi
xion and the resurrection ... the conquering of physical death. Get people to be
lieve that, and they will believe anything.
Without this belief, the words on their own fall short. Hence my remark about exa
mining the mans credentials ... Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene was a flat earth god. This
man (if he existed at all as a flesh-and-blood person) was a product of his tim
e, and in his era people believed they would fall of the edges of the world if t
hey went too far.
*
RESPONDENT: There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for
the sake of his friends.
RICHARD: True. True indeed. So true that people do actually do this very thing.
I too believed in this wisdom ... oh ... so many years ago now (I as in I, the self
the ego and soul that lurked about inside this body that is). This belief sent m
e to a war-torn foreign country in 1966, as a volunteer soldier, not a conscript
, to lay down my life for my friends and my country.
RESPONDENT: This is not the intent. Jesus never supported violence and aggressio
n, even though he knew the truth of his message would shake the world, dividing
the sheep and the goats.
RICHARD: If this was not the intent then what was? If laying down ones life does no
t mean dying for ones friends in defence of ones country then what does it mean? H
ow else can one lay down ones life for the sake of ones friends? And while we are on
the subject how come you know Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene correct intent whereas one b
illion other people do not? And Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene never supported violence
and aggression ? What about the fig tree? And the money-changers? Love has had tw
o thousand plus years to demonstrate its efficacy in bringing peace and harmony.
It has failed miserably.
December 24 1997
RICHARD: As for your comment that this approach lessens the hope for peace, I must
point out that when you are under fire there is no hope for peace already. One is
at war and one must deal with a war situation ... and turning the other cheek doe
s nothing whatsoever to produce peace, it produces a cessation of hostilities vi
a defeat and subjugation. Hitting back likewise does nothing to produce peace, i
t produces a cessation of hostilities through conquest and domination ... which
is the preferred option.
RESPONDENT: Only if you can accept the fact that you have just pushed hope for p
eace out further out of reach.
RICHARD: But I have only ever been interested in living in an actual peace ... t
o live in hope for peace is to live ones life in vain. Hope for peace is a poor sub
stitute for the actuality of peace ... living in hope is pathetic compared with
living in the perfection of the actuality. Thus I did not merely push hope for pe
ace further out of reach ... I pushed hope so far out that I discarded it altoget
her, with an eminently satisfying result, to wit: the actuality of peace, here a
nd now.
*
RICHARD: It is not the optimum option, however, but it will make the other perso
n think twice before initiating hostilities again, hence my comment about bully b
oys ruling the world. I was not talking about producing peace by bopping someone o
n the nose, I was talking about making it difficult for aggression to triumph uni
mpeded by declining to be a walkover.
RESPONDENT: But it never works. Only fans the flames.
RICHARD: On the contrary, it works very well ... to make the other person think
twice before initiating hostilities again, that is. You are talking at cross-pur
poses here.
RESPONDENT: He who is truly interested in peace in the world above all else does
nothing at all.
RICHARD: Oh yes, sure ... just sit in a chair in your backyard with a drink at h
and and let others do all the work for you. There is a name for that in Australi
a it is called bludging on your mates.
RESPONDENT: But you may place the value of yourself above your appreciation of p
eace. And thats fine as most do the same.
RICHARD: But I do have peace already ... by ridding this body of a self. How is th
is translated in your mind as placing the value of yourself above your appreciati
on of peace ?
RESPONDENT: Being a walkover is a choice, just as walking away is. If you have att
achments that keep you from walking away then you are part of the problem, and n
ot the solution.
RICHARD: Whenever somebody trots out that tired old truism if you are not part of
the solution, then you are part of the problem I realise that I have to start al
l over again from the beginning with explaining the difference between ideals an
d facts. I have to start all over again from the beginning with explaining the d
ifference between dreams and actuality. I have to start all over again from the
beginning with explaining the difference between what should be and what actually i
s. Because what you mean is this: if you are not part of MY solution, then you are
part of MY problem. By putting the word the instead of my you try to entice gullible
people into thinking that you alone know the truth of the matter ... whilst all
along nursing malice and sorrow in your bosom.
Please, before trying to fix up the world with specious solutions borrowed from
long-dead deities ... fix yourself up first.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE

=====
lista26.htm
ego identity Richards story purity intent innocence method the universe experi
ing itself as a sensate, reflective human being
RESPONDENT: Richard, You the man!!
RICHARD: Right on, Bro!
RESPONDENT: You sound like a remarkable man and I would like to ask a question.
I have been reading your posts with considerable interest, most of it I had alre
ady seen and I was trying to do somewhat the same but I found this gap. The gap
between knowing that all sense of identity is a construct, knowing that all joy/
pain and happy/sad is ego driven and knowing the internal-I can and should be ri
d from and actual dissolution. I know that information is having effect but sure
ly not as drastically as described by you so let me ask if something can be done
, is it a question of time or simply more reasoning or more information. Also, c
ould you affirm that all this is one happening in the now and that it is possibl
e to experience it like that.
RICHARD: Where you say you sound like a remarkable man , if you mean it sincerely
I would like to congratulate you for your perspicacity, because I must emphasise
that it is vital that you aspire to being a remarkable person yourself ... or e
lse you will not succeed in ridding yourself of your sense of identity. This is
very important, because people can put themselves down only too easily as being
not good enough, not intelligent enough or not capable enough. I am not gifted o
r special ... I was born of ordinary parents, was sent to an ordinary state scho
ol receiving an average education until I was fifteen years of age took an ordin
ary job and worked for a living. I eventually got married and had four children
and bought a house and ... in short, I was relatively normal and did all the exp
ected things. Thus did I live my life for thirty two years according to the tried
and true methods as laid down by the countless millions of other humans that had
lived before me. I tried my best to make their system work to produce the optim
um result ... but to no avail. Only then did I make the first and most important
movement of my own volition ... I discarded the tried and true as being the tried
and failed. (I did say I was relatively normal because one thing, and one thing alo
ne, stood out that distinguished me from whomsoever else I met: I wanted to know
as an actuality just what it was to be a human being here on this planet, as th
is body, in this life-time.)
Eighteen years ago I looked actually looked for the first time at the trees and
the mountains and the rivers and the oceans and the sky and the clouds ... and t
he stars at night ... and just knew that this enormous construct called the univ
erse was not set up for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments
of reprieve. It was all too big, too enormous, too magnificent and too marvello
us to be forever a vale of tears. I realised there and then that it was not and co
uld not ever be some sick cosmic joke that we all had to endure and make the best o
f. I felt foolish that I had believed for thirty two years that the wisdom of the
world I had inherited the human world that I was born into was set in stone. Th
is foolish feeling allowed me to get in touch with my dormant naivet, which is th
e closest thing one has that resembles actual innocence, and activate it with a
naive enthusiasm to undo all the conditioning and brainwashing that I had been s
ubject to. Then when I looked into myself and at all the people around and saw t
he sorrow and malice of humankind I could not stop. I knew that I had just devot
ed myself to the task of setting myself and thus humankind free of impurity and
imperfection ... I willingly dedicated my life to this most exemplary cause. It
is so delicious to devote oneself whole-heartedly the boots and all approach I cal
led it then to something so eminently worthwhile as invoking and actualising pur
ity and perfection here on earth.
Purity is an actual condition, intrinsic to the perfection of the infinitude of
this universe ... the only one we have. A human being can tap into this purity b
y pure intent. Pure intent can be activated with sincere attention paid to the s
tate of naivet. To be naive is to be virginal, unaffected, unselfconsciously artl
ess in short: ingenuous. Naivet is a much-maligned word, having the common assump
tion that it implies gullibility. Nevertheless, to be naive means to be simple a
nd unsophisticated. Pride is derived from an intellect inured to naive innocence
; to such an intellect, to be guileless appears to be gullible, stupid. In actua
lity, one has to be gullible to be sophisticated, to be wise in the ways of the
real world. The worldly-wise realists are not in touch with the purity of innocenc
e; they readily obey the peremptory decrees of the cultured sophisticates. A sam
ple of such decrees are: I didnt come down in the last shower, or I wasnt born yester
day, or Youve got to be tough to survive in the real world, or Its dog eat dog out the
re ... and so on. Such people are said to have lost their innocence. Human beings h
ave not lost their innocence they never had it in the first place.
Innocence is something entirely new; it has never existed in human beings before
. It is an evolutionary break-through to come upon innocence. It is a mutation o
f the human mind. Naivet is a necessary precursor to invoke the condition of inno
cence. One surely has to be naive to contemplate the profound notion that this u
niverse is benign, friendly. One needs to be naive to think that this universe h
as an inherent imperative for well-being to flourish; that it has a built-in ben
evolence available to one who is artless, without guile. To the realist the world
ly-wise this appears like utter foolishness. After all, life is a vale of tears and
one must make the best of a bad situation because one cant change human nature; and
therefore you have to fight for your rights. This derogatory advice is endlessly f
orthcoming; the put-down of the universe goes on ad nauseam, wherever one travel
s throughout the world. This universe is so enormous in size infinity being as e
normous as it can get and so magnificent in its scope, how on earth could anyone
believe for a minute that it is all here for humans to be forever miserable in?
It is foolishness of the highest order to believe it to be so. Surely, one can
have confidence in a universe so grandly complex, so marvellously intricate, so
wonderfully excellent. How could all this be some ghastly mistake? To believe it a
ll to be some sick joke is preposterous, for such an attitude cuts one off from th
e perfection of this pure moment of being alive here in this fantastic and actua
l universe.
You write: let me ask if something can be done about ridding oneself of the interna
l-I. Something can definitely be achieved in regards to the socially-imposed iden
tity ... one can readily do something about it if one is suitably motivated to d
o so. You write: is it a question of time or simply more reasoning or more inform
ation? ... to which I say yes to all three, but also something far more important
than that. If you have followed what I have written so far, you will see it is
a question of attitude, predilection, disposition and intent, because one can br
ing about a benediction from that perfection and purity which is the essential c
haracter of the universe by contacting and cultivating ones original state of nai
vet. Naivet, as I have said, is that intimate aspect of oneself that is the neares
t approximation that one can have of actual innocence there is no innocence so l
ong as there is a self and constant awareness of naive intimacy results in a con
tinuing benediction. This blessing allows a connection to be made between onesel
f and the perfection and purity of the infinitude of this physical universe. To
reiterate: this connection I call pure intent. Pure intent endows one with the a
bility to operate and function safely in society without the incumbent social id
entity with its ever-vigilant conscience. Thus reliably rendered virtually innoc
ent and relatively harmless by the benefaction of the perfection and purity, one
can begin to dismantle the now-redundant social identity.
To unilaterally relinquish ones esteemed identity is to go in the face of all rec
eived wisdom. Any psychiatrist would readily advise against such a foolish move
they will state that one would fall into a condition of mental and emotional ill
-health. They would diagnose that one is likely to suffer from a severe mental d
isorder probably Depersonalisation and Derealisation with its accompanying anxiety a
nd panic attacks, resulting in the prescribing of anti-psychotropic medication a
nd prolonged psychological counselling. To lose ones identity and to lose contact wi
th reality is considered a very serious psychiatric illness indeed. So one must p
roceed carefully with the indispensable aid of pure intent in order to dismantle
, step by step, ones accrued identity and reality. It is important to examine all
the beliefs masquerading as truths that one has accumulated since birth. These be
liefs support and encourage the emergence of the much-prized psychological entit
y inhabiting the psyche of all human beings. This apparent disembowelment is ini
tially resisted, for not only has it never been contemplated before, it also goe
s against the egocentric, ethnocentric and anthropocentric mind-sets that all hu
mans have been endowed with since time immemorial. It is a radical break with th
e past ... something akin to an evolutionary mutation, so personally seditious i
s its revolutionary opening gambit.
In order to mutate from the self-centred licentiousness to a self-less sensualis
m, one must have confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe. This co
nfidence this surety can be gained from a peak experience, wherein I, the psycholo
gical entity, temporarily ceases to exist and reality becomes actuality. This is
called a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Life is briefly seen to be alread
y perfect and innocent ... it is a life-changing experience. One is physically e
xperiencing first-hand, albeit momentarily, this actual world a spontaneously be
nevolent world that antedates the normal world. The normal world is commonly known a
s the real world or reality. Repeated peak experiences can be brought about on virtu
ally a daily basis with constant application of pure contemplation of the actual
. In pure contemplation, I, the identity, cease seeing and seeing takes place of i
ts own accord ... this is called apperception, which is defined as the minds perce
ption of itself. Then this actual world this benign world that the real world was s
uperimposed over, becomes apparent ... except that I am not here to experience it.
I can never be here in this actual world for I am an interloper, an alien in psychic
possession of the body. I do not belong here. All this is impossible to imagine w
hich is why it is essential to be confident that the actual world does exist. Th
is confidence is born out of knowing, which is derived from the PCE in the peak
experience, and is an essential ingredient to ensure success. One does not have
to generate confidence oneself as the religions require of one with regard to th
eir blind faith the purity of the actual world bestows this confidence upon one.
The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessing comes that pure
intent, which will consistently guide one through the travails of daily life, g
ently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this grow
ing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. W
ith this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and les
s egocentric and soul-oriented. Eventually the moment comes wherein something de
finitive happens, physically, inside the brain and I am nevermore. Being ceases it w
as only a psychic apparition anyway and malice and sorrow are gone, forever, in
one human being.
So yes, you are correct where you say: all this is one happening in the now , for
only this moment in time and this place in space are actual here and now. This t
ime and place is the arena wherein the infinitude the eternity and infinity of t
ime and space of this physical universe becomes apparent. Thus I am the universe
experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. This on-going experie
nce is ambrosial, to say the least. Does all this go some way to explicating jus
t what the gap is where you wrote: the gap between knowing that all sense of identi
ty is a construct ... and actual dissolution ?
Because yes, it is indeed possible to experience it like that ... everyday, for th
e rest of your life.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista12.htm

real/actual intimacy living together being here atheist spiritual jealousy comp
ssion Buddhism Truth afterlife belief
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 |
No. 01
RICHARD: The self, whilst being real sometimes very real is not actual. It is as
much a delusion as the ego is. For many years I mistakenly assumed that words c
arried a definitive meaning that was common to all peoples speaking the same lan
guage ... for example real and truth. But, as different persons told me things like: T
hat is only your truth, or: God is real, I realised that unambiguous words are requ
ired. (To a child, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real and true). Corresponding
ly I abandoned real and true in favour of actual and fact, as experience has demonstr
d that no one has been able to tell me that their god is actual or that somethin
g is only my fact. Therefore this keyboard is actual (these finger-tips feeling
it substantiate this) and it is a fact that these printed letters are forming wo
rds on the screen (these eyes seeing it validate this). These things are indispu
table and verifiable by any body with the requisite sense-organs.
Any sense of self is an identity ... the persistence of identity even into enlig
htenment is legendary by now: I am God, I am That, I am The Supreme, I am Emptiness,
even just I am. It is the continuance of identity I in any way, shape or form that i
s the spanner in the works. There is only one thing that I can do to remedy the situ
mess things up. I stand in the way of the purity of that perfection being apparent
... my presence prohibits consummation being evident. I prevent the very meaning to
life that I am searching for from coming into plain view. The main trouble is tha
t I wish to remain in existence to savour the meaning; I mistakenly think that meani
ng is the product of the mind and the heart. Nothing could be further from the c
ase.
The closest approximation to the actual that I can attain via thought can only eve
r be visionary states produced from utopian ideals that manifest themselves as h
allucinatory chimeras. The mind, held hostage by humanitys wisdom, is a fertile bre
eding-ground for fanciful flights of imagination, giving rise to the fantasies a
nd phantasms so loved and revered and feared by humankind. As for feelings ... o
ne can disregard feelings too, for emotions and passions beget the esoteric, the
psychic world of materialisations and apparitions. One can easily become bewitc
hed by the bizarre entities that inhabit the Supernatural Realms; one can become
beguiled and enchanted by the promise of the Glory and Glamour and Glitz of the
Altered State Of Consciousness ... one will become a victim of that most insidi
ous aspect of vanity: Power and Authority.
So much for thought and feeling there is a third alternative: Apperception. Appe
rception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of
the actual.
Apperception is the minds perception of itself it is a bare awareness. Normally t
he mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to it
s predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be un
knowable. Apperception happens when the who inside abdicates its throne and a pure
awareness occurs. This is called a peak experience. The experience is as if one
has eyes in the back of ones head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awa
reness and all is self-evidently clear. This is knowing by direct experience, un
mediated by any who whatsoever. One is able to see that the who of one has been stan
ding in the way of the perfection and purity that is the essential nature of thi
s moment of being here becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native in
telligence can operate freely because the thinker and the feeler is extirpated. One
is the universes experience of itself as a human being ... after all, the very st
uff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe. There is no outside to
the perfection of the universe to come from; one only thought and felt that one
was a separate identity (ego, id, self, identity, persona, personality, lower I
am, atman, soul, spirit, or whatever) forever seeking Union with That, by whatever
name (Higher Self, True Self, Real Self, The All, Existence Itself, Consciousnes
s, The Void, Suchness, Isness and so on).
Then what one is (what not who) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is m
e, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is
out through my eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through my ears a
s if they were microphones, tasting through my tongue, touching through my skin, sme
lling through my nose, and thinking through my brain. Of course I must feel isolated,
alienated, alone and lonely, for I am cut off from the magnificence of the actual
world the world as-it-is by my very presence.
Any identity whatsoever is a delusion.
RESPONDENT: No comment. Seriously, I think what you wrote there was good. I woul
d be interested to see whether you can live up to what you have written if indee
d that is your intention. And what are your views regarding relationships and wh
at people call love? Do you think its possible for two identity-less beings to fall
in love with each other?
RICHARD: You make a valid point ... however, it is not a case of living up to wha
t I have written ... it is a case of currently and continuously living it now. It
is not my intention, it is my actuality ... I write directly out of my on-going e
xperience. Otherwise it would all be only theory and conjecture, speculation and
surmise ... and what follows would amount to nothing but bombast and blather.
There is an actual intimacy between me and my companion. Actual intimacy is a di
rect experiencing of the other. It is an actuality born out of pure intent. Pure
intent was activated by paying intense attention exclusive attention to ones pea
k experiences. A peak experience is where I, the identity, temporarily abdicate th
e throne and everything is seen to be already always perfect. A chief characteri
stic of the peak experience is the clarity of apperception ... the seeing throug
h of the belief in my existence. In the months that followed the peak experience,
the pure intent this unwavering attention amounted to an obsession for me, the ide
ntity, for what a sin it was to be disconsolate and miserable when the world had
been experienced as being so glorious. To be here, intimately here at this mome
nt in time, where this actual world is such a marvellous place to be alive in, i
s a satisfaction and fulfilment unparalleled in the annals of history.
Actual intimacy being here does not come from love, for love stems from separati
on. The illusion of intimacy that love produces is but a meagre imitation of thi
s direct experience of the actual. In this, the actual world, I, the personality,
the subjectively experienced identity and self, have ceased to exist; whereas lo
ve accentuates, endorses and verifies me as being real. And while I am real, I am rela
tive to other, similarly afflicted, persons; vying for position and status in or
der to establish my credentials ... to verify my very existence.
To be actually intimate is to be without separation ... and therefore free from
the need for love with its ever un-filled promise of Peace On Earth. I am not ap
art from the universe ... I am the universe experiencing itself as a thinking, r
eflective human being. Whereas I can never be intimate for I am distanced from the a
ctual by my very being ... I stand in the way of actual intimacy. The intimacy that I
a personality can have, as a feeling an emotion or a passion for another in a r
elationship, pales into insignificance when compared with the actual intimacy of
being the universe experiencing itself. There is no need for a relationship her
e. Relationship requires a separated identity in order to do the relating. By be
ing what I am what not who I am not separate from the universe. This body is literal
ly made of the very stuff of the universe ... there is no difference whatsoever
between this stuff and me. I am it.
I do not make the mistake, as the people who have dissolved only their ego do, o
f identifying myself with Existence or Whatever ... as being God On Earth, or an
y of that deluded nonsense ... I have no identity or self whatsoever. Nothing th
at I as an ego-less Self experienced many years ago when I lived in the Divine Real
Samadhi, Satori, Nirvana, Sunyata and so on) can equal the magnificence of being
here in this actual world. Being here as-I-am far surpasses any Religious Illum
ination, Spiritual Enlightenment, Mystical Union or any other Altered State Of C
onsciousness. For example: This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetua
lly here for the term of my natural life as this moment is; I am not immortal. I
t is the universe that is eternal ... not me. I am free to be me; me as I actual
ly am. I am free to be practical, straight-forward and down-to-earth. I am free
of any guile, any hypocrisy, any duplicity, any cupidity ... any corruption at a
ll. Innocence prevails only where time has no duration ... and this moment has n
o measure, it is ever-new. I have no need for such a paltry surrogate as Immorta
lity ... Immortality fades into the oblivion it deserves when compared to the ma
gnitude of experiencing the infinity of the universe as a human being living her
e, each moment again, fresh and new and pristine.
I am free to live in this magical wonderland that is the actual world.
RESPONDENT: You dont make it clear whether my companion refers to the Infinity of N
ature (God) or an individual human being. I will assume you mean the latter. In
that case I will ask you whether your companion has exactly the same philosophical
realisation and ambition as yourself? And would they mind if you were equally in
timate with lots of other people at the same time?
RICHARD: My companion could not possibly be the Infinity of Nature (God), as any G
od or Goddess is clearly nothing but a psychic projection of the self. I experienc
e and therefore acknowledge the only infinity that there is: the infinity of thi
s physical universe that is what we are all tangibly made up of. This flesh and
blood body is the same corporeal stuff, simply in a different formulation, as th
e stuff of the stars and planets some people mistakenly think that the universe
is only out in space it is as much this body and this room as anything else or a
nywhere but here. We are not constructed of some material from outside of the univ
erse by some unknowable god and put in here for some inscrutable purpose. We are,
literally, this infinite universe ... and there is no outside to infinity.
RESPONDENT: Agreed.
RICHARD: So yes, you assume correctly. My companion is a living, breathing, huma
n being.
RESPONDENT: I always thought a companion was someone who keeps you company in old
age when you have lost all dignity and are on your last legs, and comforts you t
hat youre not a waste of space when all reason says you are.
RICHARD: As my companion and I are legally married I could have written my wife ..
. only to be accused of being chauvinistic or patriarchal or possessive or old-f
ashioned or whatever. She refers to me as my partner ... is that any better? I her
eby submit a list of appellations for your consideration and approval ... please
advise me as to which you find appropriate: My wife, My spouse, My partner, My
colleague, My friend, My associate, My mate, My chum, My buddy, My pal, My suppo
rter, My collaborator, My coadjutor, My peer, My acquaintance, My amigo, My play
mate, My familiar, My compeer, My confidant, My crony, My accomplice, My comrade
, My ally, My cohort, My confrere, My consort, My counterpart, My sidekick, My b
osom buddy, My intimate, My helpmeet, My compatriot, My confederate, My concubin
e, My mistress, My courtesan, My paramour, My accessory, My woman, My inamorata,
My girl friend, My chick, My old lady ... or if we want to degenerate entirely
and go ocker: The ball and chain, The trouble and strife, The cheese and kisses,
The old dear, The old chook ... and so on.
Personally, I prefer my companion.
*
RICHARD: And, yes, she has exactly the same realisation and ambition, which is t
he primary reason that we are living together.
RESPONDENT: My word! Then she is either a very exceptional woman or you are a co
mmon fraud. Your words concerning Reality have merit, but I have serious reserva
tions about your actual understanding as it manifests in the way you live your l
ife. Your words about living in the moment dont do much for me, as every mindless p
erson I meet is actively promoting the lifestyle of living in the moment. It is th
e fashion of the age.
RICHARD: She has had several peak experiences, of precisely the same nature that
the I that used to live in this body all those years ago had, and has no other ob
jective in life but to live these experiences twenty-four-hours-a-day.
RESPONDENT: Shes given-up work then? Declared war on femininity? And she is fully
aware that she has to reach a state beyond all emotion (fear, desire, love, pit
y, etc.)? Forgive me, but I always have a good laugh when I hear of men seeking
to keep the company of women while giving the reason that they are trying to spi
ritually advance themselves. But for all I know your female friend may be every
bit as noble you think she is. She may indeed be a fully enlightened Buddha. Its
possible. Perhaps we can hear from her on this discussion list?
RICHARD: It follows, of course, that not only does she not mind that I have an a
ctual intimacy with everyone and everything ... she wants nothing but that for h
erself. Actual intimacy is the direct experience of the people, things and event
s in the world about, unmediated by any who within ... that emotional and mental c
onstruct known as I. Actual intimacy has nothing to do with sexual proclivity whic
h is a matter of individual predilection but refers to the absence of any psycho
logical distance betwixt one and another.
It is I who creates this psychological distance; it is I who then feels separate; it
is I who correspondingly longs for Union; it is I who creates love to bridge the se
lf-created gap; it is I who invents Gods and Goddesses to become One with. It is I w
ho, being a fiction, desires Immortality to perpetuate my real existence for all o
f Eternity thus secretly despising this body and this physical life and it is I wh
o, being a central figure in my scheme of things, proposes that there is an outsid
e to this material universe. There is not. This universe has no edges ... which
means that there is no centre either. With no centre to existence we are nowhere
in particular.
Being here, as an actuality, is to be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywher
e all at once.
Why would she have to be an exceptional woman? The only requirement to wish to s
olve the Mystery of Life is that one be a human being who, having had experiences
of the actuality of being here in the world as-it-is, wants nothing other than t
o live that perfection twenty four hours a day. As to whether I am a common frau
d ... that is for you to ascertain one way or the other ... and as you have seri
ous reservations about the way I live my life (based on no more information othe
r than that I live with a human being who happens to be a female) then it seems
that you already know the closely kept secret that the only proof that one is a
truly free person is that one eschews women and shuns them entirely.
Also, I typed the words living in the moment into the search function of this comp
uter and sent it back through my posts and it could not find the phrase anywhere
. Perhaps you could send me your copy where it does say that? What it did find,
using the word moment only, to search, was:
1. [Richard]: To be here, intimately here at this moment in time, where this actu
al world is such a marvellous place to be alive in, is a satisfaction and fulfil
ment unparalleled in the annals of history.
2. [Richard]: This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetually here for t
he term of my natural life as this moment is; I am not immortal.
3. [Richard]: Innocence prevails only where time has no duration ... and this mom
ent has no measure, it is ever-new.
4. [Richard]: Immortality fades into the oblivion it deserves when compared to th
e magnitude of experiencing the infinity of the universe as a human being living
here, each moment again, fresh and new and pristine.
5. [Richard]: Everything I experience is actual to this moment. And this moment i
s occurring now. This particular moment of being here has never happened before
... and it will never happen again. This moment is ever-fresh, perennially new.
It is consistently so; dependable in its originality and reliable in its uniquen
ess. For twenty-four-hours-a-day it is like this, day-in-day-out ... therefore i
t is impossible for it to ever become boring.
6. [Richard]: Simply and magically, I am here as this moment is here ... living i
n the actual world of people, things and events as this flesh and blood body, be
reft of both the thinker and the feeler.
7. [Richard]: Psychological self-immolation is the only sensible sacrifice that I c
an make in order to reveal the fulfilment of the perfection of being here as thi
s body in the world as-it-is at this moment in time.
8. [Richard]: One is able to see that the who of one has been standing in the way o
f the perfection and purity that is the essential nature of this moment of being
here becoming apparent.
I, too have met people who are actively promoting the lifestyle of living at this
moment. They do not seem to understand that as long as they are an I, a psychologica
l entity living a parasitical existence within the body, then this moment of bei
ng alive is forever locked away in some other dimension. Only when I am not is thi
s moment apparent.
As for giving up work: she does not have to work as we are retired and living on a
pension ... we are doddering around in our senility being companions to each ot
her, remember? And she has not declared war on femininity: she simply prefers to b
e a human being rather than living the socially prescribed role of woman ... be it
mainstream or feminist or anything else. And she is not trying to spiritually advanc
e for there is not the slightest trace of spirituality, religiosity or mysticism
in what she is doing. And no, she is not the teeniest bit noble sincere, yes but
noble? No. And she is most definitely not a fully enlightened Buddha for she has
no interest at all in living in a delusion like he did. And yes she is well awar
e about being beyond all emotion (fear, desire, love, pity, etc.) ... in fact she
can tell you about that herself: I am immensely happy to simply be alive, to be h
ere in this world. Many years ago I would not have been capable of living a life
without any stress whatsoever. As I was then the old me I would have found the pr
ospect of an existence devoid of any disharmony and nervous tension to be utterl
y boring and uninteresting; a life surely wasted in apathy and complacency. A goo
dy-two-shoes, as such a person is derogatorily called in the real world, is somet
hing one is fervently warned against by ones contemporaries. It seems to be of th
e utmost importance there that each child, as soon as possible, learns to cope a
nd deal with the Human Condition in the way that is accepted as being normal in th
e orthodox mode of life. In other words: how it has always been done. Prolonged
naivet and non-conformity must be eradicated in the best interests of the child, so
the person will not be hurt when they venture out and about in the real world.
The newest recruit to humanity has thus not only been persuaded to sell themselv
es out to the system, but has entered into the society of stress, anxiety and al
l the other peer group pressures. By the time the child has reached adult-hood,
they will never dare to be authentic, genuine, original ... and will be forever
afraid to risk entering into an area believed to be boring, dull, unemotional an
d lethargic.
[quote]: For more than thirty years the old me had become almost convinced by the
wisdom of the ways in the real world ... were it not for the subsequent lonelin
ess, anguish, fear, stress and so on. Well-meant advice on the merits of coping wa
s endlessly forthcoming, yet never seemed to lead to anywhere pleasant, so as to
be a sweet destiny to look forward to. The quality of my life dangerously appro
ached that experienced by my contemporaries ... the same dismal condition endure
d by all of ones predecessors, those highly respected ancestors. Some alternative
way of living had to be found and soon before I too would timidly succumb to th
e conventional life-style, only to grow old in it. Accordingly, I set out on a v
oyage of exploration and discovery, a journey of investigating and uncovering. I
enquired into and endeavoured to locate that something which I surely knew some
how existed in some intimate place and in some familiar time. I sought and I sou
ght ... and I found. What I located is truly impressive for me and was well wort
h the fascinating search. Nowadays as the new me I am living in this wondrous al
ternative way.
My way can best be described as a state wherein I have freed myself from the Huma
n Constitution. It is not to be confused with actual freedom, which only my part
ner can speak knowledgeably of, where one is freed from the Human Condition ther
e is no self at all. In my freedom my daily state of being is comparable to the
quality of the peak experience. A peak experience, which all people have had at
some stage in their life, is that moment wherein literally everything including
oneself is seen as being already complete and perfect as-it-is. I encountered my
first of many such experiences when I was twenty three years old and was then q
uite mystified, for what was most outstanding was the absolute equality that per
vaded everything. Although an utter purity and clarity prevailed, there was a to
tal lack of any Religious Authority whatsoever. This had nothing to do with anyt
hing I had ever learned to be true! Instantly I knew without a shadow of a doubt
: this is my destiny. Even though I did not know how to yet, I knew that I was g
oing to manifest this state of being in my everyday life, as it was distinctly m
eant to be achieved here-on-earth. It would be attained by being me as-this-body
and would be possible many years before I would die. Although the whole experie
nce lasted for only as long as it took me to pass through an intersection by bic
ycle, one thing was made magnificently clear: I was standing in the way of my ow
n freedom and my entire purview on life was invalid. Both I and my current under
standing had to be eliminated for this destiny to be lived.
This proved to be a sheer impossibility until I met the person with whom I have s
hared my life for the last eleven years. My partner, having lived in an absolute
freedom for five years already, recognised immediately that we were to partake
in living together. We ventured on an odyssey into my purview on life, into all
the beliefs and mores of humanity which were restricting the accomplishment of m
y destiny. I am now here as a new me and my moribund outlook on life has been th
oroughly decimated. No longer subservient to the beliefs and mores of humanity,
I am pleasantly free to live a genuine life; naturally inclined toward ease, pea
ce and tranquillity and just as naturally oscillated away from stress, anger and
unrest. I have clearly seen and understood that the yoke of human principles re
garding behaviour and feelings are an artificial and painful acquiescence to a m
ediocre life ... at best. The Human Constitution does not cater for a dispassion
ate and yet cheerfully carefree way of living. It does not permit a harmonious a
nd serenely easy way of life ... not for anyone on this planet. It has always be
en seen as having been never meant to happen. Nowhere in the revered and Sacred
scripts, anywhere in history, has there been a suggestion that unambiguously sta
tes: we humans are meant to be peaceful and happy here on earth. On the contrary
, the only peace and happiness that is mentioned at all, in these highly valued
works, lies waiting for each person in the After-Life ... a place where nobody e
ver arrives, of course, for it exists only in human imagination and nowhere else
.
Consequently, very few people in history have even attempted to find it here in t
his actual world ... and the ones who did failed miserably in the actual living
of it. This utterly sad fate of humankind to be deprived from ease, peace and jo
y for the term of ones natural life has been what humanity has decreed for humans
for as long as people have roamed the earth. Does this have to mean, though, th
at peace on earth, goodwill and prosperity for all is forever impossible? My ans
wer is an emphatic no, because I have never accepted that it is to be the lot of
human beings to be forever wretched, with only snatches of relative happiness a
s a temporary reprieve. I have discovered my niche in life, I do not miss being
in distress, being frustrated, being under constant pressure and forever running
on nervous energy. No kind of adrenaline rushes appeal to me any longer, be the
y the accompaniment of competition, anger, passion or peril. Against the dire wa
rnings from my peers I dared to live an unorthodox, unconventional life of peace
, ease and joy. Fascinated as I am with all things human, I am never bored for t
here is a never-ending stream of information coming into my field of interest: p
eople I meet, articles I read, the television programmes I watch and so on. I ca
n not help but notice that everybody I see and hear is, in their own words, endu
ring their life here on earth. They are coping with life as it currently is; con
tent with merely surviving whilst hoping for some better future in some ill-defi
ned way and forever suffering the whole gamut of emotions and passions.
Somewhere lost in the mists of time somebody has somehow determined and ordained
that we humans are to remain emotional beings forever. Nobody has ever dared to
break the sacrosanct seal around this decree, which all humans have learned to b
elieve as The Truth. But exactly what good have emotions done for humankind so f
ar? Do they actually promote an on-going happiness and peace for all concerned?
Is a lack of anger and remorse, fear and trust, hatred and love, greed and repen
tance, sadness and compassion to name but a few necessarily going to leave human
s bored, insipid and dull? As far as I am concerned, the opposite is the case. W
ithout emotions running my life, I am deliciously free to thoroughly enjoy my st
ay here. No longer plagued by petty arguments, pathetic one-upmanships, paltry m
anipulations of others or feelings of being a victim I relish being here-on-eart
h every moment of my life. [endquote].
Is this enough? I can send more if you wish, for I have nothing else to do but p
otter around the house taking up space (seeing that a companion is someone who ke
eps you company in old age when you have lost all dignity and are on your last l
egs, and comforts you that youre not a waste of space when all reason says you ar
e.) But out of regard for others on this list in respect to the length of posts I
will stop for now.
No. 02
RICHARD: Why would she have to be an exceptional woman? The only requirement to
wish to solve the Mystery of Life is that one be a human being who, having had exp
eriences of the actuality of being here in the world as-it-is, wants nothing oth
er than to live that perfection twenty four hours a day. As to whether I am a co
mmon fraud ... that is for you to ascertain one way or the other ... and as you
have serious reservations about the way I live my life (based on no more informa
tion other than that I live with a human being who happens to be a female) then
it seems that you already know the closely kept secret that the only proof that
one is a truly free person is that one eschews women and shuns them entirely.
RESPONDENT: I wouldnt say that eschewing women is a proof that one is free, but b
eing attached to women is a sure proof that one is enchained. The Buddha (I know
you dont like him but I do) says: So long as the lustful desire of a man for a wo
man, however small, is not destroyed, so long is that man in bondage, like a cal
f that drinks milk is to its mother. (The Dhammapada).
RICHARD: Without an I, there is nothing inside this body to be either attached or
detached ... one is free to be living with, or without, a member of the other ge
nder. Living is all so very easy and simple in the actual world ... to be withou
t I in my entirety is a most estimable condition to be in. To practice detachment me
rely manifests and strengthens the second I (of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer aka Ramana
fame) and can lead to one realising oneself as the Self. If carried out successful
ly, one will be in danger of becoming enlightened and live in the massive delusi
on of existing for all Eternity ... that is: Spaceless, Timeless, Unborn, Undyin
g and so on. I thus survive, triumphant, only to wreak my havoc once again ... disgu
ised now as some Metaphysical Entity who has manifested for The Good of All Manki
nd. I conveniently ignore all the hatred and bloodshed that I as my illustrious prede
cessors have also done leave in the wake of my noble Love Agap and Divine Compassion
. This has been the way of humans for millennia: to escape from reality by creatin
g a Greater Reality ... this is the wisdom of the Sages and the Saints, the Master
s and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and is but a delusion created o
ut of an illusion. It is all predicated upon the persistence of an identity exis
ting through into an After-Life.
RESPONDENT: Buddhism does teach that Nirvana and enlightenment (the extinction o
f suffering and the delusion of self) are possible in this life although you wou
ld be very lucky to find even a single modern Buddhists who actually wants to at
tain that condition. And Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven was here and no
w for those who are able to see it (which would seem to exclude all Christians).
RICHARD: It is of no avail to quote Mr. Gotama the Sakyans revered wisdom, becaus
e he knew naught of these matters that I write of ... it is a well known fact th
at, out of compassion, he would not take the final step while a single sentient be
ing was still suffering. Which is why, for Buddhists, their Ultimate State Parini
rvana lies on the other side of physical death. Thus his identity indubitably rem
ained intact ... for compassion rises out of sorrow. In actuality the opposites
are eliminated, not merely transcended.
The same applies for the cherished teachings of Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene. His god
(his father!) had a mansion of many rooms whereto he hastened, out of love, to
prepare a place for us mere mortals ... also on the other side of physical death
. Unless one is a Jehovahs Witness, no one calling themselves a Christian believe
s for a moment that their Ultimate State lies here on earth. Thus he too had an
identity ... for love rises out of loneliness or aloneness. When I am not, there i
s no psychological entity extant to need love ... or to generate it.

The demonstration of anything factual lies in the practical working out of it ph
ysically, here on earth. It is of no use for anyone to propose that complete ful
filment lies only on the other side of physical death, as the venerated Sages do
... there is simply no way to authenticate this, nor can any useful information
be garnered from there. I have always been interested purely in our lot on this
planet and have only ever been concerned about a practical dissolution of the H
uman Condition while this body is alive and breathing. It is I in my entirety that s
tands in the way of the perfection and purity of this moment in time being appar
ent. One needs to eliminate not only the ego or self, but the soul and Self as well.
n, and only then, can any remaining sense of identity whatsoever disappear. With
no identity in any way, shape or form whatever, both malice and sorrow are elim
inated (not transcended) ... along with their beguiling antidotes: love and comp
assion.
(Just out of curiosity: You are the same person who edits/ edited the Atheist So
ciety newsletter, are you not? The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines an atheist
as: A person who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God or gods. If you are
, then why are you quoting long-dead deities? Their wisdom is not worth the pape
r it was not printed on until so many years after their alleged life/ death that
there is serious dispute about the authenticity of anything they purportedly sa
id and did. There is also thoughtful scholarly debate as to whether these archet
ypical religious/ spiritual teachers historically existed anyway. Humankind has
been held in mythical thralldom for far too long ... it is high time humans all
came of age and started thinking and discovering for themselves. And, after all
is said and done, if that is not what intelligence is a person with the ability
to think and discover for oneself then what is? The postings on this list are ma
inly psittacisms.)
But I appreciate the comments you wrote regarding what my companion had to say.
It is indeed refreshing to find a fellow human being who is prepared to go all t
he way, whatever it takes ... not to mention the numerous other people I have sp
oken with over the years. There is the distinct possibility that humankind might
excel itself yet.
No. 03
RICHARD: Without an I, there is nothing inside this body to be either attached or
detached ... one is free to be living with, or without, a member of the other ge
nder.
RESPONDENT: So your wouldnt mind at all if your wife slept with other men every d
ay and spent most of her time with them?
RICHARD: Not at all ... I do not own her, she is not my possession ... she is fr
ee to live her life as she sees fit. Similarly, she does not see me as her posse
ssion and does not own me. Apart from practical considerations about things like
STDs and unwanted pregnancies, we put no boundaries upon each other. If she or I
then willingly choose to remain monogamous, that is a free choice. (For what it
is worth, as an illustration only, until recently we have been living in what i
s called a menage a trois. She is currently living in her own home doing whateve
r she does do when we are not with each other. We are married in name only for l
egal purposes which is why I originally wrote my companion ... we do not consider
ourselves married in the sense most people mean by that term.)
RESPONDENT: This is how I understand it: That which a Buddha rejects is not ulti
mate enlightenment, but a false enlightenment the enlightenment of the arhats. A
n arhat, according to the Buddhist use of the term, retains a small element of e
go (the innermost core of the ego) to enjoy the fruits of wisdom. This is someti
mes called Nirvana, but it is not the true and pure Nirvana of the Buddhas, which
does not include even the slightest element of ego. In other words the great Bod
hisattva (one who strives for Buddhahood) turns his back on the great bliss of s
o-called Nirvana in order to seek real and true enlightenment. Now, even when one
becomes a fully enlightened Buddha one still experiences the illusion of duality
(self and other) even though one is not taken-in by this illusion at all. One exper
iences this illusion due to the fact that ones body has senses which create these
illusions. It is only at death that the illusion of duality disappears, and thi
s is termed Parinirvana. But this is not a superior state to that of Buddhahood bu
t is only a different word to convey a different phase of existence.
RICHARD: This expresses precisely why I write so rigorously about what I am on a
bout: there is nothing the matter with the senses; it is the psychological ident
ity within the body that distorts the sense data ... creating the impression tha
t one still experiences the illusion of duality (self and other). Given that this impr
ession is then taken to be a fact, such a person thus has to perform a sleight o
f hand (or I rather should say: sleight of mind) and convince oneself that one is n
ot taken-in by this illusion at all. One does not have to wait for deaths Great Rel
ease ... (It is only at death that the illusion of duality disappears) ... for I do
not experience any illusion of duality and therefore do not have to avoid being t
aken in by it. It actually is possible to live freely, without having any illusi
on at all to have to deal with.
Where you say It is only at death that the illusion of duality disappears, whether
you realise it or not, you are acknowledging that as long as this body is alive
and breathing complete with those dratted sense organs one can not be utterly f
ree. This is why Buddhists maintain that their Ultimate State lies only on the o
ther side of physical death ... which you accidentally confirm when you finish y
our paragraph with a different phase of existence. Physical death does not usher o
ne into a a different phase of existence ... there is only a heap of rotting flesh
and mouldering bones or a pile of ashes if cremated. That is it. Finish.
RESPONDENT: True Buddhist compassion is really only to do with understanding, an
d is nothing to do with sorrow at all. The Bodhisattva understands that the All
is himself, and so he cannot rest in the puny Nirvana of the arhats, who are so ea
sily satisfied. The Bodhisattva realises that all beings, and indeed all things,
are literally parts of his own self, and so he is responsible for All. The Bodh
isattva rejects Nirvana because of his responsibility to The All (Truth). As you c
an see this kind of compassion is infinite in nature and has nothing to do with
sorrow.
RICHARD: So if there is True Buddhist compassion then there is, presumably, False B
uddhist compassion. You have already spoken of a False Enlightenment and an Ultimate
Enlightenment as well as a True and pure Nirvana of the Buddhas which implies an Un
true and impure Nirvana ... it seems that this venerable Mr. Gotama the Sakyan di
d not leave a very clear message ... perhaps it is because he is indeed a mythic
al creature after all and his alleged wisdom is but the collective works of coun
tless pious humans, over centuries of time, cobbling together commentaries upon
commentaries. It is a very complicated philosophy, full of pitfalls for the unwa
ry, and leading to nothing more spectacular than the common or garden variety of
Eastern Enlightenment Moksa, Samadhi, Satori and so on with the main exception
being that no god is openly acknowledged. However, your use of capitalisation, (i
f God is used as another name for Truth or the Infinite, then I believe in God,
because I believe in Truth.) ... (the All (Truth)) ... (Infinity of Nature (God) ), g
ives the game away. The Jain religion also does not openly acknowledge any god .
.. but do the same thing. Anyone who uses capitalisation is referring to somethi
ng that is Sacred, Holy, Hallowed, Divine, Heavenly, Sanctified, Sacrosanct, Oth
erworldly and so on. In other words: God.
The kind of compassion that is infinite in nature and has nothing to do with sorr
ow quite clearly rises out of The Bodhisattvas ... responsibility to the All (Truth
) This translates as Doing Gods Work on Earth in Western terminology. The trouble wi
th people who discard the god of Christianity and call themselves atheists is th
at they do not realise that by turning to the Eastern spirituality they have eff
ectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality is rel
igion ... merely in a different form to what people in the west have been raised
to believe in. And it is of no use to protest that Buddhism True Buddhism is not
a religion but a philosophy, for I have been to India some years ago and studied
Buddhism for myself. It is those bits about No-Mind, No-Self, Non-Being, The Void, E
iness and so on that sound so convincing to the Western mind that is desperately
looking for answers. The Christian conditioning actually sets up the situation f
or a thinking person to be susceptible to the insidious doctrines of the East. A
t the end of the line there is always a god of some description, lurking in disg
uise.
*
RICHARD: Just out of curiosity: You are the same person who edits/edited the Ath
eist Society newsletter, are you not? The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines an a
theist as: A person who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.
RESPONDENT: Yes, I am that person. I dont believe in the God or gods of modern da
y Christianity. However, if God is used as another name for Truth or the Infinit
e, then I believe in God, because I believe in Truth.
RICHARD: How unfortunate it is that you so easily write the words I believe in Tr
uth. The subject of beliefs and believing is one of my favourite topics as belief
s are the bane of humankind. A person who is free has no beliefs whatsoever, so
one who is endeavouring to become free will view them all with deep suspicion. B
eliefs have been so instrumental in killing, maiming, torturing and otherwise ca
using such pain and suffering since the dawn of human history, that one wonders
that they are given any credence at all these days. It behoves one to examine ea
ch and every belief especially those that pass for truths or The Truth and watch the
m disappear out of ones life forever. It is so liberating to be free of beliefs o
f believing itself that I cannot recommend their elimination highly enough. Ones
sense of identity and self is largely made up of beliefs beliefs are emotion-bac
ked thoughts and instincts. The vast majority of the beliefs that one carries ar
e not invented by oneself; they were imbibed with the mothers milk and added to t
hereupon up to the present day. They are inherited beliefs, put into the child w
ith love and fear reward and punishment and added to as an adult out of awe and
dread the carrot and the stick. It is no wonder human beings are such a desperat
e lot. A Mature Adult is actually a lost, lonely and frightened entity careering a
round in confusion and delusion.
However, it is never too late to begin to undo that which has been done to one.
One of the marvellous aspects of entering onto the path of facts and actuality i
s that it is a wide and wondrous path full of delight and discovery ... with som
e down-turns from time-to-time as the old ways reassert themselves. I will not p
retend for a moment that all is rosy when one begins to dismantle ones belief sys
tem; ones very identity and self is at stake. The identity and self will put up a
good fight for they want to stay in existence as they have a lot to lose. To wi
t: their life. As the sense of identity and self is firmly based upon the instinct
for survival, I will get up to all kinds of tricks to retain and regain my ascendan
cy. But it is not a hopeless case: if I, the Richard who was, could do it, anyone
can. I claimed no special abilities other than a determination to succeed in my desi
red ambition. In 1980 I had what is known as a Peak Experience wherein the perfectio
n and purity of the universe as-it-is was experienced. I was hooked. I devoted mysel
f to the task of setting myself free of absolutely everything that stood in the wa
y of attaining what had been experienced on that day. The word fail was not in my vo
cabulary.
Other than that, the only other requirement that comes to mind at this moment is
that one is a human being.
No. 04
RESPONDENT: Oh boy, dont tell me the third partner is also a truly realised being
! There must be a hell of a lot of them over there!
RICHARD: Thus far I have treated your albeit rather prurient inquiries into my p
ersonal life as if they were genuine queries as to the practical workings of fre
edom in everyday life. The fatuous nature of the above retort with its gratuitou
s sarcasm tends to make me lose interest in responding to any more of the same .
.. especially as it seems to pander to a questionable trait in your character. I
t also casts serious doubt upon your bona fides.
RESPONDENT: Not being taken-in by the illusion (as I called it) would automaticall
y mean that there was no duality of illusion and non-illusion. Such a duality is pre
cisely the illusion, so if one is not taken-in by it then it does not exist. I a
gree that it is possible to live in this life beyond illusion and non-illusion.
RICHARD: Taken on its own, this statement is straightforward enough after allowi
ng for the mental convolutions necessary to understand Buddhist thought but as i
t comes in conjunction with your previous paragraph (It is only at death that the
illusion of duality disappears, and this is termed Parinirvana. But this is not a
superior state to that of Buddhahood but is only a different word to convey a d
ifferent phase of existence.) it is seems to me to be an attempt to wriggle out o
f a double-bind you have enmeshed yourself into. Arranged sequentially it goes l
ike this:
1. Definitive Statement: It is only at death that the illusion of duality disappe
ars
2. Convoluted Statement: Not being taken-in by the illusion would automatically mea
n that there was no duality of illusion and non-illusion. Such a duality is precisel
y the illusion.
3. Deductive Statement: So if one is not taken-in by it then it does not exist.
As Number (3) is totally at odds to Number (1) I would ask for clarification as
to which one is the fact ... if it: (3) does not exist, how is it that it is: (1) o
nly at death and we were speaking of physical death that it disappears? And Numbe
r (1) is your basic premise purportedly a fact upon which you are basing this di
scussion.
You then appeared to be agreeable: I agree [with Richard] that it is possible to
live in this life beyond illusion and non-illusion. As it was you who brought the
concept of non-illusion (which is rarefied Buddhist nonsense, anyway) into the di
scussion, I hardly consider it follows that you are agreeing with me ... you onl
y make it seem that you do, so as to not lose face. Why do you not give in now a
nd admit to what is widely known amongst Buddhists ... to wit: that it is not po
ssible to be utterly free while this body is still alive and breathing? They all
acknowledge that the Ultimate State Parinirvana lies on the other side of physica
l death ... or are you single-handedly re-writing Buddhism? My original statemen
t still stands, despite your attempts at obfuscation: It is of no avail to quote
Mr. Gotama the Sakyans revered wisdom, because he knew naught of these matters th
at I write of ... it is a well known fact that, out of compassion, he would not
take the final step while a single sentient being was still suffering. Which is wh
y, for Buddhists, their Ultimate State Parinirvana lies on the other side of physi
cal death. Thus his identity indubitably remained intact ... for compassion rise
s out of sorrow. In actuality the opposites are eliminated, not merely transcend
ed.
Close inspection of Buddhism reveals nonsensical dilemmas as does the Christiani
ty you reject ... like that one that has troubled Theologians for ages:
1. Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene died a real death for three days.
2. Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene is God.
3. Who, then, was running the universe for those three days?
Grown men do get themselves into such a bind, do they not? To paraphrase an ageold aphorism: Oh what a tangled web they weave, when first they practice to belie
ve!
*
RICHARD: Where you say It is only at death that the illusion of duality disappear
s, whether you realise it or not, you are acknowledging that as long as this body
is alive and breathing complete with those dratted sense organs one can not be
utterly free.
RESPONDENT: No, I was merely saying that our experience of things ceases when we d
ie, which is a different phase of existence in the same way as childhood and adu
lthood are different phases of existence.
RICHARD: Definitely not a good analogy, for going from childhood to adulthood im
plies a continuity of something through time. Physical death is the end. Finish.
There is not a different phase of existence after physical death in which, while o
ur experience of things cease , we go on. This is the same-same Immortality of all
religions that you are talking about the Buddhists are no different to any other
religion, when one gets into the nitty-gritty of things.
*
RICHARD: Physical death does not usher one into a a different phase of existence .
.. there is only a heap of rotting flesh and mouldering bones or a pile of ashes
if cremated. That is it. Finish.
RESPONDENT: I agree that (as far as we know) we have no experience of existence
once the body dies.
RICHARD: What is this as far as we know business? In the latter part of this post
you declare: I know Truth . Also, you do the same thing as before ... you appear t
o agree with me, all the while changing what I wrote. I did not say: we have no e
xperience of existence once the body dies ... I said: that is it. Finish.
And again: I agree that people are equally foolish all over the world, and their
religions are more or less equally false. It is said: One religion is as true as
another. Who are you agreeing with? I never said that. To me, all religions are ab
solutely false, not more or less false. And I would say, without the slightest hes
itation: one religion is as false as another. You are being disingenuous here.
RESPONDENT: The difference is that the wise person does not see themselves as di
fferent from God. They are themselves God.
RICHARD: As you agreed with me in a previous post where I wrote: any God or Godde
ss is clearly nothing but a psychic projection of the self, and you wrote: Agreed ...
I can hardly consider that you can now turn around and say a person who sees th
emselves as God could possibly be wise. Foolish, yes ... deluded, yes ... confus
ed, yes ... befuddled by eastern logic, yes ... but wise?
No way.
RESPONDENT: To be more clear I could have said I know Truth, and I have faith in
it because of the extent and depth to which I know it. The I believe bit was just a
shorthand way of saying the same thing.
RICHARD: Wriggling again? I believe and I know are such vastly disparate words that
I can not buy your lame excuse of just a shorthand way of saying the same thing. A
nd, in case you think I am being picky, you compound your error by going on with
I have faith in it. Faith, belief, trust and hope are all part of the same packag
e ... a person who actually knows would have a solid confidence and certainty bo
rn out of that knowing. And, please, do not tell me that faith is shorthand for cer
tainty ... your equivocations are starting to wear thin.
*
RICHARD: A person who is free has no beliefs.
RESPONDENT: They know things rather than believe them I presume. But in the case
of empirical knowledge they would still have to hold beliefs of a sort because
of the inherent uncertainty of empirical knowledge. For example such a person mi
ght say I currently believe in such-and-such a theory because, at the moment it h
as the most evidence to support it.
RICHARD: No. A free person would not say: I currently believe in such-and-such a
theory because .... As any belief is an emotion-backed thought and a free person
has no feelings at all no emotions or passions whatsoever there is no possibilit
y of an emotional investment at all in theories which can and do change accordin
g to the circumstances. The etymology of the word believe indicates that it is der
ived from: hold dear, love ... or thus, fervently wish to be true. Quite a passionat
e word I would say.
In view of the paucity of sagacity in your response I can not ascribe any value
to your parting comment: It sounds good, but I think you have a long way to go.
No. 05
RESPONDENT: Being in relationships does leave you at the brunt of a lot of jokes
Im afraid!
RICHARD: Strange ... nobody around here makes jokes about my relationships ... y
ou have the dubious honour of being the first. Which makes me wonder just what k
ind of world you have created for yourself. Being in a relationship is one of th
e most delicious, delightful, fascinating and rewarding things that one can ever
do. In case you have not taken it in, given that half of the population being f
emale and the other half being male, it an actuality that we fit together. It is
a given, as they say in scientific circles, like gravity. It is the method by whi
ch we all came to be here there is no other way of becoming a human being other
than the union of the ova and the spermatozoa. And strange indeed it is that mos
t religious/ spiritual/ mystical/ metaphysical paths, somewhere along the line,
insist that one eschews anyone of the other gender. It amounts to nothing other
than being in a state of denial.

Apart from that, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
RESPONDENT: I am the last person to defend popular Buddhism, but the Buddha hims
elf was an ordinary human being who, supposedly at least, attained absolute perf
ection. Thats what Buddhahood means. It is not conceived in Buddhism that a living
fully enlightened Buddha is imperfect in any way at all. As I say, the use the t
erm Parinirvana is not meant to indicate a higher state of existence.
RICHARD: I was wondering what to do about demonstrating the obvious to you as I
gave away all my Buddhist books in 1984 when I had finished with the subject. No
t having any authoritative texts lying around the house to quote from, I contemp
lated buying some from the esoteric book-store ... but I figured you were not wo
rth the time and money as you would tell me that they were the wrong source anyw
ay. Then I chanced upon the encyclopaedia that came with this computer when I bo
ught it. I typed in the word Parinirvana and Lo! and Behold! they, too, know more
about Buddhism than you do:
[quote]: The ultimate goal of the Buddhist path is release from the round of phen
omenal existence with its inherent suffering. To achieve this goal is to attain
Nirvana, an enlightened state in which the fires of greed, hatred, and ignorance
have been quenched. Not to be confused with total annihilation, Nirvana is a st
ate of consciousness beyond definition. After attaining Nirvana, the enlightened
individual may continue to live, burning off any remaining karma until a state
of final Nirvana (Parinirvana) is attained at the moment of death.
Please note the a state of final Nirvana (Parinirvana) is attained at the moment
of death bit ... does this convince you? Also notice the not to be confused with t
otal annihilation bit. This is what I have been writing about since we began this
thread. In actual freedom there is total annihilation.
RESPONDENT: A rotting corpse is the continuation of the body after death. There
is continuity through time.
RICHARD: Dodging the issue. We were discussing consciousness not compost. We wer
e talking about Immortality life after death and the continuation of something,
by whatever name, in some metaphysical Timeless and Spaceless dimension. Discussin
g issues with you, I have noticed, is akin to drying dishes with a wet rag.
RESPONDENT: As far as we know death means the end of our consciousness which mea
ns the end of our experience of things (including self). Now what kind of an end i
s that? Its only a transformation.
RICHARD: A transformation into what? Here is a hint: Trikaya.
[quote]: Trikaya is the doctrine of Buddhas threefold nature, or triple body. Thes
e aspects are the body of essence, the body of communal bliss, and the body of t
ransformation. The body of essence represents the ultimate nature of the Buddha.
Beyond form, it is the unchanging absolute and is spoken of as consciousness or
the void. This essential Buddha nature manifests itself, taking on heavenly for
m as the body of communal bliss. In this form the Buddha sits in godlike splendo
ur, preaching in the heavens. Lastly, the Buddha nature appears on earth in huma
n form to convert humankind. Such an appearance is known as a body of transforma
tion. [endquote]
RESPONDENT: Whether self-consciousness continues after the death of the body is
a matter for empirical measurement. No empirical knowledge can be known with abs
olute certainty. I dont currently believe that self-consciousness can be sustaine
d after the death of the body because Ive never seen any convincing evidence that
it can, and I cant see any mechanism that might make it seem like a possibility.
As far as things go at the current time it appears to me that our consciousness
is dependent on a properly functioning brain. Once the brain stops working the
consciousness is no longer supported.
RICHARD: But you declare that you know The Truth! What kind of truth is it if it
does not tell you about life after death? Are you being obtuse, disingenuous or
... or do you actually not know? Perhaps that is why this discussion is so slip
pery ... that you really do not know what you are talking about.
*
RICHARD: Who are you agreeing with? I never said that. To me, all religions are
absolutely false, not more or less false.
RESPONDENT: Following that reasoning then your ideas must be false so long as we
call your ideas religious.
RICHARD: As I am on record as stating that there is not the slightest trace of r
eligiosity, spirituality, mysticism or metaphysicality in me whatsoever, I find
this type of argument just plain stupid.
*
RICHARD: Any belief is an emotion-backed thought.
RESPONDENT: I believe that 1 + 1 = 2 (based on the definitions of 1 and 2), and that
is not an emotion-backed thought. You are attached to a narrow usage of particu
lar words.
RICHARD: One and one always do equal two ... this is a fact. Why the need to bel
ieve something obvious? And I am not attached to a narrow usage of particular wor
ds ... I am being precise and clear. Under your schematisation, of defining away
proper and accepted use of words as narrow usage, apparently anything goes ... any
thing can be whatever you define it to be. Sounds like Post-Modernism.
Also, accusing some of being attached to something is your universal put-down for
anyone who disagrees with you. You have used it and over-used it ... until it do
es not mean anything at all, any more.
RESPONDENT: Belief is higher than knowledge because it is possible to know somet
hing but not have the courage to believe it.
RICHARD: Thus far we have established that:
1. You are an atheist who believes in God.
2. You are a wise person who, however, has to avoid involvement with over half t
he population on this planet.
3. You admire Mr. Gotama the Sakyan without acknowledging the central tenets of
his teaching ... and now:
4. You are a logician who values belief higher than reason!
I, for one, do not see that anything fruitful will be obtained by continuing thi
s futile dialogue ... this approximation of a genuine discussion.
No. 06
RICHARD: By its very nature a belief is not factually true ... otherwise it woul
d not need to be believed to be true. A fact is obvious; it is out in the open.
RESPONDENT: If you define belief as being concerned with something that is not fac
tually true, then what do you call it when people dont believe the facts because
the facts are too scary to believe?
RICHARD: As a belief is not factually true by its very nature, then a fact, whic
h by its very nature is obvious, can not be believed or disbelieved. Therefore y
our question: what do you call it when people dont believe the facts, does not foll
ow, logically. (However a person can ignore a fact by pretending that it is not
there. Such a person is called a fool.)
*
RICHARD: There is no actual me to either die or to have Eternal Life.
RESPONDENT: In the highest sense of the word Immortal doesnt mean endless life but me
ans beyond life and death. That which is mortal experiences life and death. But th
at which is immortal is unborn and undying.
RICHARD: The only factual thing that remotely meets the qualification beyond life
and death is inanimate matter a rock, for example. It only meets the qualificati
on by virtue of the fact that it has never been alive, therefore it can never be
dead. So, whenever the word Immortal (the opposite to mortal) is used, no one, to m
y knowledge, has ever referred to the physical, inanimate universe itself ... th
ey have always indicated something metaphysical, by whatever name, be it persona
l or impersonal. As anything alive will inevitably die (this is a fact), then th
e word Immortality refers to supernatural stuff (which is belief). The only thing th
at is unborn and undying is God. God, by any other name, is still God ... and with
God we are back in the realm of belief.
But you and I have already exhausted this particular topic in another thread ...
where it was established that you, who fancied yourself as a logician, valued b
elief higher than reason.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista18.htm
life without I the actual world, there is something precious in living itself, the
life-giving foundation of all that is apparent
RESPONDENT: I agree with you, Richard, and drew much from what your significant o
ther contributed, but would like clarity on a number of points. Pray indulge me.
How does one function in reality, if not in the first person. (And I am carrying
no prejudice on this it is a simple Miss, I dont understand) I can grasp the minim
ising of the ego, but its total annihilation would lead to one being unable to fu
nction within the matrix of this life, whatever one perceives that to be, illusi
on or otherwise, surely? I have met many enlightened beings, but I have yet to mee
t one completely devoid of an ego. Could you expand on of precisely the same natu
re that the I that used to live in this body all those years ago, please? I am intr
igued. Again: Miss, I dont understand. Please explain, how is this possible? (and p
lease dont take this as a confrontation, its not, but youre bending my wee brain.)
RICHARD: It is surprisingly easy and simple to live and function without any I (id
entity, persona, personality, ego, id, self, soul, spirit) whatsoever ... in fac
t it is such a vast improvement upon I doing all the daily tasks that it is a deli
ght to just contemplate the difference. I unnecessarily complicate this otherwise
simple living with my needs, demands, wants, shoulds, musts, beliefs, morals, valu
es, principles, ideals, and so on. Not to mention my sadness and empathy, my likes a
nd dislikes, my loves and hates, my fears and trusts, my revenges and pardons, my jea
sies and faithfulnesses, my blamings and forgiveness, my lonelinesses and my loves ...
the list goes on and on.
This body is eminently capable of functioning of its own accord: the stomach tel
ls the brain (the nerve-organising organ of the body with its data-correlating a
bility) when it is empty, the bladder tells the brain when it is full, and so on
. I, thinking and feeling that I am an important part of the process, step in and sa
y, incorrectly: I am hungry, or I want to got to the toilet, etc. I am not hungry
ach is simply signalling its emptiness; I am not busting for a pee the bladder is
merely indicating its fullness. And it is not at all like having a frontal loboto
my because thinking happens of its own accord ... it is the function of the brain
to do so. The empty stomach instructs the legs, via the brain, to walk it to th
e cupboard for food. The eyes, seeing an empty cupboard, will advise the legs, v
ia the brain, to walk the body to a shop. An empty wallet will tell the legs to
take the body to a bank ... and an empty bank account will demonstrate that it i
s time to get a job (or a pension). I am not being pedantic here it is actually
this simple. Without an I one is this body living in the actual world of people, t
hings and events not an I living in the real world, forever cut off from the magni
ficence of the actual.
I can never be here in this actual world for I am an interloper, an alien in psychic
possession of the body. I do not belong here. All this is impossible to imagine w
hich is why it is essential to be confident that the actual world does exist. In
order to mutate from the self-centred licentiousness to a self-less sensualism,
one must have confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe. This conf
idence is born out of knowing, which is derived from the peak experience, and is
an essential ingredient to ensure success. In a peak experience everything is s
een, with unparalleled clarity, to be already perfect ... that humans are all li
ving in perfection ... if only one would act upon ones seeing. In these moments,
Good and Bad, Love and Hate, Generosity and Parsimony, Fear and Trust ... all th
ese and more, are simply irrelevant. Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons, all
the battles that have raged throughout the ages are but a nightmare of passionat
e human fantasy. There is a marked absence of hierarchy; no Religious or Spiritu
al Figure can match the matter-of-fact equality that pervades everything. A qual
ity of kindly understanding prevails, dispensing forever with the need for Autho
rity and Love and Truth. And ... of course man and woman live together in perenn
ial peace and harmony.
One does not have to generate confidence oneself as the religious/spiritual/myst
ical/metaphysical people require of one with regard to their blind faith the pur
ity of the actual world, seen and lived in the peak experience, bestows this con
fidence upon one. The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessin
g comes a pure intent, which will consistently guide one through the travails of
daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character.
With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and mor
e self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred
, less and less egocentric. Eventually the moment comes wherein something defini
tive happens, physically, inside the brain and I am nevermore. Being ceases it was o
nly a psychic apparition anyway and war is over, forever, in one human being.
Then there is something precious in living itself ... something ultimately preci
ous. Something beyond compare. It is the essential character of the universe whi
ch is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. That something preciou
s is me as-I-am ... me as I actually am as distinct from me as I really am. I am the
universe experiencing itself. The perfection and purity of being here, as-I-am,
is akin to the perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of
a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the dew-drop with its
warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with
its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate s
implicity so exemplified ... and everyone I have spoken with has experienced thi
s purity and perfection in some way or another at varying stages in their life.
It is not difficult to conceive just impossible to imagine that this is ones esse
ntial character. One has to dare to live it for it is both ones birth-right and d
estiny.
When one lives the magical perfection of this purity twenty-four-hours-a-day; wh
en one has ceased being I and is being genuine, one can see clearly that there is
no separation between me as this body and that something which is precious. The
perfection of life emerges from the purity that wells up constantly due to the i
mmense stillness of the infinity of the universe which is limitless in its scope
and magnitude. This stillness is that something which is precious. It is the li
fe-giving foundation of all that is apparent. This stillness happens as me as th
is body. This stillness is my essential disposition, for it is the principle cha
racter, the intrinsic basis of everything. It is this universe at its source. It
is not, as it might commonly be supposed, at the centre of everything ... there
is no centre here. This stillness, which is everywhere all at once, is the be a
ll and end all of life itself. I am the universe experiencing itself as a human
being.
RESPONDENT: Richard, thank you for your comments. I realise that that must have
taken some time to compose. I have printed them out and shall contemplate them f
or a while. May I please come back to you if I have any queries?
RICHARD: Certainly.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista07.htm
identity beyond enlightenment definition of consciousness I am cut off from the ma
gnificence of the actual world the world as-it-is
| 01 | 02 |
No. 01
RICHARD: Over the eleven years I had numerous experiences of a condition that se
emed so extreme that one must surely physically die to attain to it. To go beyon
d Enlightenment seemed to be an impossibility whilst still alive and breathing.
Then at midday on Friday, 30 October 1992, a curious event occurred, due to my i
ntense conviction that it was imperative that someone evince a final and complet
e 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. The
re was no Presence at all. The identity had generated the entire edifice.
RESPONDENT: You say I have no-longer have any sense of identity whatsoever. This
is a contradiction so please explain further.
RICHARD: I use the first person pronoun for convenience ... but it refers to thi
s flesh-and-blood body as being these sense organs seeing, hearing, tasting, sme
lling, touching and thinking ... minus the I. Whenever I refer to the psychologica
l entity within the body, I usually use small quotes ... thus: I. Otherwise I woul
d have to write the above paragraph like this: Over the eleven years this flesh-a
nd-blood body had numerous experiences of a condition that seemed so extreme tha
t this flesh-and-blood body must surely physically die to attain to it. To go be
yond Enlightenment seemed to be an impossibility whilst still alive and breathin
g. Then at midday on Friday, 30 October 1992, a curious event occurred, due to t
his flesh-and-blood bodys intense conviction that it was imperative that some fle
sh-and-blood body evince a final and complete condition that would deliver the go
ods so longed for by humanity for millennia. Just like this flesh-and-blood bodys
ego had dissolved, back in 1981, this flesh-and-blood bodys soul disappeared. This
flesh-and-blood body was no longer a Self existing for all Eternity and transcendi
ng Time and Space. This flesh-and-blood body no longer had a feeling of being or
Being any sense of identity whatsoever had vanished without a trace ... and this
flesh-and-blood body could thus no longer detect the presence of The Absolute. T
here was no Presence at all. The identity had generated the entire edifice.
*
RICHARD: Since that date I have continued to live in a condition of complete ema
ncipation and utter autonomy ... the condition is both permanent and actual. Thi
s 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.
RESPONDENT: To me to transcend is a mystical sounding name for getting over it.
If you have got over it there is nothing to get over. How is being over it diffe
rent to enlightenment other than you not being attached to the names described i
n enlightenment.
RICHARD: Transcend means to rise above, which implies that what you have transcend
ed still exists, only it is beneath you now. This is borne out by the Enlightene
d Beings, who generally state that they have eliminated the ego and transcended
duality ... I have yet to come across any Master who consistently states that th
ey have eliminated duality ... if there any at all who say that.
My experience of being enlightened is that I, as a soul (the Eternal Self), was sh

eltered and protected from sorrow and malice by a cocoon of Divine Compassion an
d Love Agap ... and my experience was affirmed by what I read in various books, o
ne of which was written by Ms. Pupal Jayakar about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti wherei
n she describes how the people around him were not to mention the word evil as it
would send him shrinking if my memory serves me correct and he stated that he had
always felt protected and that there was a repository of Good into which the Bad was a
ways trying to enter. Mr. Barry Long is reported to have said: The silver-tongued
Devil is Eternal.
In actual freedom both sorrow and malice are eliminated, along with the ego and
the soul. Evil does not exist in the world, it exists only in the human psyche .
.. eliminate the psyche in its entirety and you have eliminated both Good and Ev
il. (Good is a psychic phenomenon created to combat Evil). As the Enlightened Beings
have only transcended duality, they have to cling to The Good in order to resist T
he Bad. Hence also their pacifism.
RESPONDENT: It sounds like you have got over what has been described to you as e
nlightenment, you had formed attachment to those ideas to improve yourself, but
then you discovered they are only others words describing restrictions on life t
hat are not necessarily useful to impose on yourself.
RICHARD: I did not get over that what had been described to me as enlightenment ..
. I was living it as a reality. I was not attached to those ideas ... I was experi
encing them twenty four hours a day. I did not discover that they were only other
words ... they were words accurately describing a reality that I saw that I need
ed to be free from. Words in themselves are not a problem, for words are a descr
iption of something ... and it is that something that is being lived which is tr
apping you ... not the words. I know that some people (Post-Modernists, for exam
ple) re-arrange words and definitions to suit themselves, but the underlying rea
lity remains the problem. Semantics is only a superficial problem, in spite of t
hose who write profound tomes about it as if it were the problem in itself.
*
RICHARD: Herein lies the unmistakable distinction between this condition, which
I call actual freedom and the Enlightened State: I am no longer driven by a Divi
ne 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.
RESPONDENT: This seems to me to be similar to how I came about discovering enlig
htenment, I discovered the freedom from enlightenment before I discovered it. I
used enlightenment as a description of the process of self realisation and not n
ecessarily the particular descriptions given in scriptures. In order to stimulat
e me in my found sense of freedom I realised that I would have to improve others
as well as my self thats why I try and promote enlightenment, but it is all to e
asy to see it as another set of restrictions.
RICHARD: Enlightenment is not a description of the process of self realisation ...

it is self-realisation itself. Self-realisation is where I realise that I am the Self
.. the Eternal Self existing beyond Time and Space, Unborn and Undying. This is a
delusion born out of the illusion that I exist as an actuality. As the title of th
is thread says: The Self is not actual.
I do not need any more stimulation other than that which inheres from being here
. We are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was
when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and cor
ruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition
... we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow,
grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we gather that it
is also inherent to the human condition ... and we want to know why. We all rep
ort to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meanin
g and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one be
lieves in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the
very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adve
nture of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore
and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and we are
totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we a
re all still doing it.
What could be more stimulating than being alive ... and being here doing all thi
s.
No. 02
RESPONDENT: Nothing is given in science even the principles of scientific investig
ation are under scrutiny in meta-physics. So just what is gravity a wave a parti
cle both? Does it expand at the speed of light? How does this change curvature o
f space time ... oh wait in a few minutes you say there is no space time. Please
clarify these situations for me, I have found the scientific literature so cont
radictory and theoretical that gravity doesnt seem to be given at all.

RICHARD: I received a State School education in the fifties when things like gra
vity were described as a given. Since then the advances in scientific knowledge in
regards waves, particles, space-time continuum, curved space and so on have bee
n theoretical models based on increasingly frantic mathematics or so I understan
d it. The search for a Unified Theory Of Everything is based upon unifying gravity
, electro-magnetism, weak nuclear particles and strong nuclear particles if my m
emory serves me correct. If this is the case, then it seems that gravity is stil
l a given. However, I am willing to be wrong on this, as I am neither a physicist
nor a mathematician.
Be that as it may, I mean given in the literal sense that
say, at arms length and lets go of it, it always meets the
ng thump. This is a fact. Perhaps I should have said fact
is a fact. Male and female parts fitting together is a fact
ant fact that is!
when one holds a brick,

ground with a satisfyi
instead of given. Gravity
... and what a pleas
*
RICHARD: It is the method by which we all came to be here there is no other way
of becoming a human being other than the union of the ova and the spermatozoa.
RESPONDENT: We can clone sheep, how are we so different to them?
RICHARD: There may well come a day when humans are cloned into existence, but un
til then it is the ova and the spermatozoa. But even if that happens, it does no
t detract from the fact that male and female parts fit together ... and fit toge
ther so well ... and with such pleasure and delight. I find it strange to the po
int of bizarre, that in order to establish their Peace On Earth, most of the rel
igious / spiritual / mystical / metaphysical paths insist that sex is a no-no. T
hose that propose celibacy claim that their God/The Truth is more/only accessibl
e if one eschews the other gender. I find this an odd God/The Truth, that is all
. Especially as all Gods and Goddesses are fictions anyway ... and The Truth is bu
t a fantasy spun out of a delusion that is born out of an illusion.
*
RICHARD: Apart from that, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
RESPONDENT: Oh what scale? Moral ethical humorous?
RICHARD: Humorous.
*
RICHARD: We were talking about Immortality life after death and the continuation
of something, by whatever name, in some metaphysical Timeless and Spaceless dimen
sion.
RESPONDENT: By something you seem to be talking about an nonspecifically identif
ied non-thing (i.e. it doesnt exist in space and time). Perhaps you could tell us
your definition of consciousness else I have no-way of knowing what you mean.
RICHARD: My definition of consciousness is: I am these sense organs: this seeing
is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smellin
g is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas I, the entity, am inside the body: looki
ng out through my eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through my ears
as if they were microphones, tasting through my tongue, touching through my skin, s
melling through my nose, and thinking through my brain. Of course I must feel isolated
, alienated, alone and lonely, for I am cut off from the magnificence of the actua
l world the world as-it-is.
The something, by whatever name, referred to in the above exchange is not consciousn
ess, for that is dependent upon a physical body for its existence. The something i
s variously called soul, spirit, atman, skandhas, Real Self, Higher Self, True S
It is a metaphysical entity that is believed to exist beyond space and time and
before birth and after death. Some people call it Consciousness (with a capital C t
o denote Divinity) thus confusing the issue. Any belief in a something independent
of this body being alive and breathing is clearly a projection of the I ... the p
sychological entity that has a real sometimes very real existence inside the bod
y. But that entity the self is not actual. Thus it requires belief ... and as I
remarked in another post, etymologically, the word believe means: fervently wish
to be true.
It has nothing at all to do with facts and actuality.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
=====
lista10.htm
actual I identity past and future, a question that the Saints and Sages have ducke
d and weaved around for centuries
| 01 | 02 | 03 |
No. 01
RESPONDENT: In reality, which is generated by the self, self is all there is. Self I
S reality and is, therefore, the only thing that is real. Since existence is never
directly observable in reality existence is not real. Reality can never experie
nce or completely understand existence.
RICHARD: If the above is read in the context of drawing a distinction between rea
l (as in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are real to a child) and actual (as in eye
s seeing, ears hearing, fingers touching and so on), then the observations are e
ntirely straightforward.
RESPONDENT: Existence is only implied in reality. We can be enlightened about ex
istence using only real inferences.
RICHARD: However, this throws the whole paragraph into a different context ... a
nd throws light onto your use of the word existence (another word for God). I am n
ot talking about enlightenment; I am not talking about any god; I am talking of
an actual freedom which far surpasses enlightenment or any other altered state o
f consciousness. The facticity of existence (existence as in being here, not exis
tence as in God) can be experienced via apperception which is where I vacate the scen
e and there is a direct experience of the actuality of people, things and events
. No need for inferences at all. Everything lies open, in plain view, leaving no
room no need for doubt ... as there is with inferences.
RESPONDENT: Reality itself is a sensual construct. Origin is essence. The essenc
e of reality is existence. Existence, being essence, has no origin. Existence is
pure awareness with no delusion of past or imaginary future. It is a ubiquitous
cognitive pulse.
RICHARD: Reality is not a sensual construct there is nothing the matter with the s
enses. It is I, that psychological parasite inhabiting the body, that constructs a
reality over the top of the actuality of the world because I view it through my eye
s, ears, etc. It is I who creates an origin, an essence, an existence that has no ori
... which are just other names for the Uncreated Creator ... which is just anothe
r way to avoid using the word God.
The past and the future are neither imaginary or delusory. They do not exist in
that they are not actual now, but the past did happen and the future will happen
. What makes the past real is the psychological connection via nostalgia and sen
timentality. What makes the future real is the psychological investment in it vi
a hope and faith. This provides the basis for making the present real ... instea
d of actual, which is what this moment in time is. It is I who is imaginary or del
usory ... and I project that onto the unreal past and the unreal future in order to su
stain and perpetuate my existence as being the only thing real in a unreal world.
Religious/spiritual/mystical/metaphysical people will do almost anything to reta
in their sense of identity even to the point of the intellectual dishonesty of d
enying that people, things and events are actual.
The Hindu and Buddhist Philosophy of Maya is a particular case in point.
No. 02
RESPONDENT: There is no hell in nature; only in our own interpretations of it. M
an creates his own hell out of his own ignorance. Nature is not malicious, only s
ubtle. Albert Einstein.
RICHARD: Yes indeed ... but it is not ignorance that is the problem; it is the p
ersistence of identity. There is no good and evil in the actual world ... they e
xist only in the human psyche. The generator of the psyche is the I, the psycholog
ical entity within. The chief characteristics of this entity are sorrow and mali
ce, giving rise to sadness, loneliness, misery, grief, depression and suicide an
d to war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption.
There is one thing that I can do, however, to remedy the situation. I can disappear.
Psychological self-immolation is the only sensible sacrifice that I can make in o
rder to reveal peace and perfection. Life is bursting with meaning when I am no lo
nger present to mess things up. I stand in the way of innocent purity being appare
nt. My presence prohibits perfection being evident. I prevent the very meaning to li
fe, that I am searching for, from coming into plain view. The main trouble is that
I wish to remain in existence to savour the meaning; I mistakenly think that meanin
g is the product of the mind and the heart. Nothing could be further from the tr
uth. The closest approximation to the actual that I can attain via thought can onl
y ever be visionary states produced from utopian ideals that manifest themselves
as hallucinatory chimeras. The mind, held hostage by humanitys wisdom, is a fertil
e breeding-ground for fanciful flights of imagination, giving rise to the fantas
ies and phantasms so loved and revered and feared by humankind. They never compl
etely satisfy for they never last ... they have no substance, no intrinsic viabi
lity and doubt is never far away. In a valiant attempt to remove doubt, passion
can be brought into the search. Passion can produce love.
When I experience love I feel that life has meaning after all. Some brash souls have
attained a state of Love Agap, thereby believing that they have found the Ultimat
e Meaning. They have disseminated their findings to all and sundry down through t
he ages ... with ruinous results. They have led humankind astray, propelling peo
ple into the heights of hope ... before plunging them into the depths of despair
, when their prognostications turn out to be invalid. Yet they continue to dish
out rays of hope to their desperate believers the demand for hope by an ever inc
reasing population in despair creates the marketing of feel-good enterprises, givi
ng rise to a lucrative market for Spiritual entrepreneurs. Their product is love
... and the feelings that love induces: self-acceptance, self-worth, self-estee
m and the feeling of being needed. All these feelings serve to prop up an ailing
self ... yet love, however lofty, is fickle and manipulative and I must be ever v
igilant. I consist of a kaleidoscope of emotions and passions and therefore doubt
is still not far away. This can hardly be called a satisfactory destination for
the quest into finding the meaning of life.
From the vantage point of freedom from I which can be accomplished by a peak exper
ience a miraculous shift is seen to have occurred. It is a mutation from the sel
f-centred personality to a condition of self-less anonymity ... which is a bless
ed release from the onerous responsibility of being someone. No longer self-centre
d, that last little elusive bit which I could not purify myself has expired, enablin
g me to be here. The perfection and purity and peace that is already here, where
it has always been, is now available to be fully appreciated by me. That I, which
was always perverting and spoiling every endeavour, is no longer present. I was o
nly an illusion, whereas I am actual. I am this body and I am independent and fr
ee. I am unable to be swayed by feelings; be they love or hate, hope or despair,
despondency or enthusiasm and so on. Nor do I need to be needed by others, so c
ompassion plays no part in my life. The dubious Authority of the noble feelings
of Love Agap, Divine Compassion and Rapturous Bliss are revealed to be pathetic b
oasting ... and a meagre surrogate for the tranquil intimacy, benevolence and bl
itheness of the beneficence that is the actual nature of this wondrous universe.
No. 03
RICHARD: The past did happen and the future will happen ... it is that they are
not actual now. Only this moment is actually happening now. However, I was descr
ibing the impression that certain people gain when they experience this moment i
n time as being all there ever has been and will be ... in their own words: The p
ast is not real, the future is not real, only the present is real. I wrote as if be
cause the impression not the actuality is that only the present is real, and becau
se it is a strong impression, it has led people astray for centuries. Time is a
fact, not the illusion that those certain people are so wont to say it is.
RESPONDENT: Past and future are mental products. They have no independent existenc
e of their own .
RICHARD: Past and future are not mental products: the past did happen and the fu
ture will happen as an actuality. They do not exist now so the impression, when
one experiences being here for the very first time, is as if they never did or n
ever will ... but it is only an impression. This impression is what is the mental
product, not the actuality. And the past, when it was happening, did have an inde
pendent existence of its own; so too with the future, when it happens. Other-wise
, how can one plan to answer an E-Mail if it is a mental construct only?
It is a question that the Saints and Sages have ducked and weaved around for cen
turies. Generally they dissemble by issuing a nebulous edict like: The Truth can
not be spoken, or: True Reality is ineffable, or some such inscrutable profundity.

RICHARDS HOME PAGE
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity

Richard Listacorrespondence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Richard Listacorrespondence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

========FILENAME========

es for the lowest rating on the humour scale.

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

Because the universe is infinite, it is perfect. Infinity is perfection it can n

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

his root cause.

ve amongst the verbiage.

Richard, you are the reason I changed to the handle StarBadger as I

post ... it is full of justifications, protestations ... and resignation. May I

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

h, in this life-time, as this body.

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

into this Realm (fully thinking I

s path ... the end of

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

Ancient Wisdom emotion sex actual/spiritual enlightenment ASC delusion immortal

he preachers . The way I see it I wrote elsewhere:

a statement like there is no I whatsoever in this body validate ones I? I am saying: I

n the hall with joy and delight!

war and slaughter .

described as a temporary version of perfe

described as a temporary version of perfe

Enlightenment is most definitely a consistent Altered State Of Consciousness whe

other hand, believe that he has merely fallen victim to a

RICHARD: It is unfortunate that you are disturbed by my handling of concepts bec

RICHARD: Enlightenment is most definitely a consistent Altered State Of Consciou

RICHARD: Translation: I, No. 4, am God ... literally.

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

On Mailing List A with Respondent No. 11

Christianity belief I hugs and bread-mentality individual peace, I stand in the w

RESPONDENT: Do we live in a civilised world?

less means to bring about peace-on-earth, eh?

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

theory, you cause me to question you

an freely engage in a most robust and vigorous discussion if warranted. But I ca

ife like this.

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

I look forward to a continuing and fruitful correspondence.

Since that date I have continued to live in a condition of complete emancipation

RICHARD: I was talking about already existing great teachers, actually.

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

Some Of The Topics Covered

not only bizarre; this is insanity.

1. Make me laugh : Visit a professional comedian ... it is their profession to mak

nothing to do but be itself. Cloudless, unimpeded, no value, no feeling, just aw

and vicious urges themselves. As much as one might be sensitively considerate ab

th of me is a non-event; I do not actually exist in the first place. There is no actu

Something irrevocable happens inside the brain. In an ecstatic moment of being p

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

far as living in the moment is concerned; in writing this E-Mail

the much-vaunted human hope

RESPONDENT: Again, I believe, this is how other animals naturally exist.

killed. What is your point?

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

capable of creating the ova and

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARDS HOME PAGE

RETURN TO RICHARDS CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved.

RICHARD: Yes. There is no such thing as an Australian, an American, a German, a Japa

RETURN TO LIST A CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

Apperception reveals that this moment is hanging in time, it is in a realm of it