# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Evil • [Richard]: My adult questioning of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being all started in a war-torn country in 1966 at age nineteen where a religious man killed himself in a most gruesome way. There was I, a callow youth dressed in a jungle-green soldier’s uniform and with a loaded rifle in my hand, representing the secular way to peace. There was a fellow human being, dressed in a saffron-orange monk’s robes dowsed with petrol and with a cigarette lighter in hand, representing the mystical way to peace. I was aghast at what we were both doing ... and I sought to find a third alternative to being either secular or spiritual. This was to be the turning point of my life for, up until then, I was a typical western youth; raised to believe in a cultural ‘God, Queen and Country’ ethos. Humanity’s inhumanity to humankind – society’s treatment of its subject citizens – was driven home to me, there and then, in a way which left me appalled, horrified, terrified and repulsed to the core of my being with a sick revulsion. I saw how no one knew what was going on and – most importantly – how no one was ‘in charge’ of the world. There was nobody to ‘save’ the human race insofar as all gods and goddesses were but a figment of a feverish imagination. Out of a despairing desperation, which was collectively shared by my fellow humans, I saw and understood how I was as ‘guilty’ as anyone else. For in me – as is in everyone – was both ‘good’ and ‘bad’; it was that some people were better than others at controlling their ‘dark side’. However, in a war, there is no way anyone can consistently control any longer ... evil (aka malice) ran rampant. I saw how fear and aggression and nurture and desire ruled the world and, already knowing that these were the instinctual passions one was born with, thus started my search for freedom from the ‘Human Condition’. My attitude, all those years ago, was this: I was only interested in changing myself fundamentally, radically, completely and utterly. (Richard, Personal Web-page) RICHARD: In my sixth year I was ready to examine Love Agapé – which up until then had been far too sacred to put under the microscope – and I soon found enough to warrant further investigation. If Divine Compassion had been found to be murky and dirty, I was to go on to discover that Love Agapé was sordid and squalid to the extreme. Just as compassion has its roots in sorrow, so too has love its origin in malice. Hatred is the essential companion to love; the one cannot exist without the other. When I first saw the other face of love I was horrified ... for I was in the grip of a ‘Demonic Power’ disguised as ‘Divine Authority’. The diabolical is but the essential sub-stratum for the righteous; the sinister for the good; the fiendish for the glorious; the infernal for the heavenly; the wicked for the charitable ... and so on. Love Agapé – which has been touted as the cure-all for the ills of humankind for thousands of years – was hand-in-glove with evil. No wonder that religious wars have beset this planet for aeons, for the central tenet of any religious or spiritual path is love ... and love is the very element that will sabotage any well-meant endeavour with its secret agenda. A loving self is still a self, nevertheless. And a self is made out of the sorrow and malice that are generated by the instinctual aggression and fear that humans are born with in order for the species to survive. (...) In my tenth year I tentatively approached one of the last bastions of spiritual enlightenment: pacifism. Almost all of the other attributes of what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ had been stripped away and if I was to undo what is called ‘ahimsa’ in the east – non-violence – then there would not be much left of my precious ‘Peace On Earth’ that I was charged to bring. I found a strong resistance within myself to contemplate letting go of the scriptural adage: ‘Turn the other cheek’ ... even though I intellectually considered it to be nonsense. If an entire country held such a belief it would be akin to hanging out a sign saying: ‘Please feel free to invade, we will not fight back’. Also, I personally relied upon the police to protect me and mine from any personal attack or robbery – what if they adopted this principle? By the time I had worked my way through this philosophical dilemma I had to turn my sights upon the last thing that stood between me and an actual freedom. I would have to let go of the deeply ingrained concept of ‘The Good’. For this to happen I would have to eliminate ‘The Bad’ in me, or else I would be likely to go off the rails and run amok. Little did I realise that it was ‘The Good’ that kept ‘The Bad’ in place. I was soon to find this out. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 7 March 2000) RESPONDENT: (...) And now what happens where there is great disturbance, discomfort, where you are put out by others, your car is smashed, you are in pain, and you are on your way to the emergency room where the facilities are still poorly maintained, equipped and staffed. Is your world still serene and cheerful? RICHARD: Yes, the clean and clear and pure perfection of peace-on-earth never goes away. There is a preference for the creature-comforts, of course, but one takes the world of people, things and events as it is. Even if every single human being was happy and harmless, there would still be cyclones and earthquakes and tidal waves and fires and crocodiles and sharks and mosquitoes and so forth. Life is an adventure, after all. Every day is like this in this actual world, although I can occasionally meet unhelpful people, unhappy people, even rude people ... the entire gamut of human expression. I can easily make allowances for them for I know that they all live in reality ... and life can be a grim and glum business there. Here, all is benevolent, friendly and kind; no perversity has ever existed in actual freedom. There is a marked absence of malice here in this actual world; evil has no foothold, no being anywhere at all. RESPONDENT: You do not have it, but you are therefore pushed, you are taken advantage of, now what happens psychologically, how do you react? RICHARD: Unlike in enlightenment, pacifism plays no part here. Being free of sorrow and malice – not having merely transcended them and sugar-coated ‘me’ with Love and Compassion and Beauty and Truth – if someone bops me on the nose, I am free to bop them back with a liberated impunity. (Richard, List B, No. 20a, Pacifism). * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘It is all so simple, in the actual world; no effort is needed to meet the requisite morality of society. I have no ‘dark nature’, no unconscious impulses to curb, to control, to restrain. It is all so easy, in the actual world’. [endquote]. Where did the dark nature go? Did you think it away? Is it not possible that it is there, but you do not want to admit to it, to look at it, for that would mean that actualism is not ‘perfect’? So what makes you feel that it is not there any longer? RICHARD: The ‘dark nature’ was extinguished along with the extinction of identity ... and so too went its opposite ‘light nature’. The ‘Good’ is a psychic force that exist solely to combat the ‘Evil’. Thus a ‘God’ needs a ‘Devil’; ‘Love’ needs ‘Hate’; ‘Compassion’ needs ‘Sorrow’; ‘Beauty’ needs ‘Ugly’; ‘Truth’ needs ‘False’... and so on. There are no opposites here in actuality. One cannot think these things away ... just as one cannot feel one’s way into actuality. Seeing the obvious facts of actuality sets one on the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom. And there is nothing that is ‘there’ that I do not want to admit to or not look at or to not acknowledge ... it is all gone. Finished. Extinct. I do not ‘feel’ that all that is ‘not there any longer’ for feelings have also gone (and feelings are notoriously unreliable for ascertaining a fact anyway). I know experientially that there is nothing untoward here ... besides, it is impossible to fake this for five years. (Richard, List B, No. 20a, evil). RICHARD: All sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence. Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example). Generally speaking, the word psychic or psychical in virtually any context refers to anything of or pertaining to the energies of the psyche or being itself – the soul, the spirit or the self parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body – any non-material, incorporeal, other-worldly, unworldly, unearthly, non-human or inhuman currents or emanations. Any energy flow which is ethereal, ephemeral, intangible, cryptic, inexplicable, enigmatic, unfathomable and which is instinctual, intuitive prescient, telekinetic, telepathic or clairvoyant ... anything extrasensory. It can refer to anything occult, arcane, esoteric or ghostly – anything to do with witchcraft, sorcery or wizardry (be it either white magic or black magic) – everything supernatural, super-normal, preternatural, preternormal, transcendental or numinous ... anything religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical. The metaphysical includes the hallowed, consecrated, sanctified, deified, beatific, holy, divine, heavenly and sacred – including anything saintly, cherubic or angelic – and the sinful, black-hearted, damnable, sinister, fiendish, infernal, diabolical ... anything demonic, devilish, hellish, satanic and evil. Terror and respect – awe and dread – are the ultimate rule in the human world. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12c, #Energies). RESPONDENT: What I’ve previously said concerns the self, yet I’m also interested in discussing about the Self. In various religions this is, paradoxically, with all their interest in God, a taboo topic. As I’ve already said in my previous emails, the experience I’ve had was not of my Self, but of another person’s Self, a female. The Self I’ve experienced is a very old archetype, resembling somehow a printing press, a matrix, it looked like a 1000 years old child, very powerful yet very vulnerable. Its being consists of light, thus enabling the Self to be present everywhere and anytime. It’s a wonderful, beautiful Being, impossible to comprehend by pure intellectual reasoning, let alone described by words. It has to be lived in order to be known. RICHARD: There was a period during my eleven years of being in the enlightened phase (in my sixth year) whereupon what I called ‘The Absolute’ presented itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love – which femininity I would nowadays consider to be a product of me being of masculine gender. Eventually I was able to penetrate into the nature of this ‘Radiant Being’ and was able to see ‘Her’ other face: It was Pure Evil – the Diabolical underpins the Divine – and upon such exposure ‘She’ disappeared forever. RESPONDENT: The state in which you’re able to know your Self is a state in which you are blown up through space and time, becoming everything. You are thus able to understand the world objectively, as you know the substance out of which every single thing is made. My greatest surprise was to discover that the Whole of humanity is literally dead, and that the universe is alive and intelligent, humans retrieving themselves in an illusory, false refuge they call world. What followed after was Respondent taking that experience and using for its own purpose, which is what usually happens in the spiritual world of teachers and followers. You have to trust my word that what I’ve lived it’s nothing short than heaven. One reason for me in partaking to this discussing list is that I want to know if that was an illusory heaven. RICHARD: To put is succinctly: yes (as is all which you describe here). RESPONDENT: I invite all of you who have had a Self experience to try describing it. RICHARD: Sure ... there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed. RESPONDENT: I question if actual freedom from Human Condition is attainable without surpassing the last psychic Archetype, the Self, our Creator, out of which everything has begun? RICHARD: My experience is that an actual freedom is attainable by going beyond spiritual enlightenment ... however I do not advise going that route (via enlightenment) as it is too traumatic. Also it is just plain silly. RESPONDENT: And if that so, the enlightenment ratio being 1/1.000.000 what would it be the AF ratio of success? RICHARD: As it is exceedingly difficult to live in the massive delusion that spiritual enlightenment is I would easily estimate that the ratio would be much less for those that would go directly. Much, much less. RESPONDENT: Could it be that only the one who knows God may be called an atheist? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Another thing I want to mention is that the state described by Richard (I’m not yet sure if actual or virtual freedom :)) is very similar in its characteristics with the intermediate state between the normal condition of mankind and the Self state of affairs. RICHARD: Then I suggest that you re-read my descriptions ... I make it perfectly clear that an actual freedom is beyond ‘the Self state of affairs’ (and not before). For just one example: (Richard, Articles, A Brief Personal History, #2). RESPONDENT: I can say that as I’ve pass through this before enlightenment took place. RICHARD: It is often the case that a PCE can devolve into the altered state of consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment – such is the power of identity sweeping back in – and it is not uncommon to then self-centredly take the ASC as being superior to the PCE. The ASC is exceptionally self-centred (it is sometimes expressed as ‘I am everything and Everything is Me’) ... just look at your own words (further above): • [Respondent]: ‘The state in which you’re able to know your Self is a state in which you are blown up through space and time, becoming everything’. Need I say more? RICHARD: Is it not fascinating that nobody has ever been successfully able to explain why their God (a timeless and spaceless and formless Consciousness or Energy by Whatever Name) creates and/or created evil in the first place? This is true for anyone who holds a religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical view that affirms the following three propositions: (1) their god is almighty. (2) their god is perfectly good. (3) evil exists. As evil exists (no matter who creates and/or created it), then either this god (by whatever name) wants to eliminate evil and is not able to – thus he/ she/ it is not (1) almighty – or that this god (by whatever name) is able to eliminate evil but does not choose to ... and thus he/ she/ it is not (2) perfectly good. The eastern metaphysics, for example, attempt to solve this dilemma by denying that (3) evil exists (a head-in-the-sand approach) whereas western metaphysics attempt to side-step the issue by denying that the creator god (by whatever name) created evil ... thus implying he/ she/ it is not (1) almighty. O what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to believe, eh? RICHARD: My experience, night and day for eleven years, showed me intimately that ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ is indeed a morbid condition. In psychiatric terminology it is a dissociative state of being, sometimes known as ‘disassociative identity disorder’. (Richard, List C, No. 6, 30 June 2000). RESPONDENT: Please allow me to be frank. My impression from reading your post is that you don’t really know anything about enlightenment. You obviously know quite a lot about ‘disassociative identity disorder’, however you have erroneously equated this with the state of enlightenment. RICHARD: It is but one of the ways of describing it ... I was answering a question about whether enlightenment was pathological and I couched my reply in similar terminology. I did mention that it can be otherwise described (in non-psychiatric terminology) as ‘Theodicy’ ... which is nothing but a spurious vindication of a god’s and/or goddess’s goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. The theological dilemma goes something like this: 1. God and/or Goddess is All-Loving and All-Powerful. 2. Evil exists. 3. Therefore God and/or Goddess is either All-Loving but not All-Powerful or All-Powerful but not All-Loving. RESPONDENT: Yes this is a theological dilemma. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the Truth. RICHARD: So as to save time quibbling about mere names, shall I provide a list of words referring to ‘The Truth’ aka God and/or Goddess? Viz.: • The Truth, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Mind, The Source, The Intelligence Behind Everything, The Underlying Cause, The Ground Of Being, Existence, The Self, The Higher Self, The True Self, The Real Self, The Greater Reality, The Spirit, The Soul, The Over-Soul, The Divine Presence, The Greatest, The Sublime, The Essence, The Tao, The Breath Of Life, The Core Of One’s Being, The Most High, The Highest Good, Thatness, Suchness, Isness, Mother Nature, Life Itself, Cosmic Consciousness, Universal Consciousness, Nirvana, Satori, Samadhi, Sunyata ... and so on and so on. RESPONDENT: Its just a bunch of words formed into ideas and beliefs, by people who don’t know much about Truth. RICHARD: If you say that this is so then it is so ... for you. However, I will keep my own counsel on the matter. RESPONDENT: If you remove point 2. ‘Evil Exists’ the dilemma disappears. RICHARD: Hmm ... re-define the name of the problem and the problem disappears, eh? What then is the cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like? RESPONDENT: Evil is just a subjective judgement of events based upon ones cultural upbringing. RICHARD: Indeed ... yet it is undeniable that 6.0 billion peoples nurse malice and sorrow in their bosom. RESPONDENT: There is no good and bad(evil). What is good in my society may be bad in your society. Classic example: In India it is ‘bad’ for a man to hold hands with a woman in public – they will be stoned. But it is okay for men to walk along holding hands – it shows that they are great friends, and is something to be proud of. In Australia it is okay for a man and woman to hold hands in public but (until recently) not okay for two men to hold hands in public. RICHARD: Aye ... it is entirely sensible to comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols of whatever culture one lives in. RESPONDENT: A more extreme example: A mass murderer is considered ‘bad’, yet an effective soldier is considered a hero and given medals for his killing efforts – even if the war was started by his side. Which society’s moral structures would you use as a yardstick with which to cleanse the earth of this ‘ubiquitous presence of evil’? Your society’s? Or somebody else’s? Whichever way you look at it ‘evil’ is an illusion created by mankind – it’s just a label placed on certain events. There is no Universal yardstick by which we can measure an event to see whether it is evil – there’s no rulebook/ manual. RICHARD: Indeed, there is no absolute ‘right and wrong’ or ‘good and bad’ ... these are simply human conventions for ease of communal co-existence. RESPONDENT: Unless of course you want to use those ‘ancient and revered scriptures’ ... or maybe you’d like to make up your own rulebook? It would be better than those ‘ancient and revered scriptures’ and would itself, one day become an ‘ancient and revered scripture’ would it not? RICHARD: I have neither ‘rule-book’ nor any need for a ‘rule-book’ whatsoever. Shall I put it this way? Now that you have neatly solved the existential dilemma which has bothered theologians for centuries ... where are you at? As there is no global peace-on-earth, do you have individual peace-on-earth? Has your understanding and explanation enabled you to be happy and harmless twenty four hours of the day, seven days of the week, three hundred and sixty five days of each year? Which means: has malice and sorrow completely vanished from your bosom ... for the remainder of your life here on earth? I only ask because with the total and permanent absence of malice and sorrow, their antidotal pacifiers (love and compassion), being no longer necessary, likewise disappear forever. Then the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent. * RESPONDENT: Merging with, accepting and loving all things such that there is no more fear is part of what is known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ and nothing is more Peaceful and more threatening to cultural institutions. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? All of the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages have convincingly demonstrated, over 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history, the abject failure of the efficacy of ‘merging with, accepting and loving all things’ when it comes to eradicating suffering off the face of the earth. RESPONDENT: It seems that you’re whole attitude towards enlightenment is based upon your assumption that you know what is ‘evil’, and that enlightenment teachings aren’t effective in getting rid of this ‘evil’. RICHARD: My approach all those years ago was this: what is the root cause of human suffering; what is the root cause of all the misery and mayhem; what is the root cause of all the animosity and anguish; what is the root cause of all the malice and sorrow. Only some peoples give this root cause the name ‘evil’ (Christian Theologians, for example) ... whereas the root cause is none other than the animal instinctual passions which all sentient beings are genetically endowed with, at conception, by blind nature. The survival instincts, in other words. RESPONDENT: Okay, let me assume for a moment that there is such a thing as evil. Are you familiar with the saying ‘what you resist will persist’? It comes from the adage that ‘where you place your energy is what will grow’ which can be expressed using the terms of physics as ‘when you push something you transfer your energy to that which is pushed’ (the law of conservation of energy). When we place our energy on unconditional acceptance/ love of all that is, that is what will grow. When we place our energy on evil and attempting to push it away then that is what will grow. RICHARD: The word ‘acceptance’ has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ or ‘love’ ... um ... a brutal rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing ... let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist. So much for everyday ‘acceptance’ and/or ‘love’ as a viable modus operandi. One has to be totally dissociated (full-blown enlightenment) before one can unreservedly say !YES! to the rapist ... because then it is but ‘Lila’ (‘God’s and/or Goddess’s Divine Play or Sport’). RESPONDENT No. 9: If you’re really interested in Truth, which I’m sure you are (otherwise you wouldn’t be in this forum), then you will open yourself to what I’ve said ... really let it in ... time for some introspection ... is there any truth in what I’ve said? RICHARD: None whatsoever ... but do go on, please, for this is fascinating. RESPONDENT No. 9: Be honest with yourself ... let the defences down for a minute. RICHARD: May I ask? What ‘defences’? (Richard, List C, No. 9, 4 July 2000). RESPONDENT: ‘May I ask, what defences’ Dear Richard, writer of trillions of unenlightened sentences, intellectual poster whose ego has put him beyond the All in All, self proclaimed agape lover who sees suffering ... your ego projection has manifested from the same regurgitated, un-original, so-called wisdom you find repulsive in others. RICHARD: I have scoured the books for nigh-on twenty years now and I am yet to read anything like what I have to say ... if you could provide some book titles or URL’s where this ‘same regurgitated, un-original, so-called wisdom’ which you say I am manifesting is to be found I would be delighted. RESPONDENT: Richard is not ‘having fun talking about life’, your discussion has only been an egoic one. On evil. ‘if you are sowing division, preaching perceptions, seeking or finding ‘evil’ in the world, even if you are looking for it with the intention of removing it, you are part of the problem, not the cure’. RICHARD: Hmm ... under your definition, anyone who finds ‘the cure’ had better keep their mouth shut (seeing as you are lurking in the wings waiting to pounce with your borrowed aphorism). Or are you, also, saying that there is no evil (malice) in the human psyche? RESPONDENT: There are no negative conditions, nor are there positive conditions. All situations are actually neutral. Negative and positive only seem to exist if we see them as such. RICHARD: Uh huh ... you too, eh? Just stop seeing malice (and sorrow) ‘as such’ and !Hey Presto! they cease to exist. RESPONDENT: Richard ’s whole dialogue is one of useless happiness and useless suffering. RICHARD: The only good thing about suffering is when it ends ... permanently. As for ‘useless happiness’: I cannot come up with anything to say to a person who finds happiness ‘useless’ so I will pass without comment. RESPONDENT: Your idea of ‘love agape’ is bogus. You do not ‘become love’; you are already Love. There is nothing to seek, to become, to do; to Be the Love you already are, one only Lets Go of the barriers they have built against it. RICHARD: If this is what you wish to experience then that is your business ... I found it important to observe and examine the process closely so as to see where the switch happens. However, for those who do not examine closely there is a way to contemplate the question, bearing in mind what you are saying, so as to more readily understand the phenomenon of tyrants and dictators. Viz.: • Your idea of Evil is bogus; you do not ‘become’ evil you already are Evil; there is nothing to seek, to become, to do; to be the Evil you already are; one only lets go of the barriers they have built against it. ‘Tis such fun finding out about the human psyche, eh? RESPONDENT: 10,000 enlightened masters bless you with eternal kindness. RICHARD: I doubt it ... the few that I have had contact with have, more or less, wished me eternal damnation. RESPONDENT: It makes me sad to learn how enlightened masters have treated you. Perhaps you picked some false masters, or perhaps you deserved it. RICHARD: Oh ... so the true masters, in conjunction with blessing me with eternal kindness, will also wish me eternal damnation if I deserve it, eh? The question now is this: what evokes the deserving of eternal kindness and what incurs the deserving of eternal damnation? Second, what happens to the blessing of eternal kindness whilst this wishing of eternal damnation is happening (can the two co-exist)? Third, what part of their much publicised love-that-has-never-known-hate and compassion-that-sorrow-has-never-touched is it that makes them wish eternal damnation upon me? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non? * RICHARD: The saints and sages and seers, who said there was no self, all displayed varying degrees of those emotions grouped under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow. Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (disguised/ designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/ followers/ readers). The question I asked was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the saints and sages and seers? RESPONDENT: Look into the mind of a sleeping saint, and you’ll find the dreams of a criminal. Saints, sages, and seers are all bogus. There are only two kinds of people: The enlightened, and the unenlightened. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase what I wrote so as to meet with the requirements of your specific wording: ‘the enlightened’, who said there was no self, all displayed varying degrees of those emotions grouped under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow. Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (disguised/ designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/ followers/ readers). The question I asked was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of ‘the enlightened’? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non? * RESPONDENT No. 12: Take care. RICHARD: All is carefree in this actual world ... there is no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here. (Richard, List B, No. 12i, 5 December 2000). RESPONDENT: Good one, Richard. Here’s another: ‘Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.’ – RUMI- RICHARD: You are, of course, aware that Mr. Jalal Rumi was a mystical poet? Thus by ‘a field’ he does not mean a literal field (a physical field in time and space) – he is referring to that timeless and spaceless and formless ‘field’ which is located ‘out beyond ideas of right and wrong’ – whereas I am living in this actual world: the world of this body and that body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on ad infinitum. In regards to the total absence of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here in this actual world which I was writing about (further above) ... I need only refer to the following to find Mr. Jalal Rumi’s experience: • [Mr. Jalal Rumi]: ‘Save those who return to truth and do righteous deeds. God will change their evil into good’. (Discourse 32: Fihi Ma Fihi ‘It Is What It Is’; Translation by A. J. Arberry; published 1961 as ‘Discourses of Rumi’). So, although Mr. Jalal Rumi had the nous to suss out that ‘ideas of wrong doing and right doing’ were merely that – ideas – he was clearly of the school that was into transforming ‘evil’ into ‘good’. This is because there is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘good’ and ‘evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. The ending of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time as this body. Then the question is: how on earth can one live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst one nurses malice and sorrow in one’s bosom? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non? RESPONDENT No. 12: Take care. RICHARD: All is carefree in this actual world ... there is no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here. (Richard, List B, No. 12i, 5 December 2000). <snipped for space> RESPONDENT: The same life flows through all that is, love is natural and spontaneous. ‘Smoking, diet, and exercise affect a wide variety of illnesses, but no one has shown that quitting smoking, exercising, or changing diet can double the length of survival in women with metastasis breast cancer, where as the enhanced love and intimacy provided by weekly group support sessions has been shown to do just that’. – Pg. 3, Lover and Survival, the Scientific Basis For the Healing Power of Intimacy. Dean Ornish Harper Collins. RICHARD: If I may point out? This has nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed. Whether someone or some people live longer or not – and whether this is because of whatever – it means nothing at all in regards to enabling peace-on-earth, in this life-time, when they live that longer life nursing malice and sorrow to their bosom. The discussion is about ‘good’ and ‘evil’ ... and not your red-herrings seeking to maintain the status-quo. RESPONDENT: Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil. RICHARD: You do seem to be missing the point: there is neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’ in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst? RICHARD: This seems to be at least somewhat in accord with what I have been saying: ‘good’ cannot exist without ‘evil’ and ‘evil’ cannot exist without ‘good’ ... they co-exist; they go hand-in-hand. There is a well-known saying ‘the lotus blossom has its roots in mud (‘good’ has its roots in ‘evil’) ... it is a symbiotic relationship. There can never, ever be ‘a good that knows no evil’ or ‘a love that knows no hate’ and so on. Which is why it is carefree here in this actual world ... there is neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’ here. RESPONDENT: Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters. RICHARD: Yes, and the ‘hunger’ and the ‘thirst’, of what you call a tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’) is, as a broad generalised categorisation, best described as ‘malice’: the desire to hurt another person; active ill will, spite or hatred; a deep resentment or anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on through all the variations such as abhorrence; acerbity; acrimony; aggression; anger; animosity; antagonism; antipathy; aversion; bad blood; temper; bellicosity; belligerence; bile; bitchiness; bitterness; cantankerousness; cattiness; crabbiness; crossness; defamation; despisal; detestation; disgust; dislike; dissatisfaction; enmity; envy; evil; execration; grievance; grudge; grudgingness; hard feelings; harm; hate; hatred; hostility; ill feeling; ill will; ill-nature; ill-temper; inimicalness; irascibility; irritability; loathing; malevolence; malignance; malignity; militancy; moodiness; murder; opposition; peevishness; petulance; pique; querulousness; rancour; repulsion; repugnance; resentment; snideness; spite; spitefulness; spleen; spoiling; stifling; sullenness; testiness; touchiness; umbrage; unfriendliness; unkindness; vengefulness; venom; vindictiveness; warlikeness; wrath and many more. As for the food this tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’) seeks in ‘dark caves’, and the ‘dead waters’ it drinks of ... human history reeks of its sinister nature: 160,000,000 people were killed in wars alone, in the last 100 years, by the pernicious effects of this tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’). All the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and so on bear mute testimony to the ubiquitous spread of this tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’) ... it has a global incidence. No era, no race, no country, no gender, no age group is exempt ... its spread is all-inclusive. Beyond any doubt whatsoever is it that this tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’) has a lot to answer for ... and all because, presumably, this ‘good’ is thirsting and hungering for union with ‘God’ (by Whatever Name)? Which means that what some people call ‘evil’ is nothing other than ‘good’ tortured by its inability to find ‘God’ (by Whatever Name)? If so, then what you are saying is that the root cause, of what some people call ‘evil’, is inherent in the longing for ‘God’ (by Whatever Name). RESPONDENT: You are good when you are one with yourself. Yet when you are not one with yourself you are not evil. RICHARD: Hmm ... yet you do give a three-point definition of ‘evil’ (further above): ‘what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst’ and ‘when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves’ and ‘when it [good] thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters’. Therefore, what you are saying here, in effect, is ‘when you are not one with yourself you are not a tortured hungry ‘good’ (seeking food in dark caves) nor a tortured thirsty ‘good’ (drinking of dead waters) either. What are you, then, when you are not ‘good’ (being one with yourself) if not your definition of ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’)? This is how it would read according to your definition of ‘evil’: • ‘Yet when you are not one with yourself you are not the tortured ‘good’’. Thus your sentence does not make sense when written in alignment with your definition of ‘evil’ ... would you not agree that when you are not one with yourself you are, by your own definition, a tortured ‘good’ (what some people call ‘evil’)? If so, then you now have two definitions of ‘evil’: (1.) ‘evil’ is but ‘good’ tortured by its own hunger and thirst (seeking food in dark caves and drinking of dead waters). (2.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you are not one with yourself. RESPONDENT: For a divided house is not a den of thieves; it is only a divided house. RICHARD: I see ... when you are not ‘good’ (when you are not one with yourself) you are a divided house. You now have three definitions of ‘evil’: (1.) ‘evil’ is but ‘good’ tortured by its own hunger and thirst (seeking food in dark caves and drinking of dead waters). (2.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you are not one with yourself. (3.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is a divided house. RESPONDENT: And a ship without rudder may wander aimlessly among perilous isles yet sink not to the bottom. RICHARD: Bearing in mind that this discussion is about ‘good’ and ‘evil’ then this analogy is extremely weak ... very, very few rudderless ships do not eventually sink. Very few indeed ... as is evidenced by ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) running riot in the world. To wit: all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and so on. RESPONDENT: You are good when you strive to give of yourself. RICHARD: Okay ... you now have two definitions of ‘good’: (1.) ‘you are good when you are one with yourself’. (2.) ‘you are good when you strive to give of yourself’. RESPONDENT: Yet you are not evil when you seek gain for yourself. RICHARD: Ahh ... being selfish, eh? Okay: when you are not ‘good’ (when you do not strive to give of yourself) you are seeking gain for yourself ... you now have four definitions of ‘evil’: (1.) ‘evil’ is but ‘good’ tortured by its own hunger and thirst (seeking food in dark caves and drinking of dead waters). (2.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you are not one with yourself. (3.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is a divided house. (4.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you seek gain for yourself. RESPONDENT: For when you strive for gain you are but a root that clings to the earth and sucks at her breast. Surely the fruit cannot say to the root, ‘Be like me, ripe and full and ever giving of your abundance’. For to the fruit giving is a need, as receiving is a need to the root. RICHARD: Yet the fruit needs the root in the earth drawing nutrients for its very existence. Therefore, in this poetic analogy you are still saying what I am saying: ‘good’ depends upon ‘evil’ for its very existence. If the fruit is so haughty as to claim all the credit for being able to ‘give of its abundance’ without acknowledging the part the root plays (sucking at the breast of the earth) then it denies its own roots ... which is sometimes what happens in the real world as I have already indicated thus: • ‘there is a good that knows no evil’. Sound familiar? Yet, as I have already pointed out, there is another analogy: ‘the lotus blossom has its roots in mud’ (‘good’ has its roots in ‘evil’). I am curious to see which way you go in this venture of yours ... whether you will be in denial of your roots or in acknowledgement of your roots. RESPONDENT: You are good when you are fully awake in your speech. RICHARD: Here is your third definition of ‘good’: (1.) ‘you are good when you are one with yourself’. (2.) ‘you are good when you strive to give of yourself’. (3.) ‘you are good when you are fully awake in your speech’. RESPONDENT: Yet you are not evil when you sleep while your tongue staggers without purpose. RICHARD: You now have five definitions of ‘evil’: (1.) ‘evil’ is but ‘good’ tortured by its own hunger and thirst (seeking food in dark caves and drinking of dead waters). (2.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you are not one with yourself. (3.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is a divided house. (4.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you seek gain for yourself. (5.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you sleep while your tongue staggers without purpose. RESPONDENT: And even stumbling speech may strengthen a weak tongue. RICHARD: Hmm ... so there is some ‘good’ in ‘evil’, eh? RESPONDENT: You are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps. RICHARD: Here is your fourth definition of ‘good’: (1.) ‘you are good when you are one with yourself’. (2.) ‘you are good when you strive to give of yourself’. (3.) ‘you are good when you are fully awake in your speech’. (4.) ‘you are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps’. RESPONDENT: Yet you are not evil when you go thither limping. RICHARD: You now have six definitions of ‘evil’: (1.) ‘evil’ is but ‘good’ tortured by its own hunger and thirst (seeking food in dark caves and drinking of dead waters). (2.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you are not one with yourself. (3.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is a divided house. (4.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you seek gain for yourself. (5.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you sleep while your tongue staggers without purpose. (6.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you go thither limping. RESPONDENT: Even those who limp go not backward. RICHARD: Again there is some ‘good’ in ‘evil’ ... that makes two occasions: (1.) stumbling speech may strengthen a weak tongue. (2.) those who limp go not backward. RESPONDENT: But you who are strong and swift, see that you do not limp before the lame, deeming it kindness. RICHARD: Translation: you who are ‘good’ should make sure that you do no ‘evil’ (pretend to be a tortured ‘good’) in front of the ‘evil’ people (the tortured ‘good’ people) out of a misplaced feeling that this is a kind thing to do. RESPONDENT: You are good in countless ways ... RICHARD: Not really ‘countless’ ways, no ... I make it four ways, so far, by my count. Viz.: (1.) ‘you are good when you are one with yourself’. (2.) ‘you are good when you strive to give of yourself’. (3.) ‘you are good when you are fully awake in your speech’. (4.) ‘you are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps’. RESPONDENT: ... and you are not evil when you are not good. You are only loitering and sluggard. RICHARD: Okay, by my count (including the ‘selfish’ example) you have delineated seven ‘you are not evil’s, so far. Viz.: (1.) ‘evil’ is but ‘good’ tortured by its own hunger and thirst (seeking food in dark caves and drinking of dead waters). (2.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you are not one with yourself. (3.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is a divided house. (4.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you seek gain for yourself. (5.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you sleep while your tongue staggers without purpose. (6.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you go thither limping. (7.) ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’) is when you are loitering and sluggard. Thus the score is 7/4 in favour of ‘evil’ (the tortured ‘good’). RESPONDENT: Pity that the stags cannot teach swiftness to the turtles. RICHARD: Translation: pity that the saints cannot teach ‘goodness’ to the sinners. RESPONDENT: In your longing for your giant self lies your goodness: and that longing is in all of you. RICHARD: Translation: when the lower self (the small ‘s’ self) longs to be in union with the Higher Self (the capital ‘S’ Self) this counts as being evidence of your ‘goodness’. RESPONDENT: But in some of you that longing is a torrent rushing with might to the sea, carrying the secrets of the hillsides and the songs of the forest. And in others it is a flat stream that loses itself in angles and bends and lingers before it reaches the shore. RICHARD: Translation: there are some who yearn to be one with ‘God’ more than others do. RESPONDENT: But let not him who longs much say to him who longs little, ‘Wherefore are you slow and halting?’ RICHARD: Translation: do not rub it in that you are more ‘good’ (doing much more longing for union) than the others. RESPONDENT: For the truly good ask not the naked, ‘Where is your garment?’ nor the houseless, ‘What has befallen your house?’ RICHARD: Ahh ... and you abruptly finish by introducing a new definition: ‘truly good’ as distinct from ‘good’. Is there another instalment along the way, expanding on what a ‘truly good’ person does, as compared with what a ‘truly evil’ person does (presumably the ‘truly evil’ is the truly tortured ‘truly good’)? It does seem to get ever-more complicated ... yet all this while there never has ever been any ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here in this actual world. No thirsting and hungering whatsoever ... all is carefree. * RESPONDENT No. 12: Take care. RICHARD: All is carefree in this actual world ... there is no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here. (Richard, List B, No. 12i, 5 December 2000). <snipped for space> RESPONDENT: Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil. RICHARD: You do seem to be missing the point: there is neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’ in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst? RICHARD: This seems to be at least somewhat in accord with what I have been saying: ‘good’ cannot exist without ‘evil’ and ‘evil’ cannot exist without ‘good’ ... they co-exist; they go hand-in-hand. There is a well-known saying ‘the lotus blossom has its roots in mud (‘good’ has its roots in ‘evil’) ... it is a symbiotic relationship. There can never, ever be ‘a good that knows no evil’ or ‘a love that knows no hate’ and so on. Which is why it is carefree here in this actual world ... there is neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’ here. RESPONDENT: Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters. RICHARD: Yes, and the ‘hunger’ and the ‘thirst’, of what you call a tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’) is, as a broad generalised categorisation, best described as ‘malice’: the desire to hurt another person; active ill will, spite or hatred; a deep resentment or anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on through all the variations such as abhorrence; acerbity; acrimony; aggression; anger; animosity; antagonism; antipathy; aversion; bad blood; temper; bellicosity; belligerence; bile; bitchiness; bitterness; cantankerousness; cattiness; crabbiness; crossness; defamation; despisal; detestation; disgust; dislike; dissatisfaction; enmity; envy; evil; execration; grievance; grudge; grudgingness; hard feelings; harm; hate; hatred; hostility; ill feeling; ill will; ill-nature; ill-temper; inimicalness; irascibility; irritability; loathing; malevolence; malignance; malignity; militancy; moodiness; murder; opposition; peevishness; petulance; pique; querulousness; rancour; repulsion; repugnance; resentment; snideness; spite; spitefulness; spleen; spoiling; stifling; sullenness; testiness; touchiness; umbrage; unfriendliness; unkindness; vengefulness; venom; vindictiveness; warlikeness; wrath and many more. As for the food this tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’) seeks in ‘dark caves’, and the ‘dead waters’ it drinks of ... human history reeks of its sinister nature: 160,000,000 people were killed in wars alone, in the last 100 years, by the pernicious effects of this tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’). All the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and so on bear mute testimony to the ubiquitous spread of this tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’) ... it has a global incidence. No era, no race, no country, no gender, no age group is exempt ... its spread is all-inclusive. Beyond any doubt whatsoever is it that this tortured ‘good’ (aka ‘evil’) has a lot to answer for ... and all because, presumably, this ‘good’ is thirsting and hungering for union with ‘God’ (by Whatever Name)? Which means that what some people call ‘evil’ is nothing other than ‘good’ tortured by its inability to find ‘God’ (by Whatever Name)? If so, then what you are saying is that the root cause, of what some people call ‘evil’, is inherent in the longing for ‘God’ (by Whatever Name). <snipped for space> RESPONDENT: The truly good ask not the naked, ‘Where is your garment?’ nor the houseless, ‘What has befallen your house?’ RICHARD: And you abruptly finish by introducing a new definition: ‘truly good’ as distinct from ‘good’ . Is there another instalment along the way, expanding on what a ‘truly good’ person does, as compared with what a ‘truly evil’ person does (presumably the ‘truly evil’ is the truly tortured ‘truly good’)? It does seem to get ever-more complicated ... yet all this while there never has ever been any ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here in this actual world. No thirsting and hungering whatsoever ... all is carefree. RESPONDENT: ‘Thirst (noun): need for liquid: a desire or need to drink a liquid, or the feeling of dryness in the mouth and throat caused by a need for a liquid; thirsting, (3rd person present singular thirsts): experience thirst: to feel a thirst for a liquid. Hunger (noun): 1. need to eat: the need or desire for food; 2. craving: a great need or desire for something – a hunger for knowledge; hungering, (3rd person present singular hungers)’. RICHARD: Oh? A definition for ‘hunger’ and ‘thirst’ eh? Okay, shall we apply it to your opening question (further above):? Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst? ... now reads: • [Translation]: ‘what is evil but good tortured by its own need or desire for food; its own craving, its great need or desire for something, its hunger for knowledge ... and its need for liquid, its desire or need to drink a liquid, its feeling of dryness in the mouth and throat caused by a need for a liquid, its thirsting, its feeling of a thirst for a liquid? May I ask? What is it that you are wishing to convey to me? That all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and so on are caused by a lack of food and water and knowledge? If so, this latest offering of yours does seem to make the ever-more complicated even more convoluted. Yet all this while there never has ever been any complications and convolutions here in this actual world – let alone any ‘good’ or ‘evil’ – hence all is carefree. Plus there is no lack of food, water and knowledge. RICHARD: Yes ... he said there was a reservoir of goodness; he said that evil is always trying to get in; he said that he was being protected ... and he said that to talk about evil was to invite it. Viz.: • [quote]: ‘Evil is a fact. Leave it alone. Your mind should not play with evil. Thinking about it is to invite it (...) Deterioration walks one step behind you. No matter who you are’. (‘Krishnamurti – A Biography’; Pupul Jayakar; Harper &Row; SanFrancisco; 1986). My question, all those years ago, was this: is it possible for evil to cease to exist entirely (so that one no longer needed protection)? Or, to put it another way, if this ‘goodness’, this ‘otherness’, is so ... um ... good then why the deterioration ‘no matter who you are’ (which includes the saints, sages and seers)? RESPONDENT: I have some personal experience of how such goodness may operate. I was with K for very brief periods and I think I experienced what he talks about. Besides K, I have had similar experiences with my own father. The experience goes something like this: in the presence of the person who represents that goodness, my mind would become very quiet and the feeling will be one of purity and wholeness. It is like being face-to-face with the eternal. Now, that feeling is ever present, although the person who evoked such feelings may not be in a physical vicinity. When I asked my father about what is it that he has in him that makes me feel the way I do, he had no answer. He repeatedly tells me that he is a very ordinary person. I do not understand what do you mean by: ‘obviously some other process is required’ in your post. I think you also mention apperception as the agent to ‘prise open the door’. What door? Can you explain? RICHARD: Yes. If ‘water can never find out what water is’ (or if immaterial awareness cannot be aware of immaterial awareness), then what can? Obviously some other process is required – if the nature of ‘the otherness’ is to be revealed – so as to ascertain why it manifests (on this planet at least) maliciously and sorrowfully rather than happily and harmlessly. Viz.: • [K]: ‘There is something sacred, untouched by man (...) and that may be the origin of everything. • [B]: ‘If you say the origin of all matter, all nature ... . • [K]: ‘Everything, all matter, all nature. • [B]: ‘All of mankind. • [K]: ‘Yes. That’s right, sir. (‘The Wholeness Of Life’; pages 135-136; J. Krishnamurti; HarperCollins, New York; 1979). RESPONDENT: Also, is it really important to understand what or who the person is whose presence is holistic? RICHARD: Oh, yes ... why is it, that the saints, sages and seers, who said there was no ‘me’, no ‘self’, all display varying degrees of those emotions grouped under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow? Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (disguised/ designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees and/or followers and/or readers). RESPONDENT: Isn’t the importance of such a person’s presence just that that it helps one to become quiet and dwell upon the mystery within? RICHARD: In regard to dwelling upon ‘the mystery within’ the question I dwelled upon was this: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the saints and sages and seers? RESPONDENT: There has been suggested that Actual Freedom might have a dark underbelly thus as I see it there still may be some work to do on this list ... RICHARD: Here is the passage you are referring to: • [Respondent No. 27]: ‘... it’s hard to resist the notion that there is a dark underbelly to actualism – or at least a grave under-ranking of life in the real world. Yes, war, suicide, depression, etc ARE all abysmal – yet they don’t represent the whole of human life in the ‘real’ world as you sometimes seem to be saying. Have you nothing good to say about life in the ‘real’ world? (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27e, 5 April 2003). RICHARD: You will see, upon re-reading it, that my co-respondent was quite up-front as to why the notion I have a dark side was hard to resist – that I had nothing good to say about the ‘good’ side of the human condition – and also added a codicil that it was at least a grave under-ranking of real-world life (with an explanation to demonstrate why this might be so) ... yet all you do is take the bare notion itself and, without any explanation as to the whys and wherefores thereof, thus see that ‘there still may be some work to do’ on The Actual Freedom Mailing List. As the ‘actualism is a cult’ and ‘all actualists are followers’ theme had quite a running some time back why not be up-front yourself – provide well-considered explanations/ demonstrations of what you see and why – so that either the truth of what you see be established, in the public arena, or the falsity of what you see be exposed. Any unexamined doubts/ suspicions have a way of fermenting all by themselves when kept in the dark. * RESPONDENT: OK. Indeed I in hindsight find the expression ‘dark underbelly’ somewhat obscure and I can understand that you took my [… thus as I see it there still may be some work to do on this list ...] possibly to be indicating that I might be ‘withholding’ certain information that might point into a direction that you or other actualists deliberately were doing [at least a grave under-ranking of life in the real world]. In other words pressing hard to make the real world appear more reprehensive then it in fact is, thus making it harder for people who are not sufficiently interested in the ‘third alternative’ to stay with a process that, as mentioned many times before, takes nerves of steel but yet is in time fairly paying off. RICHARD: No, I did not take your words that way as I was, of course, reading what you had to say in the context of the topic at hand ... the e-mail you were responding to (Re: Peace Petitions; Mar 26, 2003) was predominately about the dark underbelly of peace rallies in particular and peace movements in general. Here is the relevant sentence: • [Gary]: ‘Let’s keep in mind that the peace movement, or perhaps I should say ‘peace movements’ in the plural, has a dark underbelly’. Five days later (Perplexed; Mar 31, 2003) this appeared: • [Respondent No. 27]: ‘... it’s hard to resist the notion that there is a dark underbelly to actualism – or at least a grave under-ranking of life in the real world. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27e, 5 April 2003). Four days later (It’s Getting Better All The Time; Apr 04, 2003) this appeared: • [Respondent]: ‘There has been suggested that Actual Freedom might have a dark underbelly thus as I see it there still may be some work to do on this list ...’. As I was not sure what you meant by ‘thus as I see it there still may be some work to do on this list’ from the context – and as there is such a thing as an argumentum ad populum (the bandwagon effect) – I sought clarification, some well-considered explanations/ demonstrations of what you see and why ... here is the un-snipped version of what you wrote: • [Respondent]: ‘I’m reaching a point that I see this present WAR is indeed unlike any war before in history and it is an apt opportunity to actually take sites or a position in it. To simply dismiss this fact as yet another war only just begun, is almost akin to spiritual wishful thinking that it will all be hunky dory in the end that is in a distant future. To me it is obvious that the so called passions can only be experienced when actually they are inflamed; I don’t think that the national identity can be understood otherwise then in action. I was not kidding when I said in previous post that the cunningness of the ‘hypocritical identity’ to hide itself securely in denial or even Virtual Freedom is based on an apt capacity to go in abeyance and hence only temporarily is not present as ‘me’. There has been suggested that Actual Freedom might have a dark underbelly thus as I see it there still may be some work to do on this list on the other hand patience is a mans best friend and regime change starts at home, well that is for me here in Holland rather easy cause my Government has decided not to support the war militarily only politically thus in future war-tribunals we will not stand to be accused as war criminals. On the other hand as to criminals of war I hold the entire Administration of the US and their supporters as such to be liable to war crimes and hence responsible for the cause of any damage done by their least to say premature and in anyway rather inconsiderate action. If fairly democracy would be installed when the ‘post Saddam era’ happens it would entail that at least every Iraqi would get a fair change to start a law suit and file a complaint to the ‘coalition of the willing’. The impression conveyed is that unless people take an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, they will ‘stand to be accused as war criminals’ ... hence your ‘thus as I see it there still may be some work to do on this list’ observation. Is this impression correct? If so, does not taking an anti-war position, or taking a pro-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, indicate the presence of a ‘dark underbelly’ to you? If not ... then just what do you mean? * RESPONDENT: I’m not quite sure why you bring up the ‘cult issue’. RICHARD: Oh, I have been subscribed to mailing lists long enough now to notice a bandwagon almost as soon as it starts rolling ... I figured on heading this ‘Actual Freedom might have a dark underbelly’ issue off at the pass before it escaped into the wild, as it were, as unexamined doubts/ suspicions have a way of fermenting all by themselves when kept in the dark. In other words: as this is a discussion list these matters can be brought out into the open, into the bright light of awareness, and seen for what they are. RESPONDENT: Yet as it seems to suggest that you make a link to the suggestion that [Actual Freedom might have a dark underbelly] I can only say that the cult issue as far as I am concerned has been satisfactory explored by me on previous occasions. Though I used to consider this list as an actualist ‘think tank’ with the purpose to share expertise as to the AF process in a more or less formal setting for the benefit of this body and every other body, overtime an element of magic becomes also apparent, hence while agreeing that there is not any spiritual aspect as to the AF process, it well might be that this is actually a ‘hardcore’ esoteric list. RICHARD: I presume you are meaning something more or less like this: • ‘hardcore: 1. someone or something that is hardcore does not change in condition or belief (hardcore poverty, a hardcore conservative). 2. a small group of people within a larger group, who strongly believe in the group’s principles and usually have a lot of power in it (‘the hard core of the party has not lost sight of the original ideals’). (Cambridge Dictionary). • ‘esoteric: 1. (of a philosophical doctrine, mode of speech, etc.) designed for or appropriate to an inner circle of advanced or privileged disciples; communicated or intelligible only to the initiated; (of a person) initiated into or belonging to an inner circle. 2. not openly stated or admitted; confidential; secret. (Oxford Dictionary). As for ‘an element of magic’ ... I have explained to you before what I mean by the word ‘magical’. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I was using the word ‘magical’ in its stage-magician sense of prestidigitation. Viz.: [Richard]: ‘... all ‘I’ had to do for it [the meaning of life] to be apparent was to disappear. It is all rather magical’. [endquote]. Also, this actual world is rather magical in the way it is all just here right now of its own accord (without any cause). • [Respondent]: ‘Well I guess that is bit of the bottom line. And it [it is all rather magical] will be evaluated as such that ultimately, any occurrence/ event in one’s life has this implicit ‘quality’ of magic. • [Richard]: ‘Good ... doing so can only assist in the reawakening of one’s innate naiveté (which is the closest one can get to innocence whilst being a ‘self’). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 18b, 21 July 2002). I am curious as to what way this explanation leads you to say ‘hence ... it well might be that this is actually a ‘hardcore’ esoteric list’ as I do not see how I could be more out in the open, more up-front, or more frank than I already have been – I have laid all of my cards on the table from the very beginning – and there is nothing which people who meet me face-to-face know about actualism that is not also presented somewhere on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. As for The Actual Freedom Trust itself ... it is nothing more mysterious than a publishing entity. * RESPONDENT: As to the ‘dark’ aspect of this underbelly it might be appropriate to mention that being God on earth is only one part of the deal, obviously when buying the package of ‘self-aggrandisement’ one also has bought the Devil yet rarely one has done so conscious. RICHARD: As the words ‘actual freedom’ (as in your ‘Actual Freedom might have a dark underbelly’ sentence) are a shorthand way of saying ‘an actual freedom from the human condition’ you have to be referring to me here – after all, as far as I have been able to ascertain, I am the only person actually free of the human condition – unless by the words ‘Actual Freedom’ you are once again referring to that non-existent group of cyber-people you discussed losing faith in with me back in the ‘actualism is a cult/ actualists are followers’ era? Viz.: (Richard Actual Freedom List, No. 18a, 10 August 2001) and (Richard Actual Freedom List, No. 18a, 14 August 2001) Anyway, you wrote something similar to the above in your previous e-mail to me ... are you suggesting that because I have not publicly taken an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, I am unknowingly in the grip of the Christians’ anthropomorphisation of the ‘dark’ side of human nature? Otherwise it simply does not make sense for you to tell me about the diabolical nature of the divine as that observation figures prominently on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... it being something I discovered back in mid 1988 whilst sailing my yacht around tropical islands off the north-east coast of Australia with a choice companion. Whilst on this ‘God/ Devil’ subject: do you recall that doomsday scenario TV advertisement (resurrected by ‘moveon.org’ from a 1964 US election campaign) which depicts a little girl counting daisy petals along with a missile countdown whilst a sepulchral voice-over warns of the impending armageddon as her image is replaced by a nuclear mushroom cloud? I only ask because you did say (as requoted further above) that you are reaching a point where you see that the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens is indeed unlike any war before in history, and that it is an apt opportunity to actually take sides or a position in it, because to simply dismiss that fact (your seeing of that war being unlike any war before in history) as yet another war only just begun is almost akin to spiritual wishful thinking that it will all be hunky dory in the end ... that is, in a distant future. Also, as you have had some prior involvement with Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain, the following may be worth considering: • [Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain]: ‘What I am proposing is the only alternative; no other alternative is proposed anywhere. There is no other possibility. (...) It has never happened before that you had to choose a certain way of life or total destruction of all life from the planet. That is why I emphasise that they will have to listen (...) If they don’t choose what I am saying then they have to choose a global suicide. (...) I am the only way out of this mess that their religions and their political philosophies have created in the world’. (Volume 1, Chapter 10, ‘Osho: The Last Testament’; 8 September 1985). And: • [Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain]: ‘The Third World War is gathering around. Life seems to be very fragile; it has never been so before. War has always been here – in three thousand years we have fought five thousand wars – so war is not a new thing, but something new has happened. The Third World War will be the last war; it will be total war. It will destroy not only all humanity but all life from the earth, And the clouds are becoming darker and coming closer every day’. (Question 2, Chapter 14, ‘I am That’; 24 October 1980). There is much more on this doomsday theme all throughout his discourses (the search engine recorded 112 hits for the words ‘global suicide’ and 322 hits for the words ‘Third World War’) ... but maybe that sample will do for now? RESPONDENT: So ... from WordNet I found the following for fermenting: 1. ferment – (be in an agitated or excited state; ‘The Middle East is fermenting’; ‘Her mind ferments’); => seethe – (be in an agitated emotional state). 2. ferment – (work up into agitation or excitement; ‘Islam is fermenting Africa’); => inflame, stir up, wake, ignite, heat, fire up – (arouse or excite feelings and passions; ‘The ostentatious way of living of the rich ignites the hatred of the poor’; ‘The refugees’ fate stirred up compassion around the world’; ‘Wake old feelings of hatred’); 3. ferment, work – (cause to undergo fermentation; ‘We ferment the grapes for a very long time to achieve high alcohol content’; ‘The vintner worked the wine in big oak vats’); => convert – (change the nature, purpose, or function of something; ‘convert lead into gold’; ‘convert hotels into jails’; ‘convert slaves to labourers’); 4 sour, turn, ferment, work – (go sour or spoil; ‘The milk has soured’; ‘The wine worked’; ‘The cream has turned – we have to throw it out’); => change state, turn – (undergo a transformation or a change of position or action; ‘We turned from Socialism to Capitalism’; ‘The people turned against the President when he stole the election’). A tongue in cheek insertion of sense No. 4 hence makes: Any unexamined doubts/ suspicions have a way of undergo a transformation or a change of position or action all by themselves when kept in the dark (underbelly). RICHARD: Hmm ... sense No. 1 and/or No. 2 would have been accurate enough as this is how I meant it: • ‘ferment: undergo fermentation [a state of excitement or agitation], foam, froth, bubble, effervesce, seethe, boil, rise; (‘his words fermenting the crowd’: excite, agitate, inflame, incite; ‘ferment trouble’: cause, incite, excite, provoke, arouse, stir up, foment [foster, stimulate, or instigate a sentiment, a course of conduct, sedition, etc.; promote the growth, development, effect, or spread of (something physical)]. (Oxford Dictionary). * RICHARD: The impression conveyed is that unless people take an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, they will ‘stand to be accused as war criminals’ ... hence your ‘thus as I see it there still may be some work to do on this list’ observation. Is this impression correct? RESPONDENT: I’d say more or less but I’ll rephrase: [Unless people take an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, I will ‘hold them responsible for any damage done resulting from being a supporter of the US-administrator’s scheme to push-advertise their interpretation of Democracy as the new world religion]. Keeping in mind that the above of course needs to be taken as my personal opinion; a reflection of what I am and where I come from. RICHARD: Sure ... and what position have you taken on each and every one of the other wars (24 major conflicts and 22 minor conflicts) currently occurring elsewhere around the globe? You must have quite a busy schedule keeping yourself fully-informed so as to come to meaningful decisions? * RICHARD: If so, does not taking an anti-war position, or taking a pro-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, indicate the presence of a ‘dark underbelly’ to you? If not ... then just what do you mean? RESPONDENT: As to [not taking an anti-war position, or taking a pro-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens]: this seems to be a rather complex matter. It would imply that [not taking an anti-war position] indicates the presence of a ‘dark underbelly’ [taking a pro-war position] indicates the presence of a ‘dark underbelly’. As already mentioned I found the expression ‘dark underbelly’ an obscure expression so concluding that either one of the positions would indicate a ‘dark underbelly’ would be an equally obscure one and not be contributing to clarity. RICHARD: Aye, I did notice that you had already mentioned it the first time you mentioned it ... and whenever you are ready to use an expression that is not an ‘obscure expression’ – so as to be actually ‘contributing to clarity’ – I will be ready to read it. * RESPONDENT: As to the ‘dark’ aspect of this underbelly it might be appropriate to mention that being God on earth is only one part of the deal, obviously when buying the package of ‘self-aggrandisement’ one also has bought the Devil yet rarely one has done so conscious. RICHARD: (snipped) ... are you suggesting that because I have not publicly taken an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, I am unknowingly in the grip of the Christians’ anthropomorphisation of the ‘dark’ side of human nature? RESPONDENT: NO. That would be more or less about the same as suggesting: That because you have not publicly taken an anti-war position, on the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens, you must be in denial. We have had that discussion also in the past and I’m finished with that likewise with the ‘cult issue’. RICHARD: Okay, then why did you tell me about having ‘bought the Devil yet rarely one has done so conscious’ in reference to ‘the ‘dark’ aspect of this underbelly’ (meaning the suggested ‘dark underbelly’ of an actual freedom from the human condition)? It simply does not make sense for you to tell me about the diabolical nature of the divine as that observation figures prominently on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... it being something I discovered back in mid 1988 whilst sailing my yacht around tropical islands off the north-east coast of Australia with a choice companion. * RICHARD: Whilst on this ‘God/ Devil’ subject: do you recall that doomsday scenario TV advertisement (resurrected by ‘moveon.org’ from a 1964 US election campaign) which depicts a little girl counting daisy petals along with a missile countdown whilst a sepulchral voice-over warns of the impending armageddon as her image is replaced by a nuclear mushroom cloud? I only ask because you did say (as requoted further above) that you are reaching a point where you see that the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens is indeed unlike any war before in history, and that it is an apt opportunity to actually take sides or a position in it, because to simply dismiss that fact (your seeing of that war being unlike any war before in history) as yet another war only just begun is almost akin to spiritual wishful thinking that it will all be hunky dory in the end ... that is, in a distant future. RESPONDENT: Yes, I remember you bringing to my attention that moveon.org was using ‘scare tactics’ in order to get supporters for their ‘democratic’ agenda I have already publicly acknowledged that I regretted having signed it and that sending it to the list was a not so sensible action. RICHARD: That is beside the point ... I am drawing your attention to the marked similarity between the two doomsday scenarios: your ‘almost akin to spiritual wishful thinking that it will all be hunky dory in the end’ scenario and the resurrected 1964 US election campaign TV advertisement nuclear armegeddon scenario. Both the scenarios entail seeing the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens as being ‘unlike any war before in history’ ... which is what Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain does when referring to the Third World War (further below). In case the significance of the words ‘the resurrected 1964 US election campaign TV advertisement’ has twice passed you by maybe it will help to point out that on Friday, 2 September, 1983, Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain made the following prediction: • [quote] ‘Beginning next year, the world will face 15 years of catastrophic natural and man-made disasters – *including nuclear war*. Tokyo, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and Bombay all will be destroyed – but the holocaust will not be confined to these major political centres. And unless human consciousness changes totally, man cannot survive. As he is right now, he is already out-dated. There will be floods which have never been known since the time of Noah, along with the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and everything else that is possible through nature. There will be wars which are bound to end in nuclear explosions, hence no ordinary Noah’s Arks are going to save humanity. (Here) we are creating a Noah’s Ark of consciousness, remaining centred exactly in the middle of the cyclone. I say to you that except this there is no other way’. [emphasis added]. (© ‘The Rajneesh Times’, September 2, 1983). My high-school arithmetic tells me that 1983 plus 15 makes Wednesday, 2 September, 1998 (four and a half years ago) the end of his 15 year holocaust. When I watch television I see places like Tokyo, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and Bombay still standing – and still expanding – so, unless there is a giant conspiracy going on and it is old footage being replayed to lull me into a false sense of security, he was either scaremongering or hallucinating. As for the nuclear holocaust scenario of 39 year ago (the 1964 US election campaign TV advertisement) ... it fizzled like a damp squib in Berlin, 1989. * RICHARD: Also, as you have had some prior involvement with Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain, the following may be worth considering: [Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain]: ‘What I am proposing is the only alternative; no other alternative is proposed anywhere. There is no other possibility. (...) It has never happened before that you had to choose a certain way of life or total destruction of all life from the planet. That is why I emphasise that they will have to listen (...) If they don’t choose what I am saying then they have to choose a global suicide. (...) I am the only way out of this mess that their religions and their political philosophies have created in the world’. (Volume 1, Chapter 10, ‘Osho: The Last Testament’; 8 September 1985). And: [Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain]: ‘The Third World War is gathering around. Life seems to be very fragile; it has never been so before. War has always been here – in three thousand years we have fought five thousand wars – so war is not a new thing, but something new has happened. The Third World War will be the last war; it will be total war. It will destroy not only all humanity but all life from the earth, And the clouds are becoming darker and coming closer every day’. (Question 2, Chapter 14, ‘I am That’; 24 October 1980). There is much more on this doomsday theme all throughout his discourses (the search engine recorded 112 hits for the words ‘global suicide’ and 322 hits for the words ‘Third World War’) ... but maybe that sample will do for now? RESPONDENT: So ... considering your search results together with the 328,000 total results from yahoo on global suicide it is fair to say that it can be considered to be an issue that has drawn some attention. Am I correct that you are suggesting that Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain also was applying ‘scare tactics’ likewise i.e. the people of moveon.org did and that he was doing so in order to scare his followers in such a way that they would accept that [his way is the only way out of this mess that religions and political philosophies have created in the world]? RICHARD: Yep. * RESPONDENT: As you have put all your cards on the table I will do the same: [quote] ‘Someone will come along after a while who will speak against my words and the scriptures that will have been made from them. There need be no fear! But a strange thing happens here and that is this: In the future, my work in this world will be furthered by the very person who speaks against me’. (Osho 1970). RICHARD: As the remainder of that quote shows that he was doing the work of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and saying the same thing as the Vedas said (the Vedas are, loosely speaking, Hinduism prior to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan), he was clearly indicating that someone, someday, would be doing his work, saying the same thing he was saying, by speaking against him. And, as these are your cards you are laying on the table, are you indicating that you are here to do Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s work (which is, loosely speaking, an admixture of Hinduism and Buddhism)? RICHARD: With freedom spread like a chain-letter, in the due course of time, global freedom would revolutionise the concept of ‘humanity’. It would be a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of like-minded individuals. One would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. Pollution and its cause – over-population – would be set to rights without effort, as competition would be replaced by cooperation. It would indeed be the stuff of pipe-dreams come true, here-on-earth ... if one wants it. But none of this matters much when one is already living in the actual world. In actual freedom, life is experienced as being perfect as-it-is. One knows that one is living in a beneficent universe ... and that is what actually counts. The self-imposed iniquities that ail the people who stubbornly wish to remain denizens of the real world, fail to impinge upon the blitheness and gaiety of one who lives the vast scheme of things. The universe does not force anyone to be happy and harmless, to live in peace and ease, to be free of sorrow and malice. It is a matter of personal choice as to which way one will travel. Humans, being as they are, will probably continue to tread the ‘Tried and True’ paths, little realising that they are the tried and failed ways. There is none so contumacious as a self-righteous soul who is convinced that they know the way to live ... as revealed in their ancient and revered moralistic scriptures or ethicalistic secular philosophies. So be it. This universe has arranged itself so that the one who dares to go all the way is instantly living in universal peace ... irrespective of what other peoples are believing and doing. One is free to act in a way beneficial to all. This is a measure of how perfect life is in the actual. I have not signed any social contract. (pp. 141-146, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 2nd Ed. ©The Actual Freedom Trust 2004). RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX RICHARD’S HOME PAGE The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity