# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Pacifism RICHARD: 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. RESPONDENT: I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless. RICHARD: Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’. RESPONDENT: So. RICHARD: So you have missed the central point of that explanation ... to wit: to be superficially altering behavioural patterns – just as in pacifism (aka non-violence/ ahimsa) – is but a bandaid solution ... to be treating the symptoms and not the disease itself. RESPONDENT: They feel empathy (a dirty little emotion) for harmless animals that have not done anything to anyone and they do something about it. RICHARD: As those animals, just like the human animal, are born with instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – per favour blind nature they are not harmless … as you acknowledge (albeit en passant) further below. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘… if an *angry* marsupial comes after you than I suppose it is only fair to pull out an oozy and get to it’. [emphasis added]. Incidentally, empathy is usually considered to be a positive (aka a ‘good’) emotion and not a negative (aka a ‘bad’) one. RESPONDENT: I think it is you who are rearranging deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’ with these lame defences (something you don’t do) of your version of peace on earth and good will toward ... well man. RICHARD: It is not my version of the hymnic ‘peace on earth/ good will to all mankind’ which is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site at all: it is, rather, the already always existing peace-on-earth of this actual world – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – where it is startling obvious that it be something which no amount of behavioural pattern alteration will ever bring about. * RESPONDENT: Bottom line for him I suppose is that it is not done out of malice. RICHARD: Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/ restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: it is ‘me’, as the emotions and passions, fuelling the violence, or fuelling the potential for violence, who begets all the misery and mayhem. Violence itself (as in physical force/ restraint) is essential lest the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would rule the world. And if all 6.0 billion peoples were to become happy and harmless overnight (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation) it would still be essential lest the predator animals should have the human animal for its next meal. Yet even if all the predator animals were to cease being predatory (à la the ‘lion shall lay down with lamb’ ancient wisdom) it would still be essential if the crops in the field be not stripped bare by the insect world. And so on and so on: taking medication – even traditional medicine – does violence to a whole host of bacterial life; so too does drinking water as one drop contains many miniscule creatures; even breathing does violence as a breath of air contains untold numbers of microscopic life-forms. RESPONDENT: The animals will be so happy to know. RICHARD: This is just a waste of a sentence. RESPONDENT: Also he goes on a big rant about how you are bound to kill things, and even vegetable must undergo distress when pulled from the earth. I have never heard a more obvious evasion of a question in my life. You don’t have to eat meat. No one is forcing you to. You don’t just walk down the street and accidentally kill animals, you choose to eat them or not. RICHARD: Every time you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take a step, sneeze, and so on, something, somewhere (if only on the microscopic level) is being killed by you. Being alive as a creature means other creatures inevitably die ... I watched a fascinating video, some time back, of fantastic camera work on the microscopic level: a drop of dew from an early morning rose had at least 1,000-10,000 tiny shrimp-like and crab-like creatures in it all swimming around and multiplying and eating each other. A dew drop, mind you. * RESPONDENT: What did a kangaroo kick your ass or something. RICHARD: As kangaroos are not predator animals your query is doubly-irrelevant (it being also non-germane whether or not one particular human animal has been subject to predation). RESPONDENT: When is the last time an animal stalked you for it’s prey. RICHARD: Again, whether such predation has happened to one human animal in particular, or not, is beside the point. RESPONDENT: No one has said anything about self defence, this is entirely novel to the discussion thus far. RICHARD: If I may point out? In that explanation of mine (as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists), which you were just selectively reading, there are at least three paragraphs regarding the question of self-defence. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘(...) What will one do – as a fruitarian causing no pain or the taking of life of anyone or anything – about those pesky things like mosquitoes, sand-flies, cockroaches, 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 do if attacked by a snake, a crocodile, a shark, a lion and so on? Do as the revered 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 injunction, a moral scruple, a noble ideal, a virtuous belief, a passionate opinion, a deeply held ethical theory? In other words, have animals and insects been given the right, by some inscrutable god, to do with me whatsoever they wish? Is my survival dependent upon the non-existent benevolence of all those sentient beings that 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 medication for disease, one is – possibly painfully – killing off the microscopic creatures that one’s body is the host too. Some religions – the Jain religion in India, for example – has its devout members wearing gauze over their nose and mouths to prevent 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 really 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 ‘Wrong’? What is ‘Right’ in regards to what I do in order to stay alive? If I do none of these things then I will be causing pain and suffering to myself ... and I am a sentient being too. It is an impossible scenario, when pursued to its ultimate conclusion. And then there is the matter of one’s fellow human beings. Some of them – in fact at times a lot of them – are desirous of invading the country that one is living peacefully in, with the avowed intent of killing, torturing, raping, pillaging and subjugating oneself and one’s fellow citizens. If one holds a strong and passionate 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 not fight back, for we hold firmly to the principle of not causing pain and suffering to any sentient being whatsoever’ (the Tibetan situation is a particular case in point). (...)’. (Richard, List A, No. 16, No. 02). RESPONDENT: But if an angry marsupial comes after you than I suppose it is only fair to pull out an oozy and get to it. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to what you say (further below in this e-mail of yours): • [Respondent]: ‘This is not about death per se, rather the manner of death and the capacity of the animal to experience pain’. As you suppose it is only fair to kill a predating animal, in self-defence, with a submachine gun then the very basis of what you have to say, in your vegetarians versus omnivores diatribe, is rendered null and void. RESPONDENT: 5) Related to this (the link between ‘the inner’ and ‘the outer’), is it possible for someone who is actually free, happy and harmless, to freely, happily and harmlessly punch someone in the face? RICHARD: First and foremost, as there is no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ in actuality there is nothing here in this actual world to have any such linkage. Second, to be actually free from the human condition is to be sans the affective faculty/ identity in toto. Third, the happiness and harmlessness referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is the total absence of malice and sorrow. Fourth, to freely punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force non-prejudiciously. Fifth, to happily punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force without sorrow. Sixth, to harmlessly punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force without malice. Thus your query can look something like this when spelled-out in full: • [example only]: ‘With no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ to have any linkage, is it possible for somebody sans the affective faculty/ identity in toto, with no malice and sorrow extant whatsoever, to non-prejudiciously, non-maliciously and non-sorrowfully, use physical force on a fellow human being? [end example]. In a word ... yes. RESPONDENT: I mean I’m talking ‘in context’ here – not just through malice, but to protect someone, or something like that. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way? One does not become actually free from the human condition in order to be beaten to a pulp by someone – anyone – who chooses to let themselves continue being run by blind nature’s instinctual survival passions. RESPONDENT: ... the intelligence that operated when enlightened (much better/ freed than the normal experience of it) ... RICHARD: If I may ask? In what way is intelligence [quote] ‘much better/ freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal? (...) RESPONDENT: ... let’s say that the energy of thought was flowing more freely due to the lesser amount of barriers/ blockages existing in this psyche which in turn was due to the elimination of the ego. RICHARD: Okay ... let us (provisionally) say that then: could/ did/ can the energy of thought, flowing more freely due to the lesser amount of barriers/ blockages existing in that psyche, which in turn was due to the elimination of the ego, suss out that Being Itself is a contingent ‘Being’? RESPONDENT: No, as I was ‘Being’. RICHARD: In what way, then, is intelligence [quote] ‘much better/ freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal? * RICHARD: ... what is intelligent about advocating pacifism, for example, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/ perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same? RESPONDENT: Realizing that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it? RICHARD: What is intelligent about having such a realisation and, doing nothing fundamental about it, enabling the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world via facile compliance? RESPONDENT: I can answer from experience … what I tend to do when a bully boy and/or feisty femme hits me is to hit back with overwhelming force in the moment if the circumstances allow, or if not, at a time of my own choosing and tenfold. RICHARD: If I may point out? The query you are answering is about facile compliance upon realising that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it and yet doing nothing fundamental about it ... and not about either an immediate, albeit circumstantial, retaliation in kind with overwhelming force or opportunistic retaliation of a tenfold forceful kind despite that realisation. RESPONDENT: In fact, revenge is one of the urges that I can’t resist. RICHARD: What is intelligent about being aware that revenge is one of the irresistible urges and yet, even though realising that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it, doing nothing fundamental about such urges? RESPONDENT: The overwhelming force, as I know myself quite well, would not exclude death for the offender if there’s serious and intentional damage done, like rape or mutilation or attempted murder. RICHARD: Again ... what is intelligent about knowing quite well that either the immediate or opportune vindictive force would not exclude death for the bully boy/ feisty femme (depending upon both the intention of that predator and the severity of their predation) yet, even though realising that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it, doing nothing fundamental about that irresistible urge? RESPONDENT: However, if I contributed to the slap ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As the query regarding an enlightened intelligence advocating facile compliance to the bully boys/ feisty femmes is about realising that one *is* as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it then what you are saying by way of an answer would look something like this when contextualised: • [example only]: ‘However, as I contributed to the slap ...’. [end example]. As anyone who nurses malice and sorrow (and thus their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) to their bosom is as guilty as the one impelled by same to deliver the first slap your ‘if’ qualifier has no relevance to the topic under discussion. RESPONDENT: ... [However, if I contributed to the slap ], and although I condemn physical violence ... RICHARD: If I may ask? Why do you condemn – ‘censure, denounce, deprecate, disapprove of’ (Oxford Dictionary) – physical violence? Could it be because of realising that, even though one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it, one is not doing anything fundamental about it, perchance? RESPONDENT: ... [However, if I contributed to the slap, and although I condemn physical violence], I won’t fight back and I wouldn’t offer the other cheek either. RICHARD: As ‘offer the other cheek’ is but another way of describing a pacifistic/ appeasement type of response it would appear that the intelligence which advocates same is not [quote] ‘much better/ freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal after all. You do seem to be having some difficulty in substantiating your claim, eh? * RESPONDENT: [Realizing that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it?] Or that if it were to turn the slap back, it would turn the situation into a … ummm … war of countless slaps and thus perpetuate a vicious circle of violence? RICHARD: As all that is needed to do is point to the example of 1939-45 (where responding massively in kind not only did not perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence but resulted in three previously belligerent autocratic states becoming pacific democratic states) then what is intelligent about not using physical restraint/ force when necessary? RESPONDENT: Hmm ... the primary cause of war is the fight by individuals/ groups/ countries over limited resources, in other words: competitiveness. RICHARD: The primary cause of a bully boy’s/ feisty femmes’ war, the aggressive fight by that individual’s autocratically-led group/ country over (purportedly limited) resources, could indeed be said to be that bully boy’s/ feisty femmes’ belligerent competitiveness. RESPONDENT: You’re talking about overt/ physical warfare, not about the psychological/ covert type. RICHARD: I did take your usage of the word ‘slap’ to mean the overt/ physical wallop-clout-whack-thump-biff type of slap ... and, given that you were responding to me asking just what is intelligent about advocating pacifism, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/ perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same, it was quite reasonable to do so. Therefore, as you responded with nothing other than a variation on the scriptural ‘violence begets violence’ adage of yore I, of course, provided a well-known/ well-documented example of what a load of bosh that is. RESPONDENT: These covert wars exist even within the EU between otherwise democratic nations, there are rifts and disagreements as with any union/ group. Another Younger Dryas in 100 years, take prosperity away from people, levers and controls collapse and democracies turn into autocracies … while war breaks loose. RICHARD: Even were your futuristic New Ice Age scenario ever to actually come about how would it demonstrate that, by responding massively in kind to three autocratic states’ belligerence between 1939 and 1945, a vicious cycle of violence was thus perpetuated (by turning that belligerent situation into a war of countless slaps) 165 years after the outbreak of hostilities? Quite frankly, whatever causal connection you are seeing between World War II and a hypothetical mini-ice age five generations hence eludes comprehension. RESPONDENT: Humans prefer to compete than to cooperate when survival takes over thinking ... RICHARD: More accurately ... normal human beings are compelled to compete, rather than cooperate, when the savage survival passions have dominion over the tender survival passions. RESPONDENT: ... war is in the flesh and bones. RICHARD: War is not in flesh and bones ... war exists only in the psyche. RESPONDENT: Have you watched ‘Delicatessen’? RICHARD: I have never even heard of it. Meanwhile, back at the subject to hand, in what way is intelligence [quote] ‘much better/ freed’ [endquote] when enlightened when it advocates pacifism, for example, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/ perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same? * RICHARD: And just in case the latter [now duplicated immediately above] is not clear enough: if every otherwise intelligent non-dictatorial/ non-bandit/ non-criminal/ non-rapacious/ non-pillaging type of person were to actually put into practice, as a world-wide reality, those unliveable doctrines which bodiless deities prescribe then in a remarkably short period of time all babies will be being born with bully boys and feisty femmes as parents ... and with no alternate care-giver/ role-model anywhere to be found. RESPONDENT: Have you heard of the dark age prior to the ‘dark age’? RICHARD: Yes ... essentially there were two ages known as ‘dark’ (ignorant/ unenlightened): the period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West to the fall of Constantinople [more specifically between the fall of Rome and the appearance of vernacular documents] and the period between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the historical period in Greece (and other Aegean countries). RESPONDENT: Why do you say that there’s a danger for another dark age (with all this information technology)? RICHARD: Ha ... the day may come when this era is more aptly re-named the era of misinformation/ disinformation technology. RESPONDENT: Is there less ‘substance’ conveyed? RICHARD: No, there is actually more substance than ever being conveyed and yet, as it is generally swamped by a prodigious output of egregious factoids, fantasies and fictions endlessly spawned by neo-puritanical social engineers posing as public-health watchdogs, big-brother behaviourists in the guise of left-wing libertarians, religio-political/ religio-philosophical latter-day luddites (adroitly re-inventing themselves in the form of environmentalists/ conservationists/ preservationists), mystico-spiritual shamans masquerading as psychotherapists under the name ‘parapsychology’, and so on and so forth, dominating virtually all channels of communication, both mainstream and marginalised, it largely goes unnoticed. RESPONDENT: In my opinion, the primary cause for the emergence of a new dark age is fear and repression. RICHARD: As a new dark age is mainly coming from the east to the west the primary cause of its emergence is the failure of materialism to provide meaning to life (as epitomised by existentialist thought around the turn of the nineteenth/ twentieth century which, not all that coincidentally, was around about the time when oriental thought began to gain an ever-increasing grip on occidental thought). * RESPONDENT: In other words, how can you know what a dark age is if you haven’t went through it? RICHARD: Primarily by studying historical texts in conjunction with archaeological findings and, to a certain extent, sifting through folklore, myths, legends, and so on. RESPONDENT: But surely there were some enlightened/ un-ignorant individuals during these eras, yet collectively there was a period of chaos and unrest for European people primarily due to the migrations and the ensuing insecurity that followed. RICHARD: Let me see if I am following your line of thought: I point out that were every otherwise intelligent non-dictatorial/ non-bandit/ non-criminal/ non-rapacious/ non-pillaging type of person to actually put into practice, as a world-wide reality, those unliveable doctrines which bodiless deities prescribe then in a remarkably short period of time all babies will be being born with bully boys and feisty femmes as parents – and with no alternate care-giver/ role-model anywhere to be found – purely as a way of illustrating that there is nothing intelligent whatsoever about advocating pacifism, for example, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/ perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same ... and your response is to say that surely there were some enlightened/ un-ignorant individuals during the two western ages known as ‘dark’ (ignorant/ unenlightened). Do you realise that it is secular intelligence you are saying must surely have existed during those periods? * RESPONDENT: Is not the very existence of actual freedom dependent upon the existence of the instinctual passions? RICHARD: No, on the contrary, it is the very absence of the affective faculty/ identity in toto which characterises the actual freedom of being a flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: In contrast to enlightenment (which is dependent upon malice and sorrow being extant). RICHARD: Aye ... or, more specifically, upon ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon self-realisation) remaining extant. * RICHARD: So much for ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’, eh? RESPONDENT: Ha … if it’s not personal, so much for it indeed ... but it is personal (everyone is a child). RICHARD: The three references provided as a footnote unambiguously refer to juveniles ... specifically described as (1) young children ... and (2) little children ... and (3) infants. Viz.: [snip biblical quotes]. As for your parenthesised ‘everyone is a child’ comment I see you have expanded on this theme elsewhere: • [Respondent]: ‘I observed a tendency in actualists to take *only* the literal meaning out of the spiritual texts instead for the intended metaphorical meaning ... or to put it more bluntly: an unwillingness to understand and an emotional a priori rejection of everything spiritual, either silly or sensible. When saying: ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’, Jesus is referring to the inner child existing in everyone of us. What are the properties of this ‘inner child’? Is he actual, real or imaginary? Why is he suffering and at the hands of whom? If this child really exist in everyone of us, does it necessarily mean that he is oppressed? What happens when this inner child meets Jesus, then why else the expression ‘to come unto him’? [endquote]. Just for starters I am not presumptively rejecting everything spiritual (let alone emotionally) ... I experientially explored same, night and day, for eleven years and there was nothing sensible to be found anywhere. When saying ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’ Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene is not referring to an inner child as the accompanying text clearly shows. The properties of what is known in a certain school of psychology as an ‘inner child’ are (not surprisingly) psychological ... of, affecting, or pertaining to the mental and emotional state of a person. The word ‘suffer’, in the context of ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’, means allow, permit, and so on. Viz.: [snip dictionary definition]. The expression ‘to come unto me’, in the given context, simply means ‘to come to me’ (...). The psychological concept known as ‘inner child’ not only did not exist prior to the twentieth century no first century equivalent was even implied (let alone intended). Viz.: [snip biblical quotes]. If you wish to read into ‘as a little child’ (aka being childlike) something other than what is conveyed – as in your ‘inner child’ psychological concept – only to criticise others for not taking what you see as [quote] ‘the intended metaphorical meaning’ [endquote] then that is your business. RESPONDENT: What being childlike (‘as a little child’) means to you ... RICHARD: In the context under discussion ... being meek, submissive, dutiful, obedient (as to an earthly father in that era). RESPONDENT: ... and what do you think meant to Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene Christ? RICHARD: There is no need to think anything ... here it is (straight from the horse’s mouth as it were): • [Mr. Mathew]: ‘At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore *shall humble himself* as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven’. [emphasis added]. (Mathew 18: 1-4; The King James Bible). RESPONDENT: Don’t you think that a psychic archetype termed ‘child’ exists in the human psyche in the same way as the anima/ animus or the wise man or the hero are? RICHARD: It makes no difference either way what one thinks: the fact remains that Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene, all the while insisting that infants/ little children/ young children be allowed to come to him for a ritual laying-on of hands and an other-worldly blessing, was actively working his will in such a way as to ensure all future babies would be born with bully boys and feisty femmes as parents ... and with no alternate care-giver/ role-model anywhere to be found. So much for ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’, eh? RICHARD: May I suggest, as a starting point of an examination into your deeply held belief, reading again what I demonstrated (with accredited quotes) in my last post to you? That is: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s ‘freedom’ is only attainable after physical death? Is this not why there is no peace on earth? RESPONDENT: Richard, it is not clear to me that, according to you ... RICHARD: Oh, it is not ‘according’ to me ... the example I provided (with the accredited quotes) was according to Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s acknowledged Master). He wrote in 1981: [quote]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Whether: a) Buddha left a legacy to his community (Bhikkhus and others), a legacy under which freedom is attainable only after physical death. RICHARD: He did indeed (if he ever lived at all). This is because his ‘freedom’ is a metaphysical freedom; that is, a ‘freedom’ from samsara, the endless round of birth and death and rebirth. The Buddhist ‘Parinirvana’ (the same as the Hindu ‘Mahasamadhi’) is an after-death ‘freedom’ ... just the same as the Christian’s ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. The same holds true for all religions – all spiritualism and all mysticism – and their blatantly self-seeking words will leap out at one, upon reading the hallowed scriptures with both eyes open, and speak for themselves. RESPONDENT: And hence this legacy is responsible for no peace on earth. RICHARD: Yes, peace-on-earth is sacrificed for a spurious after-death ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless Peace’. It is their post-mortem reward of ‘Immortality’ ... which is arrant selfishness by any description. RESPONDENT: Or: b) Buddha in some way personally responsible for no peace on earth because he ‘postponed’ freedom until the physical death. RICHARD: Aye (and this is according to me); the blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient courage to proceed into the ‘Unknown’, stopped short of the final goal ... the ‘Unknowable’. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the ‘Self’ or ‘Spirit’ or ‘Soul’ or ‘Atma’ (by whatever name) ... and an ego-less ‘Self’ or ‘Spirit’ or ‘Soul’ or ‘Atma’ (by whatever name) is still an identity, nevertheless. In spite of the glamour and the glory of the Altered State Of Consciousness, closer examination reveals that these ‘Great’ persons had – and have – feet of clay. Bewitched and beguiled by the promise of majesty and mystery, they have led humankind astray. Preaching submission or supplication they keep a benighted ‘humanity’ in appalling tribulation and distress. The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the identity in its entirety is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over all and everyone. RESPONDENT: Or: c) Some other possibility which I have not thought of. RICHARD: It is not only you that has ‘not thought of’ it ... nobody I have met or read about (presumably 6.0 billion living and maybe 4.0 peoples having lived) have ever thought that these revered peoples could be so alarmingly wrong. An actual freedom is entirely new in human history. It is self-centredness (to the utmost degree) to sacrifice peace-on-earth for the ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. RICHARD: And then there is the matter of one’s fellow human beings. Some of them – in fact at times a lot of them – are desirous of invading the country that one is living peacefully in, with the avowed intent of killing, torturing, raping, pillaging and subjugating oneself and one’s fellow citizens. If one holds a strong and passionate 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 not fight back, for we hold firmly to the principle of not causing pain and suffering 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 Redeemers 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-mortem reward for being a ‘good’ person during ‘my’ sojourn on this planet earth. RESPONDENT: This hardly need be the case. I am both a vegan and a pacifist and gladly wear a sign that says, ‘I will do you no harm’. RICHARD: You can eat whatever you choose as far as I am concerned ... but know full well that by being a pacifist in this world as it is with people as they are then you are relying upon other human beings to risk their lives to protect you and your ilk. Skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to sleep somewhat peacefully in your bed at night. These are all people behind the badge ... your fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Each of these entities are as much responsible for the supposed non-peace the claim to protects us form as the alleged ‘peace’ they preserve. RICHARD: This is a ‘straw man’ argument ... I never said they were not as much responsible and I never said they preserved any peace. I said that they protect you and your ilk so that you can sleep ‘somewhat’ peacefully. May I ask? What is this ‘supposed non-peace’? Are you still in a state of denial about all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide? We had an extensive correspondence about this some months ago. And you told me that you ‘bear our conversations in mind’. RESPONDENT: One does not create Peace through defence. RICHARD: I never said that one does ... only the elimination of identity in its totality will enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent. Until that happens on a global scale, some semblance of law and order will need to be maintained at the point of a gun. Hence pacifists are wankers. RESPONDENT: But one creates Peace through the defencelessness that arises with the understanding that it really just doesn’t matter if one is alive or dead, with possessions or no. RICHARD: Aye ... this is the ‘turn the other cheek’ decree that you found so ‘comical’ (above). When put in practice it means that the bully-boys rule the world. RESPONDENT: It will be as you choose it to be. If you believe that the preservation of a particular body is important, then yes, defence is a comforting commodity. If one is angered when what they believe are their possessions are taken, then yes, a police force is a comforting commodity. RICHARD: I do understand pacifism ... I was deluded enough to be one myself for eleven years. But the fact remains that you are only able stay alive to practice it by relying upon other human beings to risk their lives to protect you and your ilk. Skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to preserve your body and keep your possessions. These are all people behind the badge ... your fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Personally, I have no particular care for either life or possessions. RICHARD: Hmm ... do you lock and bolt your doors and windows? Do you keep your money in a bank – and thus protected by armed security personnel – or out in the open on a tray on the kitchen table for anyone on the street to see through the open front door? If you have a car ... do you wind up the windows and lock the doors in a public car-park ... and remove the keys from the ignition? If you use a bicycle ... do you chain it to a lamp-post? Need I go on? I have many more bits and pieces like this that expose pacifism ... as I said, I was a pacifist for eleven years and it was becoming aware of minutiae like these that showed me how silly I was to allow principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who declared that they were not the body – to rule my life ... because I am this body. The military personnel and custom officers are the locks on the doors and the bars on the windows (the borders) of the country you live in. RESPONDENT: Currently I have an abundance of both, I enjoy this. RICHARD: And why are you able to do this? Only by relying upon other human beings to risk their lives to protect you and your ilk. Skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to preserve your body and keep your possessions. These are all people behind the badge ... your fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Tomorrow either might be gone – it makes no difference to me, and what it may mean to the rest of the world – that is on them. RICHARD: Hmm ... any plans for noble martyrdom in the pipeline? Or is this but flatulence talking? RESPONDENT: I ask for no protection, wish no particular law enforced. RICHARD: Then stop skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world and the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on. If that is too complicated to do, then do this simple thing: take all your money out of the bank and keep it on the kitchen table and leave all your windows and doors unlocked and unbarred and open night after night and day after day, eh? After all, you ‘have no particular care for possessions’, you say. RESPONDENT: But for the rest of the world – that is on them – they have asked for these military forces you describe to enforce their particular belief system – they have them. It does seem, however, that very few have found any peace through that wish being granted. RICHARD: It is not peace being sought but some respite or even a truce ... any military or police force is but armed protection from the bully-boys of the world. Ever-vigilant protection is not peace. * RICHARD: Speaking personally, I gained immeasurably from our discussion. (...) Our communications netted heaps of valuable and revealing information for me ... which I have put to good use. RESPONDENT: That is Wonderful. Perhaps you will share with me some of the profit you uncovered during our conversations. (...) It being put to good use would never be in doubt. RICHARD: Golly ... to list all the benefit I gained would be far too long for this post. What immediately comes to mind, however, is being able to share with other would-be pacifists what wanking looks like in print. May I ask? Are you still ‘gladly wearing a sign that says ‘I will do you no harm’’ whilst skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world? Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to preserve your body and keep your possessions. These are all people behind the badge – your fellow human beings – and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. And I do understand pacifism ... I was deluded enough to be a pacifist myself for eleven years. But I noticed that I locked and bolted my doors and windows and I noticed that I kept my money in a bank – and thus protected by armed security personnel – and not out in the open on a tray on the kitchen table for anyone on the street to see through the open front door. I noticed that I wound up the windows and locked the doors of my car in a public car-park ... and removed the keys from the ignition. I noticed that when I dispensed with the car and took to riding my bicycle that I chained it to a lamp-post ... it was becoming aware of minutiae like these that showed me how silly I was to allow principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who declared that they were not the body – to rule my life. Because I am this body living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and the military personnel and custom officers are the locks on the doors and the bars on the windows (the borders) of the country one lives in. It is the gullible youth and dedicated career soldiers that do all the action whilst the pusillanimous pacifist can sit safely at home ... all the while casting guilt trips at those who have the intestinal fortitude to get off their backsides and do something about maintaining law and order at the point of a gun where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. The Tibetan situation is a particular case in point ... pacifism means that the bully-boys get to rule the world. * RICHARD: Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to preserve your body and keep your possessions. These are all people behind the badge – your fellow human beings – and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. And I do understand pacifism ... I was deluded enough to be a pacifist myself for eleven years. But I noticed that I locked and bolted my doors and windows and I noticed that I kept my money in a bank – and thus protected by armed security personnel – and not out in the open on a tray on the kitchen table for anyone on the street to see through the open front door. I noticed that I wound up the windows and locked the doors of my car in a public car-park ... and removed the keys from the ignition. I noticed that when I dispensed with the car and took to riding my bicycle that I chained it to a lamp-post ... it was becoming aware of minutiae like these that showed me how silly I was to allow principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who declared that they were not the body – to rule my life. Because I am this body living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and the military personnel and custom officers are the locks on the doors and the bars on the windows (the borders) of the country one lives in. It is the gullible youth and dedicated career soldiers that do all the action whilst the pusillanimous pacifist can sit safely at home ... all the while casting guilt trips at those who have the intestinal fortitude to get off their backsides and do something about maintaining law and order at the point of a gun where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. RESPONDENT: Richard, as we had discussed previously, whether one feels guilty about their chosen profession is decided as them. RICHARD: Of course ... but, as well you know, that is not what I was referring to. I was saying that hypocrisy enables a pusillanimous pacifist to adopt an ‘holier-than-thou’ approach ... whilst reaping the benefits of the other person’s intestinal fortitude. Given that all human beings are driven by instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire, then war is an essential facility for obtaining an imitation of peace – an uneasy truce called ‘law and order’ – at the point of a gun. This will continue to be the situation until every last man, woman and child on earth is free of the human condition. It does not make war any less ghastly ... but it is a fact that whilst humans are as-they-are, then war is here to stay. Anyone in a state of denial about this just does not understand the human condition. This is why pacifism is hypocritical idiocy. * RICHARD: Here is a direct question: Do you practise non-violence (‘ahimsa’)? RESPONDENT: Directly, yes, however I am not familiar with the entire ahimsa doctrine. I believe that Jains will not travel in the rainy season for fear of harming insects, and all other travel includes the constant sweeping of the path directly in front to remove, gently, any insects that might be harmed by foot fall. No similar exercise is practised here. RICHARD: Put simply, the ‘ahimsa’ doctrine is the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain ideology that there should be no violence or killing. Some do take it to the extremes of no violence or killing of insects, as you pointed out, whilst others only extend it to animals – like a vegetarian – or to animals plus animal products ... as a vegan like yourself. So, when you say ‘directly, yes’ to the question ‘do you practise non-violence’ would you be saying: ‘Yes, I am actively living, in my daily life, the doctrine of no violence or killing of human beings or any other animal’? * RICHARD: By my count I make it four times that you unequivocally stated that you will not use physical violence against another human being if physically attacked. In fact, you clearly stated that you found it much clearer to say that you ‘will not harm in order to avoid being harmed’. I find that very clear and unambiguous ... and I make it four times that you replied that you had no opposition to personally using violence as a means of resolving disputes or personally participating in military action and that you did not believe in and advocate peaceful methods as being feasible and desirable alternatives to war. The point that I wish to become clear on is: how would you ‘personally participate in military action’, given that you have ‘no opposition to personally using violence as a means of resolving disputes’ and that you are no longer ‘gladly wearing a sign that says ‘I will do you no harm’’ ... yet all the while ‘actively living, in your daily life, the doctrine of no violence or killing of human beings’ ... given that you found it much clearer to say that you ‘will not harm in order to avoid being harmed’ and that you would not ‘defend yourself with physical force against a flesh and blood human being to the point of serious physical damage to them or even death’. So, given as you were so generous to offer ‘again, if I can be of assistance to you, please ask’ ... then I will take you up on your offer and ask you this: Will you clarify this dichotomy (above), by explaining how to ‘examine more carefully’ and demonstrate what you mean by the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’? RESPONDENT: Yes of course. To begin, a direct examination of the earlier questions. That this day is lived as non-violent needs have nothing to do with having ‘opposition to [personally using] violence as a means of resolving disputes’, nor ‘opposition to [personally] participating in military action’. Not harming others is done as not harming others, not in opposition to, or as resistance to, or to suppress, violent or war-like tendencies. As your post was written Richard, was it written with one eye on the urge, tendency, or the possibility of it not being written? Were the question asked in opposition to them not being asked? Did you actively resist the urge to not ask in order to post the questions? You ask ‘how would you ‘personally participate in military action’ – I would not, however, it would not be because I am in ‘opposition to [personally] participating in military action’. Instead, it would be because participating in a military action would not manifest in the life I have chosen to be here. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is simply a fact that neither the ‘Oxford Dictionary’ nor the ‘Mirriam Webster’s’ mentions [quote] ‘not harming others is done as not harming others, not in opposition to, or as resistance to, or to suppress, violent or war-like tendencies’ [endquote] in order to qualify as being a pacifist ... and I would hazard a guess that the ‘Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language; New College Edition’ does not either ... and probably never will. And, furthermore, the dictionaries make no mention of a pacifist as having sublimated ‘violent or war-like tendencies’ and thus transcended the base passions in order to qualify as being a pacifist either. A pacifist is, quite straightforwardly, a person who is ‘actively living, in their daily life, the doctrine of no violence or killing of human beings or any other animal’ and who ‘does not, nor will not, defend oneself with physical force against a flesh and blood human being to the point of serious physical damage to them or even death’ and who would probably say [quote]: ‘I will not harm in order to avoid being harmed’. Your use of sophistry (what I call ducking and weaving and slipping and slithering) to avoid having the apt description ‘pacifist’ applied to your modus operandi has already been covered in our previous conversation. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘You do seem to have fastened rather cleverly on the word ‘opposition’ in the definitions that you presented and all you have said is that there is ‘no opposition here’, which, having had lengthy correspondence with you before, I take to mean that if physically attacked by an assailant, you would offer no opposition ... and thus you do not address the question at all’. • [Respondent]: ‘Good Gravy Richard, I did nothing that even resembles ‘fastening rather cleverly on the word ‘opposition’’ to anything. The definition came directly from The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language; New College Edition. (...) I simply find no reason to create disputes’. • [Richard]: ‘Do you ‘believe in and advocate peaceful methods as being feasible and desirable alternatives to war’. And I only ask this in this way so that you do not fasten on the Oxford’s use of the word ‘rejecting’ and reply: ‘nope, no rejecting here’. • [Respondent]: ‘A point of order – if you care (or should I say ‘dare’?) ask a question, it is customary to end the sentence with a question mark. ‘Do you ‘believe in and advocate peaceful methods as being feasible and desirable alternatives to war’? No’. • [Richard]: ‘I am sure that you will have a field day with the words ‘believe in’ and ‘advocate’ ... Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein has left a rather beguiling legacy, has he not? (Richard, List B, No. 14c, 25 May 1999a). • [Respondent]: ‘I can not say, I am not familiar with Mr. Wittgenstein or his legacy’. The legacy that Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein left, is that certain peoples have been doing precisely what you are doing here – playing word-games – and could be called: ‘fiddling while Rome burns’ considering all the suffering endemic in the world. Because, for all of your sophism, your approach to participating in war and other acts of aggressive behaviour is identical to that approach adopted by the people who, not being as guileful as you are, clearly identify themselves as being pacifists ... which approach you clearly state yourself (above). Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘You ask ‘how would you ‘personally participate in military action’ – I would not’. Just as a ‘vegetarian’, for example, can be either a person who has an ideological reason (non-violence to all sentient beings) or a medical reason (allergic to animal products) for being a vegetarian ... so too can the word ‘pacifist’ describe people who ‘would not participate in military action’ for differing reasons. Put simply, you have a different reason for being pacifist than the reasons that dictionaries give ... you are merely quibbling over trivialities, like any hoary pundit from the mystical eastern religions. RESPONDENT: That awakened person can get involved. RICHARD: Yet there have been many, many ‘awakened persons’ getting involved for 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history. And these many and varied ‘Enlightened Beings’ have been claiming to have discovered that which will right the wrongs of the human condition ... and for 3,000 to 5,000 years they have been abjectly failing to live up to their own standards (let alone bringing about their promised Peace On Earth). How on earth is one going to obtain peace-on-earth by following their failed example? RESPONDENT: Well most of them did not preach peace on earth. Jesus said – ‘my kingdom is not of this world’. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and therein lies the nub of the issue: is one desiring peace-on-earth or is one longing for the metaphysical ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ that is only accessible after physical death (the Christian ‘R. I. P’ is matched by the Hindu ‘Mahasamadhi’ and the Buddhist ‘Parinirvana’ and so on). This is a very selfish and self-centred approach to life on earth ... something that all metaphysical peoples are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s immortality is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined soul or spirit or whatever after physical death. So much for their humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All religious and spiritual and mystical quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All religious and spiritual and mystical leaders fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing the ‘Eternal After-Life’. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the overriding importance of the survival of ‘self’. All religious and spiritual thought – being mystical in origin – is nothing but an extremely complex and complicated metaphysics that does nothing to eliminate the ‘self’ – the ego and soul – in its entirety. In fact, when one applies these ancestor-derived religious and spiritual systems, one’s primal self is endorsed, enhanced, glorified and rewarded for staying in existence. And this is a monumental blunder. All the wars, murders, tortures, rapes and destruction that have eventually followed the emergence of any specially hallowed religiosity or spirituality attests to this. Also, all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that has ensued as a result of following any specifically revered religious or spiritual teaching renders its mute testimony to anyone with the eyes to see. Culpability for the continuation of animosity and anguish lies squarely at the feet of the Masters and the Messiahs; the Saints and the Sages; the Avatars and the Saviours; the Gurus and the God-Men. And their feet – upon close inspection – are feet of clay. They lacked the necessary intestinal fortitude to go all the way ... they stopped at the ‘Unknown’ by surrendering to the ‘Unmanifest Power’ that lies lurking behind the throne instead of proceeding into the ‘Unknowable’. To stop at ‘dissolving the ego’ and becoming enlightened is to stop half-way. One needs to end the soul as well, then any identity whatsoever becomes extirpated, extinguished, eliminated, annihilated ... in other words: extinct. To be as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. To vanish without a trace ... there will be no phoenix to rise from the ashes. Finished. Kaput. Then there is peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: The fundamental and most important aspect of a human being, Richard, concerning the overall effects to the mind of mankind – and consequently to mankind as a collectivity – is his ability to overcome fragmentation. All violence and incongruities in our planet are a direct consequence of fragmentation, isn’t it? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Please keep in mind that I have some difficulties with the language. It is the fact that one feels to be an isolated being that brings with it this sense of isolation, insecurity, fear and the following violence. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: If a man keeps an eye on pacifism, the other eye will be focused in his own right for peace. If a man looks at human rights with one eye, the other will be on his own ones obviously. RICHARD: Aye ... but ‘human rights’ are a human construct – an agreement between human beings to conduct themselves in a certain way in relation to other human beings – and are designed to counter the insalubrious effects of the instinctual passions bestowed upon all sentient beings by blind nature via genetic inheritance. A ‘right’ is a legal entitlement ascribed to a person or persons with an equitable or fair claim to the terms of that agreement. A ‘right’ is therefore something ‘given’ by humans to humans – and to a certain extent to other animals – but what is given can be taken away ... at the point of a gun. There are no ‘rights’, in actuality, other than what human beings agree on ... and ‘rights’ have to be enforced at the point of a gun, anyway. Thus, where you say ‘if a man keeps an eye on pacifism, the other eye will be focused in his own right for peace’ the flaw in this argument becomes immediately obvious: nobody actually has any ‘right’ for peace – apart from whatever pseudo-peace others are inclined to grant – so long as they nurse malice (and sorrow) to their bosom. To adopt a policy of pacifism – to take a vow of non-violence – is to be superficially altering outward behavioural patterns in that one only resolves to abstain from using physical force. And the resolve is traditionally augmented by covering up one’s malice (and sorrow) with the antidotal love and compassion ... which depend upon malice and sorrow for their fuel. It is malice (and sorrow), not physical force, that is the source of the problem of aggressive behaviour ... ‘non-violence’ is nothing but a salve to a conscience that is secretly aware that one is as covertly guilty of malice (and sorrow) as one’s aggressive assailant is overtly guilty of malice (and sorrow). When the cause of malice (and sorrow) is eliminated, then the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent ... and it far exceeds any pseudo-peace obtained with a hypocritical vow and/or policy of pacifism (non-violence). RESPONDENT: Integrity, non-fragmentation, is a ‘quality’ (sorry) that agglutinates all possible good qualities for mankind, according to natural intelligence. RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘good qualities’ only exist to counter the ‘bad qualities’. When the source of malice and sorrow is eliminated, the ‘good’ vanishes along with the ‘bad’ ... then there is a freed intelligence. A ‘natural intelligence’ is an intelligence hindered by the instinctual passions, like fear and aggression and nurture and desire, and will seek to heighten the tender feelings so as to diminish the savage feelings. RESPONDENT: What a man does in this life is of much lesser importance (read, write, speak, teach, etc.), because it is the ‘amount’ of non-fragmented souls that will make the obvious difference, in this mind as an entirety. RICHARD: If by ‘souls’ you mean each individual human being as a flesh and blood body and not some bodiless psychic entity and if by the phrase ‘this mind as an entirety’ you mean human beings as flesh and blood bodies collectively and not some bodiless ‘Universal Mind’, then what one does unilaterally is of far-reaching importance as regards global peace-on-earth. When there are 6.0 billion outbreaks of individual peace-on-earth ... then, and only then, will there be global peace-on-earth. As for ‘reading, writing, speaking, teaching, etc.’ , is it not marvellous that we are able to be discussing these matters of great momentousness ... and momentous not only the individual, but for all of the humans that are living on this verdant planet? It is not an amazing thing that we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input? One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before. It is silly to dismiss communication so cavalierly for one would have to invent the wheel all over again. Speaking personally, I am very appreciative of all those peoples who have spoken, written and taught ... if it were not for them communicating their experiences I could not be where I am today. RESPONDENT: It is really just a matter of pondering. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is a matter of getting off one’s backside and discovering the source of malice and sorrow within oneself. RESPONDENT: The influences can only reach mankind through the individuals, because that is the mind of mankind. Mysticism? Please not. Nothing can be more effective to change man – if that is the concern, which is not my case really, it’s not necessary – then get out of time. RICHARD: Where you say ‘Mysticism? Please not’ and then follow it (after some platitudes) with ‘get out of time’ do you realise that you contradict yourself? Because to ‘get out of time’ successfully one has to be living the ‘timeless’ ... which is mysticism! The ending of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. Then the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom? RESPONDENT: And be responsible (as No. 14 says), or transcend fragmentation (the same). I wonder if you agree. RICHARD: You may stop wondering ... I do not agree. Nobody is responsible for being born with the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... it is nothing but a rather clumsy software package genetically inherited by all sentient beings as a rough and ready start to life. If No. 14 wishes to self-aggrandise himself by taking an obviously ineffective ‘infinite responsibility’ for what the blind forces of nature have produced ... then that is his business. And if you wish to be equally ineffective in making apparent the already always existing peace-on-earth by ‘transcending fragmentation (the same)’ then that is your business. Provided one complies with the legal laws and observes the social protocols of the country one lives in, one will be left free to live one’s life as foolishly or as wisely as one chooses to. It is your life you are living and in the final analysis it is only you who reaps the rewards or suffers the consequences for any action or inaction you may or may not do. * RICHARD: May I ask? Are you seeking peace-on-earth or the ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’? RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. Is it some kind of a prayer? RICHARD: It is what the Christians say when referring to the only place where they are adamant that peace lies. Viz.: after physical death (as do Hindus with their ‘Mahasamadhi’ and Buddhists with their ‘Parinirvana’ and so for all the disciplines). RESPONDENT: I’m not seeking peace on earth. RICHARD: Indeed ... that is the impression I had gained from our correspondence. Like virtually all the rest, you are seeking ‘something else’ ... and so all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides will go on for ever and a day. RESPONDENT: In that respect, what will be, will be ... although I may identify some correlations. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and what will be will be more wars and more murders and more rapes and more tortures and more domestic violence and more child abuse and more sadness and more loneliness and more grief and more depression and more suicides, eh? Because that is what ‘what will be, will be’ already looks like. RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t like to be a priest in your hands. RICHARD: Is this because the priests (and their ilk) have been actively perpetuating all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides through their desire for the ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ instead of peace-on-earth? Golly, are they not just like yourself ... only organised? KONRAD: You, as I also and J. Krishnamurti, have seen that all this ‘enlightenment’ business, existing for 7000 years, or probably more, has indeed not offered any solution to the human condition. Now, after reading your description of what you have gone through, I fully understand what you mean by the term ‘human condition’, and am now able to comment on it. What I put forward is this: No state of enlightenment, however intense, profound, free, blissful, ‘I’ – less, ‘Self’ – less, or even ordinary (some boast on even this), can do this. RICHARD: I am well-pleased that we are in agreement regarding the failure of enlightenment. I would question your inclusion of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in this as he was clearly in a state of enlightenment himself. He condemned Gurus and Gods, but not enlightenment itself. In fact, he was in reverence of [quote] ‘That which is Sacred, Holy’ [end quote]. In a biography, written by Ms. Pupal Jayakar, she relates a scene wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said that: ‘There is that which is beyond thought, that which is sacred, holy. That I bow down to; that I would prostrate myself to’. If her recollection of the incident is a factual record of what actually took place, then it is obvious that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was still trapped by the state of enlightenment itself ... by the veneration of what he named ‘The Absolute’ (still a god by whatever name). And there are many, many other instances throughout the extensive writings, by both himself and others, that clearly points to the fact that he was not free of the Human Condition. (Editorial note: the exact quote is as follows: [Ms. Pupul Jayakar]: ‘... the feeling of presence was overpowering, and soon my voice stopped. Krishnaji turned to me, ‘Do you feel It? I could prostrate to It?’ His body was trembling as he spoke of the presence that listened. ‘Yes, I can prostrate to this, that is here’. Suddenly he turned and left us, walking alone to his room’. page 364; Jayakar, Pupul: ‘Krishnamurti – A Biography’; Harper & Row; San Francisco; 1986). In enlightenment, one does not eradicate malice and sorrow, one transcends them. ‘Transcend’ means to rise above, which implies that what you have transcended still exists, only it is beneath you now. This is borne out by the ‘Enlightened Beings’ themselves, who generally state that they have eliminated the ego and transcended duality ... I have yet to come across any ‘Enlightened Master’ who consistently states that they have eliminated duality ... if there are any at all who say that. My experience of being enlightened is that as a soul (Eternal Self), one was sheltered and protected from sorrow and malice by a cocoon of Divine Compassion and Love Agapé ... and my experience was affirmed by what I read in various books. Once again, Ms. Pupal Jayakar describes how the people around Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti 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 always 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 physical world, it exists only in the human psyche ... eliminate the psyche in its entirety and you have eliminated both Good and Evil. (‘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 ‘The Bad’. Hence also their pacifism. RICHARD: 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 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 that fact might not do anything for a particular steer but it gives one a healthy perspective on the nature of things so one would not be apt to mindlessly decimate 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 meat 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 exonerate one from being a harmful person ... it merely makes one look that way from the outside. Inside, one may be churning away with barely suppressed anger and rage ... or grief and resentment or whatever. There invariably comes a time when the ‘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 is 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 not? Humans are all connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible ‘vibes’ – that leads 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 – an ‘energy’ – that seeks to control by psychic manipulation and leads to the most horrific consequences ... as has been the sorry demonstration of history. The elimination of the psychic entity – ‘I’ the self as an ego and a soul – is the ending of interconnectedness. 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 words, one is happy and harmless ... by having extirpated malice and sorrow completely. 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 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 ecological food-chain, 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’ is one of the most pernicious and insidious beliefs that one can hold, for it creates the illusion that one is harmless when one is not. RESPONDENT: I’m glad you have a place where you can go off and disappear. I wish I did. Until then I’m 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 happy 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’. RICHARD: Also, whenever someone attacks me I always have the option to defend myself if the situation warrants such a course of action ... there is no ‘turning the other cheek’ pacifism, defeatism, fatalism or martyrdom operating in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Yes, might be, you have the option, but you stress it in everything you write, and you make a point out of it. RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to something relevant to this particular E-Mail? I was responding to you having made ‘a point out of it’ by putting the word in scare quotes in the first place. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘At least, you stress it time and again, in your writings, and in your ‘defences’ or explanations’. If you had not done so I would have not responded as I did because I would have thus figured you knew it to be valid that if someone attacks another they may very well be expected to defend themselves. RESPONDENT: This way you mix two kinds of subjects: one concerns ‘Actual Freedom’, and: [Richard]: ‘have you ever noticed that it is bodiless entities that propagate such a dictum?’ RICHARD: Again, it was you who mixed the ‘two kinds of subjects’ ... if you had not put the word in scare quotes in the first place we would not be having this part of this discussion now. But as you did I will ask again: Have you ever noticed that it is bodiless entities that propagate the ‘do not defend yourself’ dictum? 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