# Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Flogged Misconceptions Frequently Flogged Misconceptions ## Actualism is a Cult IRENE to Peter: Richard needs [the chief disciple] for support. RICHARD: And just how are you going to go about substantiating this wild allegation? I stand on my own two feet, beholden to no one. I do not suffer from an inferiority complex ... I find this actual freedom to be eminently superior to anything anyone else has ever lived before. Anyway, chief disciples are notorious for waxing and waning in their regard for their master ... it would be a foolish person who depends upon the fickleness of another’s mood swings for support. IRENE to Peter: Every man desires a woman (or ‘chick for free’) who is willing to deny her feelings and intuitions, the very culprits for malice and sorrow ... as far as Richard is concerned, that is. RICHARD: What is with this ‘chick for free’ statement of yours ... are you upholding a woman’s traditional right to sell herself? Is that not degrading to women? Does this not reduce a woman to a commodity? A sex-object? A piece of meat? Do you wish to single-handedly put woman back into the dark ages after all that has been achieved through the whole woman’s liberation movement? Also, you cast archetypal aspersions upon the integrity of women who have dared to run the gamut of their peer’s calumny and obloquy. Your remark reads like being one of those snide digs that women unfortunately indulge in with their contemporaries in order to keep each other sexually repressed ... all the while blaming only men for a woman’s frustration. RESPONDENT: I had been considering unsubscribing from the list again; as I find the constant belliteration on the part of the priesthood a bit difficult to interact with; but I have been remaining for the joy of reading No. 10’s Extremely Patient and Forthright and Perceptive Challenging of the Coagulating Cultic Communications. Please continue No. 10. You are being read, enjoyed, appreciated and acknowledged!! RICHARD: As you included the correspondence addressed to me (along with your term ‘the priesthood’ ) in this post of yours you are obviously deliberately including me in your previous attempts to deprecate peace-on-earth, in this life-time as this flesh and blood body, by categorising actualism as a ‘religion’ and a ‘cult’ ... and now ‘cultic communications’ . Viz.: • [No. 12]: ‘it is great you are developing this new religion’. • [No. 12]: ‘we need religions in order to get together and discuss things so that we begin to understand each other’. • [No. 12]: ‘it is a pity that all of the received wisdom of the eastern and western worlds up till now – including the new religion known as Actualism – is imperatively and actually wrong, as it does not work’. • [No. 12]: ‘this new actualism cult’. • [No. 12]: ‘I would like us each to remain a member of Actualism; the reason being that I like religions because they give the members a chance to hang-out together and discuss things so that they get to understand each other’. As I am on record as saying – over and again – that I lived the religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical and/or metaphysical ‘Tried and True’ solution to all the ills of humankind night and day for eleven years – and found it wanting by virtue of it being a massive megalomaniacal delusion – I fail to see what point it is you consider you are making. I am also on record as saying: • [Richard]: ‘I am a thorough-going atheist through and through’. • [Richard]: ‘All gods and goddesses are a figment of passionate human imagination’. • [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘Intelligence’ running this universe’. • [Richard]: ‘This universe has always been here and always will be ... it has no need for a creator’. • [Richard]: ‘I am a fellow human being sans identity ... neither ‘normal’ nor ‘divine’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 31, 24 January 2004) Your response (at the top of the page) is all the more curious bearing in mind that you posted a circular a little while ago promoting a spiritually-based workshop inspired by the teachings of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain (a self acknowledged never-born never-died enlightened being) who carefully and publicly set-up what he called his religion a few years before he ‘quit the body’ (as is evidenced in books published under his name such as ‘The Rajneesh Bible’ and so on) replete with an inner circle ‘priesthood’ of 21 acknowledged disciples. Viz.: • [No. 12]: ‘Workshop – An Introduction to Humaniversity Therapy – The Art of Emotional Freedom. Since 1978, The Humaniversity in Holland has been showing people how to live lives of authenticity, love, friendship and meaning. It is rare that the programs or methods of Humaniversity Therapy have been offered in Australia. This July in Sydney a precious opportunity exists for you to experience and benefit from Humaniversity Therapy, when Hellmut Wolf leads a weekend workshop Cost: $A375 + GST <snip> Bookings and payment information: email No. 12@xxx.com.au [endquote]. You are obviously more than just superficially involved in this organisation as you were able to offer a discount ... and a visit to the ‘Humaniversity’ Web Site elicits this information: • [quote]: ‘Although the Humaniversity is an independent organization, there has always been a strong spiritual connection to the enlightened Indian Mystic Osho. Most of the Humaniversity Staff are sannyasins, i.e. disciples of Osho <snip> The Humaniversity is focused on the fulfilment of the human spirit. It has a very positive orientation to understanding and encouraging the realisation of this potential. You will therefore gain not only an appreciation of the human psyche and mental disorder, you will also gain a rich and deep understanding of the elements required for self-realisation’ [endquote]. I see the words <spiritual>, <enlightened>, <mystic>, <osho>, <sannyasins>, <disciples>, <spirit> and <self-realisation> in this introductory paragraph on the ‘Humaniversity’ Web Site. Do you not see that you are but belittling yourself in your futile attempts to belittle an actual freedom from the human condition? Also, if you consider those series of responses, in the correspondence addressed to me which you included in your post, as being ‘Extremely Perceptive and Challenging’ then obviously you too cannot see the difference, between a channelled theosophy that glorifies the self by promoting it as being a bodiless spirit which is an aspect of a god named ‘All That Is’ – to the detriment of the body – and an actual freedom from the human condition which values salubrious physical existence and peace-on-earth in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body. <...> Perhaps you might like to reconsider the position you may have inadvertently taken? * RESPONDENT: The position I take has not changed an iota. I take the position that your disciples are more interested in being right than being free; and that the cult they are subsequently developing is as irrelevant to Actual Freedom as any other religious doctrine. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... but perhaps upon sober reflection you might like to reconsider this ‘your disciples’ are the ‘inner priesthood’ of an ‘actualism cult’ which ‘inner divinity’ propagate ‘cultic communications’ as does ‘any other religious doctrine’ position which you may have inadvertently rigidly stuck to, eh? Because nowhere in all the latest responses of yours have you even come close to addressing the key point of this thread: ‘The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit’. Just as the previous respondent passed-up three opportunities to focus upon the one and only point I am making, so too have you chosen to discuss all manner of things rather than attend to this ‘Ancient Wisdom’. And, of course, you may respond to this E-Mail in any way you see fit – or not answer at all – but the one thing, and one thing only that this thread is about, is the central reason as to why there is no peace on earth after 3,000 to 5,000 years of enlightened wisdom. To wit: The ‘Ancient Wisdom’ licence says: it is okay to kill the body as you are not killing the person. JAMES: For what it’s worth, I didn’t find this ‘Mailing List in question’ to be un-moderated at all. RICHARD: It is definitely an un-moderated list ... all E-Mails posted are automatically duplicated and copies are sent out to all subscribers via a fully computerised process. No posts are viewed, let alone vetted, by a human before release for mass publication. JAMES: I found it to be extremely moderated seeing as how I wasn’t free to be there unless I wanted to be a true-believing Actualist who practices Actualism. RICHARD: It would appear that you are tilting against what may seem to be an insurmountable problem for some people: a name, a classification, a descriptive label. However, it is impossible to be ‘a true-believing Actualist who practices Actualism’ because belief – the very activity of believing per se – prevents one from ever being an actualist and thus blocks one from ever experiencing what actualism is all about. Perhaps some dictionary definitions (which is where the names originate) will throw some light upon the matter for you? Viz.: • materialism (noun): the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications and that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies: materialist (noun): an adherent of materialism: materialistic (adjective): pertaining to, characterised by, or devoted to materialism. • spiritualism (noun): the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality; any philosophical or religious doctrine stressing the importance of spiritual as opposed to material things: spiritualist (noun): an adherent of spiritualism who regards or interprets things from a spiritual point of view: spiritualistic (adjective): of or pertaining to spiritualism. • actualism (noun): the theory that nothing is merely passive (now rare): actualist (noun): an advocate of actualism: actualistic (adjective): of the nature of actualism. In the English language, the application of ‘-ist’ and ‘-ism’ has a very common usage ... it enables someone to say, for example, ‘I am an artist’ or ‘I am a scientist’ or ‘I am a pianist’ or ‘I am an atheist’ or ‘I am a communist’ or ‘I am an actualist’ (and so on) and ‘I am studying feudalism’ or ‘I am learning about existentialism’ or ‘I am interested in relativism’ or ‘I am exploring actualism’ (and so on). It may be helpful to give an example of how this simplification into a single word, of what would otherwise be a long-winded description each time one talked about oneself and one’s interests, actually works in practise ... when I first wrote to this Mailing List over two and a half years ago the following exchange took place: • [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body is very simple. It is the identity that is complex ... because it is a mental-emotional construct. Being thus imaginary, it can be almost infinitely complex. • [Respondent No. 20]: ‘What is flesh and blood about the mind? • [Richard]: ‘If by ‘the mind’ you mean ‘consciousness’ – as in being awake and conscious as compared with being asleep or unconscious – then it is very much a product of flesh and blood. When the body dies, consciousness dies. Death is the end. Finish. • [Respondent No. 20]: ‘Are you a materialist? Certainly all evidence points to the dependence of mind on body, but that does not mean that the one is the other. I am dependent on eating food, but I am not the food. • [Richard]: ‘Well, speaking personally, I am indeed the food. I come out of the ground in the form of carrots, lettuce, celery, and etcetera. When I eat cheese, it is made from milk which the cow produces by eating grass – which comes out of the ground. The same goes for eggs and meat ... everything edible. This body is, literally, of the ground. Along with water, sunlight and air, everything comes out of the ground – from this very earth under my feet. As this earth is hanging in space, then it is clear that I am made of the very stuff of the physical universe. I was not created ‘outside’ of this universe by some mysterious god and planted ‘in’ here for some inscrutable reason. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. I am this body only ... and this body is of this physical universe. If that makes me a ‘materialist’ then so be it ... I am certainly not a ‘spiritualist’. However, I find the word ‘materialist’ too restrictive, for it implies deadness, inertness. I would rather call myself an ‘actualist’. An actualist is a person who sees that matter is not merely passive. (Richard, List B, No. 20, 15 February 1998). (http://flp.cs.tu-berlin.de:1895/listening-l/html/archive9802/msg01181.html). I am only too happy to expand on this subject if the above explanation leaves you unsatisfied ... after all it was me who chose the names ‘actualist’ and ‘actualism’ out of the dictionary when I first started writing about my discovery that there is an actual world right under everybody’s nose, as it were. This actual world is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) in all its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity. This actual world is where everything and everybody has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. There is an actual intimacy with everything – the rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper – literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence – the actualness of everything and everybody – for one is not living in an inert universe. Speaking personally, I am very happy to call myself an actualist ... and I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism. JAMES: I don’t see anything free or un-moderated about that. RICHARD: It may be worth your while to subscribe to a moderated list so as to experience its censorship first-hand; you will possibly find the experience brain-numbing ... and thus eye-opening. I consider that un-moderated mailing lists are second to none in regards to an egalitarian sharing of a breadth of experience and thought. The ‘free for all’ approach – reminiscent of parliamentary privilege – allows for an uninhibited expression and questioning in that discussion cannot devolve into the scratching, clawing, wrestling, fisticuffs or whatever other way peoples traditionally go about their search for freedom, peace and harmony. The free-flow of information – instantly – is what the internet is all about. JAMES: ... I speak with personal experience because I have been in two cults in the past. One of them was very similar to this one which is why I think I initially identified with this one so well. I have extreme reservations about sending this to this list because I am sure it will be denied ... RICHARD: Yes, as I understand it, from the information provided to this Mailing List by several concerned people, I cannot know that it is a cult because I am in denial ... so, given that you too see that I am in denial (‘I am sure it will be denied’ ), perhaps you can throw a little light on the matter for me if I share with you something from my personal life that I am currently involved in up to my neck (some would say obsessed with). Four-five years ago I purchased a computer for the first time: at the time I considered it a major achievement if I could manage to get cash out of an ATM and I was incapable of tuning my TV and VCR (I arranged to get them tuned from the shop I purchased them from as part of the deal) so I searched around for someone who demonstrably knew about computing and who was willing to share their expertise with me. So as to ensure anonymity I will call the person I found ‘Rachael’ and the name of the small company she was a director of ‘Bootstrap Computers’: I came to look upon Rachael as my mentor as she was only too happy to take the time to coach me through, not only the early stages of learning about the computer’s software programmes, but even through the more advanced stages wherein, thanks to her guidance and tutelage, I was coming into direct contact with the deeper aspects of the (to me at least) arcane world of computer hardware. For the sake of convenience she called the system she had devised to assist people like me ‘bootstrapism’ and digitally provided brochures, pamphlets, articles and books (there are even two that are for sale in paper-back form). However, I have since found out – the more I became drawn into the intricacies of the computer condition – that not only was there a coterie that had formed around Rachael and the Bootstrap Computers organisation – but that I was starting to use the same-same lingo as all these other bootstrapists that she had sucked into her ... dare I say it ... her cult. And to think that all this was because I was ignorant enough to take advice from another – to follow another’s advice – instead of starting off from scratch (painting symbols on cave walls with various iron oxides and subsequently inventing pencils, pens, paper, typewriters and thence computers) in isolation from my fellow human beings. Now, here is my problem: I have confronted her again and again – I have even hurled gutter invective against her and/or her followers using all the satirical criticism I can muster – but she steadfastly maintains that bootstrapism is not a cult and that she is not a cult-leader ... and not even unknowingly a cult-leader being deviously used by her followers at that. Obviously, seeing that she denies all the charges levelled against her, she is in denial too. What should I do ... especially as I still want to learn about computers? (Richard, Actual Freedom List, James, 12 July 2001). RESPONDENT: Cute. Well written. I enjoyed reading it immensely. RICHARD: I am pleased to see that you enjoyed it ... but perhaps you might like to expand a little on why? After all, my co-respondent presently seems to be inclined towards writing on another mailing list, about more important matters, rather than continuing to throw some light on why it is that I am in denial about actualism being a cult. This is what I have managed to ascertain so far as proofs of cultism: 1. Actualism is a cult because the word has ‘-ism’ at the end of it. 2. Actualism is a cult because a handful of people want to be free of the human condition. There was a stage where it appeared that speaking the same lingo might be a proof but that one has sort of fizzled-out ... plus it is not clear whether not being able to belong here (on this Mailing List) is a proof or not. Needless to say I am currently still in denial. IRENE: Now, although you may be convinced that Richard is not an authority for you (‘because he says so himself’) why don’t your words and attitude bear that out? Why do you put into practice his methods, aim for the state he is in, defend him and criticise others using his words and phraseology and prove him to be right by your own experiences? Is it possible that you may not be aware that this is actually the classic indication of following an authority? The ‘born-again’ Christians show the same behaviour, so did most of the German subjects of Hitler, or Sannyasins or ‘students’ of Barry Long, Andrew Cohen, Adida (or whatever his name is this week!) etc. PETER: I find it amazing that you of all people would wheel out this thorny old accusation of us being mere blind followers of a Divine Master (I assume that was what was meant by the use of bold letters in the passage above) and that you further equate this with following Hitler. It is really quite a simple matter for me. Throughout my life I have tried to make sense of being a human being on the planet, why we humans are as we are, and how I could find a way to be free of fear, which I have experienced as the ground of all malice and sorrow. I rejected the claims of the spiritual freedoms as I discovered that they involved a swanning off into an imaginary inner world of love and bliss. Then I came across a man and a woman about my age who had obviously taken their investigations much further than I had, so I thought what they were saying was worth checking out. Now I was at a stage that I wouldn’t have cared who was offering this different approach (man or woman – in fact I got as much from you as I did from Richard in the early days). I liked how Richard was as a human being – happy and harmless – and I liked how he was with you (and how you were with him) and decided to test out his words rather than merely believe him. The point was he was saying something different than all the other Gurus, he had nothing to hide and would talk and discuss anything. There was nothing unspoken, nothing sacred or secret. Given that I had followed a few Masters and discovered first hand the duplicity and deceit, the power and authority, the surrender and blind trust of disciple-hood and its consequences, I was wary in the extreme of Guru-ship. I had looked up to them (and loved them) as Mentors, wise men and someone to emulate in my life. But after 16 years I could no longer turn away from how they were as men, how they were with women, sex and power. The last thing I wanted was to be an Enlightened One – they were not worthy of emulation as I had a few ‘backstage’ glimpses of their ‘private’ life in my time. What impressed me most at the time was the obvious peace and harmony that existed between you two and the depths of investigation you had undertaken into the Human Condition of malice and sorrow. So check it out I did and was so impressed that it worked that I wanted to write a journal of my process in case someone else was interested. I have not heard even you deny that I now live in peace and harmony with Vineeto, but then again you will probably say we are only pretending. That you have now turned away from what you experienced and talked to me about for hours and hours is your business. I simply see that you abandoned the chance for peace and harmony and equity for love, sorrow and woman’s liberation. The concept of Guru-ship and Divine Masters is so ingrained in us as to forever hobble us to their energy and power, and blind us to the consideration of something genuine, something free of power and authority. I know personally as I had to battle and eliminate in me the subtle (and often not so subtle) seduction of becoming yet another authority, yet another saviour. Actual freedom is not about surrendering your will to some higher authority, quite the opposite if you read the words. One needs all the will one can muster to go against all that has been held to be wise or sacred up until now. IRENE: Well-executed lyrics learnt by rote were performed smugly by the 3 chief-disciples in turn, not only boring like hell because of the predictable repetitiveness but alienating in no uncertain terms the other 3 people present, including the hostess ... whom you all failed to acknowledge even politely, but simply used as your servant only and a pair of ears... I couldn’t help but noticing the austere and churchlike atmosphere you four people were intent on creating ... <snip> This way of zealously‘ winning souls’ for the greater glory of the man who originated the sect or religion or way of life, is so typical and predictable for all new sects, and something so obvious to everybody else. The new disciples themselves are usually unaware of their fanaticism, yet instantly rail against it when recognising it in disciples of other masters... and as you well know Peter, that is exactly the sure-fire way to war, that you and I would like so much to replace with peace amongst people ... if I take your words sincerely? PETER: I was confused by your last letter to me as it didn’t gel with last time we hung out together. What is it that seems to offend you about people claiming to be happy and harmless and then trying to seduce other people into maybe trying it? As one of those people trying to do it I can tell you it is a strange business (albeit a part time one – maybe a couple of hours a day, whichever day), because all you get is objections. The fun bit for me is to try and tickle my way around their defences and see that being alive is not such a bad thing after all, to meet the happy and innocent person. And maybe get them to consider even to enjoy being here, and then maybe to be happy, and maybe become concerned as to not cause ‘ripples’ for others. Given that it does mean dropping both learned and instinctual behaviour and self, I have come to understand that the very nature of what I am saying is confrontational and anathema to the ‘self’. I have also discovered that my happiness does not depend at all on others, it’s just a bonus to see a bit more happiness and common sense in the world and a bit more peace and harmony. RESPONDENT: My intention in short is to assist in the cult-busting of actualism. That is because in my perception you, Peter of Byron, are immersed in a ‘mini-cult’ after managing to extricate yourself from a larger one. I surmise this from – amongst other indicators – the fact that you always react to what I write, with an indignant re-statement of your self-perceived authority to declare with finality what is actual and what is not. PETER: Cult-busting hey. Well, this is encouraging news. The objectors to actualism are progressing by leaps and bounds. When I first came across Richard he had just finished writing his journal – the first-ever account of actualism and an actual freedom from the human condition. Some months later he started writing on a mailing list notching up all sorts of objections including ‘being a Guru without a following’. The next year I wrote the first-ever account of becoming virtually free of malice and sorrow and then Vineeto and I began writing on mailing lists only to be accused of being disciples of a Guru. A few years and a few million words later, we now have a well-catalogued website, and a flourishing mailing list. In one of No. 8’s latest objections she has had to expand her list of actualists to include a few more people and suddenly we are a cult – albeit a mini-cult, as you rightly observed. Thus a one-man show has now grown to cult status in a only a few years. Given this exponential growth, the mini-cult will in due course become a full-blown cult and then we would have a whole lot of people being happy and harmless. Eventually things could really get out of hand and equanimity, fellowship and co-operation would gradually replace suspicion, competition and conflict in many parts of the world. Over the years, lawyers, courts, police and armies would slowly but surely become a thing of the dark past of history. Religion and superstition would wilt and expire for want of customers as it became increasingly hopeless trying to sell the notion that peace on earth is unattainable as more and more humans began to directly experience the already existing peace on earth. As the years tick by, the cult-busters will fight a recalcitrant rear-guard battle but their cause will be hopelessly hampered by suspicion, competition and conflict – the very characteristics of the same outmoded human condition they desperately desire to preserve. Ultimately altruism will emerge triumphant and perfect peace and harmonial happiness will prevail but should it not, for whatever reason, we alliterative actualists will have unreservedly lived life to the full – free of malice and sorrow. As you yourself observed, there is no malice and sorrow in the actual world – in clouds, rain, sunshine, trees, grass. The feeling of malice and the feeling of sorrow only exist in the heads and hearts of human beings and a way has now been discovered to eliminate it. If you are sincere in having absorbed and understood Richard’s insights, I am befuddled as to why you would want to devote your life to busting the cult, as in – ‘a fashionable enthusiasm’ (Oxford Dictionary) of the happy and harmless. It is as futile an exercise as being angry at the rain or feeling sad while watching a sunset. RESPONDENT No. 40: Byron Bay is the funny farm town of Australia, famed for its crack pots and old hippy nutters. So whenever I tell my Aussie friends about Richard in Byron Bay they promptly turn off ‘He’s crazy!’ they laugh ‘Byron Bay is the Mecca for weirdo’s and cult members, there’s hundreds of people like him living there’ and refuse to discuss it further. Now one would think that if someone ‘Actually Cares’ about his fellow man – as much as Richard rubs in that he does compared to our lousy love – and really has found a third alternative, offering freedom from malice and sorrow, he need only move a few hours up the coast to Surfers Paradise or Brisbane to be free of Byron Bay’s stigma, and gain credibility. But perhaps his war pension can only afford Byron Bay’s dole bludger rents or he is emotionally attached to the hippy town. RESPONDENT: This is interesting information, about the conglomeration of old hippies in Byron Bay. RICHARD: If only it were ‘information’ that is. However, the ‘conglomeration of old hippies’ is not in Byron Bay but in an inland town called Nimbin in a neighbouring shire (‘shire’ is equivalent to ‘county’ in the US). Byron Bay is a seaside holiday destination for families in tents or caravans; for backpackers in youth hostels or bed-and-breakfast accommodation; for media personalities or business executives in up-market hotels or motels; for musicians and artists of all disciplines; for retirees seeking the warmer clime ... and for what the regular society call the ‘lunatic fringe’. What happened was that, whilst the ‘sixties generation of hippies headed for Nimbin and other places north and south throughout the lush hinterland, the surfies discovered Byron Bay ... thus putting it on the map and instigating the change-over from the sleepy backwater it was into the cosmopolitan playground it is today. What does give Byron Bay its ‘Mecca for weirdo’s and cult members’ reputation is that in the ‘seventies and ‘eighties New Age angelic beings, religious fanatics, spiritual seekers, mystical meditators and devotees of eastern gurus from all places on the globe inundated the village with all manner of esotericism: shamanistic, ritualistic, cultic, occult and arcane rehashes of the ‘Tried and True’ solutions to all the ills of humankind. As Byron Bay has a sub-tropical climate, it is a must on the guru circuit during the northern hemisphere winters: many a god and goddess has graced this village with their sacred presence this last decade. Now, of course some of these metaphysicalist’s were hippies before they saw the light – before they trekked eagerly to the Himalayas and other points east seeking the permanent high – but, by and large, an ageing hippie rarely resides here ... not to mention the next generation who has embraced the inexplicable so gullibly. Because, be they young or old, New Age or spiritual, feral or hippie, mostly they do not want to actually live here – generally they scorn Byron Bay for being ‘commercial’ or ‘a tourist trap’ or ‘over-developed’ and so on – and live in the hills and valleys away from the coast ... coming into town once a fortnight to hand in their social security forms (those who do not grow their money deep in the rain-forest) and to congregate at the latest brasserie for cocktails. It is also cheaper to live in the hills as the price of land, houses and rents in Byron Bay is very, very high due to the fact that the town is built between a headland and an encircling swampland that does not allow for expansion ... plus there is a total ban on any building being higher than three stories (there is a two-moratorium on new development approvals currently in force). RESPONDENT: I wonder if Richard has assumed the role of a cult leader there? RICHARD: Ha ... from the hippie viewpoint I have ‘sold-out’ on the ‘sixties dream of communal living on a commune in the wilderness: I live in a suburban three-bedroom brick-veneer duplex; I have a colour TV and VCR in the lounge room with a typical lounge-suite and trimmings (and dining suite and bedroom suite and so on) and, although I worked at many jobs throughout my life (my main career was as a practicing artist plus being a qualified art teacher) I am now retired and living on a hard-won pension. I stroll into the village centre for a bite to eat at the local restaurants and sup the froth off a cappuccino at one of the numerous sidewalk cafés maybe four or five times a week and generally lead what could be called a quiet domestic suburban life-style (I rarely socialise and weeks can go by without anyone visiting). I am a teetotaller (no mood-enhancing or mind-altering drugs whatsoever) and instead of pottering around in the garden I am currently pottering around the internet sharing my experience of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being in the way I see fit. Indeed, I have written before to this mailing list that I do not want anybody coming to me – for their own freedom – as I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples, who cannot think for themselves, trooping daily through my front door. The Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there is actually a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... there is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here. The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: He does seem to fit some of the profile of a cult leader described in a book by Madeleine Tobais and Janja Lalich. It’s a 1994 book on cults and abusive relationships by Ron Keller, www.skeptictank.org/what.htm : RICHARD: I accessed the URL you provided only to find nothing – absolutely nothing – that even remotely applies to anything I have ever written ... quite the obverse, in fact. Viz.: • [Quote]: ‘The Skeptic Tank maintains extensive archives on destructive groups, individuals, and ideologies with special focus on religion’s impact upon history as well as religion’s impact upon rights, liberties, health, and safety of the world’s populace in contemporary times. Newspaper articles and information about various groups and individuals and their destructive ideology-driven activities are provided upon request free of charge to serve the community ... The Skeptic Tank also maintains as a primary focus the scientific debunking of claims of the paranormal. This includes all testable claims of the paranormal from aliens in flying saucers to vague, ill-defined conspiracies ... These two areas of focus are somewhat diametrically opposed in some ways. Religion’s venue is with claims that are untestable (always factless) whereas claims of the paranormal are usually testable using scientific method to derive the closest approximation of truth that is possible’ [endquote]. I see that the author is targeting the metaphysical claims – with ‘scientific debunking’ – that can be tested whilst fully acknowledging that that the ‘factless’ metaphysical claims which cannot be tested can only be exposed by the publication of their ‘destructive ideology-driven activities’. As I am on record, over and again, of saying: [Richard]: ‘I am only ever interested in facts and actuality’; (Richard, Konrad Correspondence, Page Thirteen, 6 November 1998) [Richard]: ‘this actual world of the senses is an ambrosial paradise’; (Richard, List B, Gary, 22 November 1999) [Richard]: ‘I am a thorough-going atheist through and through’; (Richard, List B, No. 8, 10 December 1998) [Richard]: ‘All gods and goddesses are a figment of passionate human imagination’; (Richard, List B, No. 36, 24 September 1999) [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘Intelligence’ running this universe’; (Richard, List B, No. 36, 24 September 1999) [Richard]: ‘This universe has always been here and always will be ... it has no need for a creator’; (Richard, List B, No. 19, 20 February 1998) [Richard]: ‘I am a fellow human being sans identity who is neither ‘normal’ nor ‘divine’ and so on, (Richard, List B, No. 36, 24 September 1999) I cannot see how any of this applies to me. I pinpoint the instinctual passions and advocate unilateral action ... indeed the URL you provided goes on to acknowledge the animal heritage. Viz.: • [Quote]: ‘From a historical perspective it can be undeniably stated that history teaches us that history teaches us nothing ... that we are doomed to repeat history regardless of whether we learn the history of the world or not. It’s also undeniably true that human nature, imbued upon the species through its evolutional development, seems Hell-bent upon wilful self-deception and wilful self-destruction ... Nothing I could ever say or do can squelch Mankind’s destructive dark side’ [endquote]. Needless to say, the URL you provided goes on to present an ancient myth and/or legend as a possible ‘solution’ (if hope can be considered a valid solution) yet the following words are highlighted and underlined for emphasis: • [quote]: ‘I know of no more worthwhile effort than exposing destructive beliefs and ideologies and working to educate ignorance out of existence’ [endquote]. Even so, after having read all that, you still considered it necessary to say that Richard ‘does seem to fit some of the profile of a cult leader’ ... and then proceed to provide a copy of all manner of things relating to [quote]: ‘the cult leader ... the psychopath ... who presents himself as the ‘Ultimate One’: enlightened, a vehicle of god, a genius, the leader of humankind, and sometimes the most humble of the humble ... the living embodiment of God’s love’ [endquote]. If I may point out? It was not me who said: • [quote]: ‘To discover God or truth – and I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it – to recognise that, to realise that, mind must be free of all the hindrances which have been created throughout the ages’. [endquote]. (‘The Book Of Life: Daily Meditations With J. Krishnamurti’, December Chapter. Published by Harper, San Francisco. Copyright ©1995 Krishnamurti Foundation of America). And, again, it was not me who said: • [quote]: ‘I have never said there is no god, I have said there is only god as it is manifest within you. But I will not use the word ‘god’ ... I prefer to call it ‘life’ ... you ask me: Who are you? I am everything, since I am life’. [endquote]. ‘Krishnamurti: The Years Of Awakening’ Mary Lutyens (p282); Avon Books, New York, 1991. And, again, it was not me who said: • [quote]: ‘To me there is God, a living eternal reality. But this reality cannot be described; each one must realise it for himself. And anyone who tries to imagine what God is, what truth is, is but seeking an escape, a shelter from the daily routine of conflict’. [endquote]. ‘Collected Works’; Volume One (p 205); Kendall/Hunt Publications; New York 1980. And, again, it was not me who said: • [quote]: ‘For seventy years that super-energy – no – that immense energy; immense intelligence, has been using this body. I don’t think people realise what tremendous energy and intelligence went through this body. ... You won’t find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence, operating in a body for many hundred years. You won’t see it again. When he goes, it goes. ... There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. ... And so that’s that’. [endquote]. ‘Two Birds On One Tree’; © Ravi Ravindra; 1995; (pp 45-46). Published by Quest Books. And, again, it was not me who said: • [quote]: ‘Is the observer different at all? Or is he essentially the same as the observed? If he is the same, then there is no conflict, is there? Then intelligence operates and not conflict. ... Only when intelligence operates will there be peace, the intelligence that comes when one understands there is no division between the observer and the observed. The insight into that very fact, that very truth, brings this intelligence. This is a very serious thing ... there is no outside authority, nor inward authority. The only authority then is intelligence’. [endquote]. ‘Total Freedom’ (p-262) from talks in Saanen 1974. © 1996 Krishnamurti Foundation of America and Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd.; All rights reserved; Published by HarperSanFrancisco. When you read that last, short sentence (‘the only authority then is intelligence’) he is clearly designating ‘intelligence’ (otherwise known as ‘god’ or ‘truth’ or ‘otherness’ or ‘that which is sacred, holy’ and so on) as being ‘the only authority’ is he not? Yet, despite all that you have read and exchanged E-Mails about over the years, you considered it necessary to say that Richard ‘does seem to fit some of the profile of a cult leader’ ... and then proceeded to provide a copy of all manner of things relating to [quote]: ‘the cult leader ... the psychopath ... who presents himself as the ‘Ultimate One’: enlightened, a vehicle of god, a genius, the leader of humankind, and sometimes the most humble of the humble ... the living embodiment of God’s love’ [endquote] ... even though Richard acknowledges no authority whatsoever other than the readily observable facts and actuality of the physical world. Upon sober reflection, perhaps you might care to reconsider your – maybe rash – allegations? * RESPONDENT: Richard, the ‘allegations’ are just the facts that you do fit the profile of a cult leader as outlined in the summary of the profile of a cult leader by Ron Keller which is where I found the URL. RICHARD: In your initial post you said that Richard ‘does seem to fit some of the profile of a cult leader’ so I provided a detailed reply examining your allegations ... with the end result that you now say ‘the ‘allegations’ are just the facts that you do fit the profile of a cult leader as outlined’. I now ask how, as a result of my detailed reply, your ‘does seem to’ has become ‘you do’ and your ‘fit some of the profile’ has now become ‘you do fit the profile’? What I am getting at, in case it is not obvious, is that your allegations that I may be a psychopathic cult leader, an ‘enlightened vehicle of god and god’s love’ etc., are now not only being reaffirmed but you go further and are now stating that I am a psychopathic cult leader. RESPONDENT: Yes, I suppose you could say that Krishnamurti may fit that profile because he said that an immense energy used his body. No biggie. RICHARD: If I may point out? I was not saying that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was a psychopathic cult leader at all ... that is what you make of it. I provided those quotes to demonstrate the central point, which both the 15 point quote from 1994 book on cults and abusive relationships you copy-pasted and the URL you provided were clearly saying, as to what is required for a cult and a cult leader. To wit: [quote]: ‘the cult leader ... the psychopath ... presents himself as the ‘Ultimate One’: enlightened, a vehicle of god, a genius, the leader of humankind, and sometimes the most humble of the humble ... the living embodiment of God’s love’ [endquote]. And I provided those quotes directly after quoting myself, as a contrast so that you may see for yourself, stating that I am on record, over and again, of saying: [Richard]: ‘I am only ever interested in facts and actuality’; [Richard]: ‘this actual world of the senses is an ambrosial paradise’; [Richard]: ‘I am a thorough-going atheist through and through’; [Richard]: ‘All gods and goddesses are a figment of passionate human imagination’; [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘Intelligence’ running this universe’; [Richard]: ‘This universe has always been here and always will be ... it has no need for a creator’; [Richard]: ‘I am a fellow human being sans identity who is neither ‘normal’ nor ‘divine’ ... and so on. I cannot see how any of this applies to me. I pinpoint the instinctual passions and advocate unilateral action. Apparently you still do not see it: as a supposed non-follower of a supposed non-guru – who required that you listen totally to his words with all of your being – why is it that you see Richard, a declared atheist proposing unilateral action, as a psychopathic cult leader? RESPONDENT: I certainly didn’t mean you any harm, and I’m sorry if you felt any. RICHARD: I am not interested in apologies – apologies are worthless – as I am only interested in you soberly reflecting upon what you are saying and then possibly reconsidering not only your allegations that I may be a psychopathic cult leader, an ‘enlightened vehicle of god and god’s love’ etc., but your – perhaps rash – statement that I am a psychopathic cult leader. JAMES: Hi Gary, Long time no talk. In one of your recent posts you stated that you had looked into it and that this is not a cult. Everything you said above could have Richard’s, Peter’s, Vineeto’s or Alan’s name on it and I could not tell the difference. VINEETO: Your comment is a timely reminder that anybody who has tasted the actual world most usually can report about it in the same unambiguous and factual way, so there is no need or reason for me to write – I can simply follow my whim, telling my story or playing elsewhere. I do find it amazing though that you could not tell the difference between the various writings as I experience quite a difference in style from Richard, Peter, Gary and Alan. However, that is perhaps more considering the details rather than the first raw impression. Similarly, black people or Chinese people look all alike to a white man until one has closer contact with some individuals and can determine the particular features and nuances in their faces. JAMES: This is a sure sign of a cult to me. VINEETO: Your conclusion you draw from your initial observation seems rather curious to me. Are you saying that when five people state the same fact, they automatically belong to a cult? Outside my window grows a lovely thick six-metre high palm tree, at least 100 years old. Now if a group of ten people gathered around that palm tree and nine of them would say ‘this is a palm tree’ and one of them would say, ‘this is a goddess’ – are the nine people then members of a palmism cult and the one who sees a goddess is the true individual? Unfortunately this example is no mere invention. In fact, most people I have talked to believe in some kind of spirit or disembodied divinity that manifests in trees, rocks, mountains and in some special human beings. Curiously enough there are only very few people who are ready to investigate this notion of divinity as being a belief arising out of their own instinctual programming. And even more curious – exactly those few daring individuals are then accused of belonging to a cult. Not that I mind that you see me belonging to be cult – I have belonged to a notorious cult for 17 years – and now I am considered belonging to the cult of the happy and harmless. I am simply suggesting broadening your perspective so as to facilitate having a glimpse of how I am experiencing this marvellous universe. Isn’t listening seeing with another’s eyes? Upon closer inspection you may be shocked to discover that an actualist is completely and utterly on his or her own – for the first time in one’s life. JAMES: Here is one example: ‘And the pioneering discovery of Actual Freedom is that the sense of being can be eliminated, extirpated in toto.’ VINEETO: Your example of Gary saying that ‘that the sense of being can be eliminated, extirpated in toto’ is simply him stating a fact, just as Richard or Peter do. Everyone who has had a self-less pure consciousness experience can verify by their own temporary experience the fact that it is indeed not only possible but utterly delicious to live without a self. I admit, it’s a scary fact that such self-less existence is a permanent possibility, but it nevertheless has been proven to be a fact. JAMES: I speak with personal experience because I have been in two cults in the past. One of them was very similar to this one which is why I think I initially identified with this one so well. VINEETO: I wonder if you would like to share where you see the similarities and significant qualities of the two cults, and how they compare with actualism. And one more question, if I may – do you consider Krishnamurtiism to be a cult? I am asking because I have been a very committed member of a cult myself and in that period I completely ignored and denied that I should belong to a cult. As a sannyasin I believed that only jealous old-time religious people considered us to be a cult and that I was part of a movement that was to change the world and bring about the New Man. After Rajneesh had died, I began more and more to blame the obvious flaws of Rajneeshism on my fellow followers and the organization for diluting and blemishing His Message until it finally dawned on me that it is the Message itself that was to blame for the failure and not the followers. Actualism is not a message for me but a method, a recipe, if you will – and it works. By experiencing the success of my own effort in applying the simple recipe I am at the same time autonomous – not dependent upon the discoverer of the recipe but guided by my own pure consciousness experiences. My own experience of ongoing happiness and harmlessness confirms the fact that the recipe incrementally delivers what it promises – peace on earth. * JAMES: Hi Vineeto, I feel like I totally don’t belong here and don’t want to be here and that I am not welcome here as I have no intention of being a bonafide actualist. However, I am curious about this belonging issue. Can you shed some light on belonging such as which instinct that it is associated with, etc.? VINEETO: Since asking me about instinctual passions, you have posted the following to the list. Viz: [Respondent No 23]: Hi James, is it true that you only want to talk to the head of the cult? [James]: I wouldn’t say I only want to talk to the head of the cult. I thought I would try and talk to Vineeto until I read her reply to Gary just now and she sounded like a complete robot. It made me realize why I don’t feel like I belong here. [endquote]. I do find it intriguing that, first asking me about instinctual passions, you now consider me ‘a complete robot’, as a real robot, being just a machine, does not know about feelings, emotions and passions. However, as you have asked, I will give you my two cents on my experience with ‘this belonging issue’. All my life I wanted and needed to belong – to a family, a country, a group of mates, a boyfriend, a political movement, a therapy group and, most dedicated of all, a spiritual movement. When I had a strong sense of belonging to one particular spiritual group – Rajneeshees – I began to question other groups, religions and tribes I had belonged to before, thinking I was doing great liberating investigation. However only when I questioned the act of believing itself, which is the cornerstone of belonging to any spiritual movement, did I come to realise that all my questioning of belonging so far had not even scratched the surface of my identity. Investigating the act of believing itself, of course, brought up all kinds of fears, the strongest of which was that then I would not belong to anyone or any group – I would be on my own. As I said to Gary, when I was questioning my spiritual belief of being a Sannyasin there was great concern that I did not replace one belief with another – I wanted something tangible, stable, permanent, something that I would never ever have to question again, something that did not depend on me believing in it to be true. Therefore I had to investigate my emotional reactions to stepping out of that protective group as I was leaving behind all my friends, my spiritual identity as a Rajneeshee and the security of feeling as though I belonged to a close-knit community. Those emotional reactions were not only my fear of being lonely and unprotected, but I was also haunted by my own adopted spiritual morals and ethics – was I doing the ‘right’ thing?, would I be punished if there was a God or an afterlife?, what if I was wrong and Rajneesh was right?, who am I to decide the ‘right’ path? ... and so on. It was just as well that I did not blame Richard or Peter – or actualism per se – for these fears and distressing emotions that arose from my own questioning, otherwise I would have never been able to investigate my own spiritual values and my need to belong to a protective spiritual tribe. Now I belong to no group and to no one and by investigating not only my social identity of beliefs, morals and ethics but also my instinctual survival passions, I am leaving behind ‘who’ I thought and felt I was. For me, the notion that practicing actualism is the equivalent of belonging to a cult is complete and utter nonsense because by taking apart my social identity I am free from the debilitating need to belong to any group, family, nation, race and gender, and by investigating my instinctual passions I am free from the biggest club of all – humanity itself. Actualism is about becoming autonomous for the first time in one’s life. RESPONDENT: I notice something in the conversation between Vineeto and No 66. There is a camaraderie as in between I am already there but you are trying to be me, good. VINEETO: This is what camaraderie can mean – camaraderie – comradeship, companionship, brotherliness, fellowship, friendship, closeness, affinity, sociability. Oxford Thesaurus The only synonym for camaraderie that comes close to what is actually happening is ‘fellowship’, or better still ‘fellowship regard’. All I did in my post to No 66 was share my experiences with a fellow human being about becoming virtually free from malice and sorrow, just as I have shared my experiences with you only two days ago about investigating the feelings that prevent one from being happy and harmless. The only difference is that No. 66 appreciates this sharing due to his interest in the topic whereas you seem intent on putting your own ‘spin’ on things based solely upon your own feelings. RESPONDENT: Or from No 66’s side, hey shucks you are there, I am getting there mommy, say cheese. VINEETO: You already made your feelings unambiguously clear that you find No 66’s behaviour ‘reprehensible’ – [James]: I make no bones about the fact that I find No 66’s looking for affirmation for his food habits reprehensible. My tongue-in-cheek comment about the non-actualist diet was just that, it was not an allegation by any stretch of imagination. Re: A 7 Week Hiatus, 24.1.2006 Repeating a feeling does not turn it into a fact – your insistence only indicates that you have not yet understood that peace on earth in this lifetime for this flesh and blood body entails changing one person and one person only – ‘me’– and as such what other people choose to do with their lives is entirely their business. RESPONDENT: It is all quite pathetic, this hierarchy business. VINEETO: If you had understood that peace on earth in this lifetime for this flesh and blood body entails changing one person and one person only – ‘me’ – and that *your freedom is in your hands and your hands alone*, then you would also comprehend that a hierarchy is only possible if your freedom is constrained by or is dependant upon someone else and whilst you may feel this to be the case a little research and some clear thinking about the matter will reveal that this is not the case. RESPONDENT: You know in Vipassana (as taught by Goenka), there are stages of seekers. And everybody is trying to attain the recognition as an advanced seeker from everybody else while in the meanwhile forgetting what the whole hoopla was about in the beginning (to be free from suffering and desire). VINEETO: Ah, I see now where your notion of hierarchy in actualism comes from. If you see similarities between the procedure of Vipassana, a Buddhist meditation technique devised to achieve an *imaginary* state of nirvana, and the method of actualism to become *actually* free from malice and sorrow then it is no wonder that you see actualism in terms of hierarchy and it is no wonder that you keep ignoring the fact that actualism is about autonomy, the very antithesis of the hierarchy that is inherent in all spiritual belief. RICHARD: (...) What follows is a clue as to why any and all persons illuding themselves they be actually free from the human condition eventually score a ‘fail’ upon closer examination. Viz.: • [Richard]: “(...) it would not be possible, surely, to consistently fake a total absence of ego-centricity/ self-centricity/ auto-centricity (i.e.: no ego/no self; no soul/no spirit; no guardian/no social identity) – let alone a total absence of affective feelings (no emotions/ passions/ affections at all), a total absence of pathetic temperament (no moods/ humors/ sentiments whatsoever), a total absence of hedonic-tone (no hedonistic pleasure or displeasure) and a total absence of flattened affect even – and yet also present complete contentment/ absolute fulfilment/ total satisfaction along with an utterly intimate disposition showing a generally cheerful character readily displaying a keen sense of humour, about life itself, twenty-four hours a day, day in and day out, for the remainder of one’s life. (No need to mention being purity personified, of course, as all of the aforementioned are already of sufficient impossibility for a feeling-being to fake)”. (Richard, List D, No. 15, 1 June 2013). Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: Here, ‘the tongue in cheek blesser’ differentiates Alan’s (now) confessed usage, ‘of Richard’s words to describe what (he) was experiencing – and vice-versa to pretend to experience what Richard describe of Richards words’, from the more sensible everyday usage of words’, to simply communicate. RICHARD: Give that the opening word “Here...” refers to “an expression of gratitude” (i.e., to an expression of felt thankfulness masquerading as an enunciation of qualitative appraisal per favour its transparently deliberate “actualist phraseology” contextual placement) then “the tongue in cheek blesser” does not differentiate any such thing and, instead, displays a lack of experiential familiarity with how appreciation in the actual world has the function of qualitative appraisal, and not that of feeling thankful, and is therefore expressed as such. RESPONDENT: As this clearly demonstrates cult-like behaviour, I seem to have achieved the objectives of the AF Trust, no? RICHARD: The role of The Actual Freedom Trust is, of course, unambiguously spelled-out and freely available for perusal on The Actual Freedom Trust website via left-clicking the link at the very bottom of the Home Page (videlicet: ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-2016). Viz.: • The legal entity, known officially as ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’, has one role and one role only: ‘To promulgate and promote the words and writings explicating the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice’. (Sundry, The Actual Freedom Trust). As yet another ‘cult-buster’ has taken it upon themselves to police a forum set-up to discuss what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – as if flagellating that expired equine all over again is periodically required to keep aspirants in line – it is surely pertinent to point out the impossibility of the third alternative to either spiritualism or materialism ever becoming a cult due to an actual freedom from the human condition being located in ‘Terra Actualis’ (i.e., outside of the human condition). In other words, it is only those ‘solutions’ to the human condition whose aims or goals lie within the human condition that can ever be either a cult or attract cult-like behaviour. * If nothing else the above rôle-disclosure at least solves the mystery as to what the motivation is for chiding other posters about utilising Richard’s words/ Richard’s phrases (even whilst liberally sprinkling same all throughout their own posts, of course, as such policing is of the ‘do as I say not what I do’ variety) and other similar botherer-type behaviours. Howsoever, it does little to illuminate the motivation for urging others to make the same mistake as them ... to wit: elevating the rotten-to-the-core identity into the position of being the [quote] “highest authority” [endquote]. Here is a recent instance (30 Jan 2016) of such elevation: • [Respondent]: [It should be remembered too, that the AF lingo, or narrative [sic], (however well crafted), serves only to point one in the right direction, until one becomes ‘free’ (out from control) and lives expertly well. It can do no more. It is not a prescriptive ideology or philosophy. Wrongly interpreted as such, it will inevitably confuse and frustrate. If over-laboured, or intellectualised, too, it will quickly degenerate into a purely feel good or escapist academic pursuit]. Definitions and comparisons can then unwittingly tie one in egotistical knots because one actually becomes *ones own highest authority*. • [Respondent No. 00]: This seems to be saying that getting tied into egotistical knots results from becoming “ones own highest authority” is that what you intended to say? • [Respondent]: No, [No. 00]. When one recognises the fact that *all normal people are their own highest authority* then there is nothing to egotistically defend. The “getting tied into egotistical knots” (danger), can result from not seeing that *one is actually the highest authority*, (by virtue of the fact that one has freedom of sensible choice and action). By all means listen to ‘experts’, (especially when they make sense), but definitions and comparisons when used as truths in formulae can degenerate into dogmatic weapons, in some imagined ideological or non-existent psychic battle. [emphases added]. (Message № 218xx). Plus an instance from over 15 years ago (27 Oct 2000) and originally from the ‘ListBot’ archives: From: [Respondent No. 49] To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...> Date: Fri 27/10/2000 9:55 PM Subject: Mindfulness not spiritual [...]. I am *my own highest authority* until I am actually free not enlightened. [...]. [emphasis added]. (Message № 21923, Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 3 February 2016, last Footnote). By way of contrast, here are two reports/ descriptions/ explanations pertaining to how that “highest authority” is rotten-to-the-core. Viz.: 22 Aug 1999: • [Richard]: “(...) by ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am defiled; by ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am corrupt through and through; by ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am perversity itself. No matter how sincerely and earnestly one tries to purify oneself, one can never succeed completely. The last little bit always eludes perfecting. By ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am rotten at the innermost core”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 7, 22 August 1999). 13 Oct 2002: • [Richard]: “In regards to your ‘rotten to the core’ observation: it is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) residing parasitically in all human beings who is rotten to the core; and it is this entity who stuffs up any lifestyle practice and/or political system – be it hunter-gather, agrarian, industrial or socialist, communist, capitalist and so on – no matter what ideals are propagated. Arguing one culture’s ideals over another culture’s ideals is a distraction away from the real culprit”. (Richard, List B, No. 39a, 13 October 2002). Lastly, here is a timely reminder, once again, which speaks to the pure consciousness experience (PCE) as being the ‘highest authority’ (to use that phraseology): • [Richard]: “(...) it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light [a.k.a. ‘highest authority’] ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path”. [square-bracketed insert added]. (Richard, Abditorium, Prima Facie Case). And that square-bracketed insert will be added to the original on The Actual Freedom Trust web site so there never be any need for anyone to entertain even the slightest doubt about it ever again. Actual Freedom Homepage
Commonly Raised Objections – Index | Frequently Flogged Misconceptions – Index | Frequently Asked Questions – Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Design, Richard's & Peter’s & Vineeto’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity