# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Buddhism Re: Actual sensations VERSUS Physical sensations RESPONDENT: Actual sensations VERSUS physical sensations. Would you consider sharing an explanation of the difference? RICHARD: Sure ... for a person living in this actual world (...) there is no difference betwixt the actual sensation of, say, these fingertips touching these keyboard keys and the physical sensation of same. RESPONDENT: Yes, this is what I mean by ‘unobjectified’ experience of sensations. RICHARD: G’day [No. 28], Your affirmative response above – in which your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] obviously refers to my report that there is no difference betwixt actual sensations and physical sensations – is at odds with what you wrote in your initial post of the 2nd of June 2012. For example: Under the heading ‘Physical Sensations’, you explain how physical sensations are [quote] ‘‘objectified’ phenomena, given ‘form’ by the mind, give a ‘name’ by the mind’ [endquote]. Under the heading ‘Actual Sensations’, you explain how actual sensations are [quote] ‘not given form nor name (like physical sensations), not objectified’ [endquote]. Thus you expressly differentiate actual sensations from physical sensations. To then say that my report of no difference betwixt them is what you mean by what you wrote, under the heading ‘Actual Sensations’, is a non-sequitur. * RICHARD: 2. Please note that the actual world (...) is invisible to all those 7.0 billion or so peoples currently informed by that [inner world/outer world] consensus reality ... RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: I am pleased you comprehend this salient fact. RESPONDENT: I understand that consensus reality is epidemic. I also understand how the use of language can play its part there. Something I’m trying to work on myself. RICHARD: Speaking personally, the use of language played no part whatsoever for the identity parasitically inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago (thus ‘he’ never worked on ‘himself’ in that regard) once ‘he’ sussed-out how that inner world/outer world consensus reality was of an affective/ psychic nature ... and how the sensate and cognitive faculties (sensuality and thinking) were needlessly copping the blame. RESPONDENT: Your use of ‘actual sensations’ versus ‘physical sensations’ which is equally difficult to see the difference for many. RICHARD: I cannot recall ever saying there is any difference – as there is none it would never have occurred to me to say so – which makes that above comment of yours a trifle curious. If you could provide a (suitably referenced) quote where I have ever said any such thing it would be most appreciated as I have also checked with Vineeto who (by virtue of her active involvement as webmaster, for more than a decade now, knows more about the particulars of my writings and where they are located on the website than probably any body on this planet including me) is as equally puzzled as to what could have prompted you to say ‘Your use of ...’. * RICHARD: ... and invisible, as in imperceptible/ indiscernible, not only ocularly but also aurally, olfactorily, gustatorily, cutaneously and proprioceptively as well. (Which means that only a handful of people alive today are capable of seeing me – the flesh-and-blood body typing these words – and/or hearing me, touching me, and so on, as a living actuality). RESPONDENT: What is it based on? RICHARD: It is based on the fact that this actual world (which, of course, includes every body and every thing in it) is invisible to the 7.0 billion or so identities parasitically inhabiting the 7.0 billion or so flesh-and-blood bodies currently estimated to be populating this planet. (It is those 7.0 billion or so identities who live in that inner world/outer world consensus reality previously referred to; the 7.0 billion or so flesh-and-blood bodies are already here in this actual world, of course, just as each and every one of them has been all along). During the 17+ years of being here on my own the only people who got to meet me, as an actuality, were those having a PCE whilst physically interacting; it was always quite an event, at the time, to have somebody ‘visit me’ (so to speak) for the duration of their PCE – all the while knowing their appearance here would be of a temporary nature – only to then witness the abeyant identity gradually reclaiming its host body as the PCE wore off. Ahh ... this is all such fun! * RESPONDENT: Different words for the same thing? RICHARD: No, not different words for the same thing; rather, they are the same words for a different thing (for an entirely different thing, in fact, to the point of it being 180 degrees opposite). RESPONDENT: Or something that does not match the on-going experience of continuous apperceptive awareness? RICHARD: Aye ... and, moreover, it is something that does not match the usage of the word ‘apperceptive’ as per the reports/ descriptions/ explanations on The Actual Freedom Trust website, either. RESPONDENT: So it doesn’t match this in your opinion? [Richard]: When one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum, just before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception), and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Pure perception is at that instant where one converges one’s eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing. It is that moment just before one focuses one’s feeling-memory on the object. It is the split-second just as one hedonically subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and segregating it from pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place sensitively just before one starts feeling the percept – and thus thinking about it affectively – which takes place just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ ... with all that is implied in this identification and the ramifications that stem from that. This fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness, which is not learned, has never been learned, and never will be learned, could be called an aesthetically sensual regardfulness or a consummate sensorial discernibleness or an exquisitely sensuous distinguishment ... in a word: apperceptiveness. (Taken from: Richard, Articles, Attentiveness, Sensuousness, Apperceptiveness). RICHARD: No, it does not match this (the above quote you have helpfully provided) – and that is not a matter of opinion (be it mine or otherwise) – as it is patently evident by your differentiating of actual sensations from physical sensations, in your initial post of the 2nd of June 2012, that it is not a case of different words for the same thing and how it is indeed something which does not match apperceptive awareness. * RESPONDENT: PS: On a more curious line of unobjectified, non-segregated thought, how would you describe the occurrence of ‘weeping for joy’ for Justine, a professed actually free person who you have claimed AF as well? RICHARD: Hmm ... I would, perhaps, be inclined to describe it as being ‘par for the course’ (for those first few, daring, pioneers) if the following extract from a private email Vineeto wrote to another in February last year is anything to go by. (It is an extract as I only have her permission to make it public on the proviso that certain personal details were snipped out). Viz.: [Vineeto]: ‘(...) before Richard left for India I experienced this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard (the word energy used in its general purpose sense) as being bathed in a delicious, delicate and appreciative intimacy, and Pamela reported the same. At one time, a couple of months ago, I experienced this immanence surrounding Richard as an over-whelming sweetness, so overwhelmingly sweet that tears were running down my face. At another time I experienced a tenderness so vast that I was speechless for a good time afterwards. Presently, I apperceptively experience this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard on a daily basis. Often I experience it as ambrosial in nature, of a quality that fills me with extraordinary delight and well-being, in a way that it makes every cell in my body hum with fulfilment as if a missing chemical has suddenly been added to each cell’s physical structure. I sometimes have a grin from ear to ear stitched on my face and even when just touching Richard’s little toe (for instance) it can fill me with an ambrosial gentleness. Other times this immanence was of a more expediently potentiating nature that furthered my progress to become fully actually free (...). This fine energy/gentle energy is unique to Richard – I have not experienced it with anyone else nor have heard anyone reporting that they experienced it around somebody other than Richard’. (Sunday, February 20, 2011 5:24 PM). Regards, Richard. * Re: Actual sensations VERSUS Physical sensations RESPONDENT: Thanks for the reply Richard. I guess we disagree and as I see it it is more a language issue than not. RICHARD: G’day No. 28, I would suggest you give up guessing as it is not the case that [quote] ‘we’ [endquote] disagree, on what does not match apperceptive awareness, because it is not a matter of opinion on my part as to what apperception is. Put succinctly, *you* disagree. And the peculiar thing about this disagreement of yours is that were it not for me you would have never, ever known about apperceptive awareness (and actual freedom and PCE’s and so on and so forth). It is weird, to the point of bizarrerie, that anyone would even begin to think they could know better than me just what the word apperception, as per its usage on The Actual Freedom Trust website, refers to. For just one (recent) example: I know for a fact – as a perpetual actuality – that apperceptive awareness is not ‘just a soup of sensations’ (as in ‘the end of name and form’ such as to be ‘without the concept of ‘soup’ overlaying it all’) in any way, manner or kind. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘This is what I consider ‘apperceptive’. (...). The end of name and form. Just a soup of sensations, without the concept of ‘soup’ overlaying it all. (...) a conscious functioning consciousness without ‘object’... booya’. (dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/3174815#_19_message_3178473). Furthermore, it is not a language issue on my part, either, as you have more than adequately conveyed just what your experience is, on various online forums, over an extended period. For instance, I followed your progress on your ‘Down The Rabbit Hole’ web log, since its inception on the 5th of April last year (2011), copy-pasting each instalment in sequence, as you posted them, into a long document on my hard drive so that I could scroll back up and refresh my memory, as to what you had posted before, so as to read in context. I also read your ‘Yogic Toolbox’ articles, copy-pasting them into the same folder on my hard drive where that ‘Down The Rabbit Hole’ document is located, as you were posting them online. I read what you had to write on DhO, copy-pasting any that particularly caught my attention, and followed-up on URL’s you provided there. I read what you had to write on KFD, again copy-pasting those which particularly stood out, so as to be able to cross-reference what you wrote under the different framework which prevails there. I watched the videos you participated in, transcribing some relevant sections of conversation word-for-word, and listened carefully to the way certain exchanges took place. I listened to various recorded conversations (podcasts) you featured in and took specific note of the way information flowed. And I have your ‘Practice Journal’, from The Hamilton Project Forum, copy-pasted into its own long document on my hard drive as well ... adding to it as you update. * So, as you keep saying it is a language issue for you – and given that you translate actualism terminology into Buddhist terms – you will find it more useful to equivalate an actual freedom with ‘anupādisesāya nibbānadhātuyā parinibbāyati’ (colloquially, parinibbana), rather than equating what my words refer to with ‘saupādisesā nibbānadhātu’ (colloquially, nibbana). Here is an extract from ‘A Brief Personal History’ (located on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website): • [Richard]: ‘I was coming to the end of a time I went through in an endeavour to purify myself which I call my ‘puritan period’. I retreated altogether from civilisation to a group of uninhabited islands in the tropics off the north-eastern Australian seaboard where I stayed for the best part of three months in total silence, on my own, speaking to no one at all [...snip...]. I was able to experience what lay beyond Enlightenment several times ... the first of these experiences occurred at maybe three in the morning (I had no watch) [...snip...]. Then the condition I went on to experience had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism) and so on. It seemed so extreme that the physical body must surely die for the attainment of it. To put it into a physical analogy, it was as if I were to gather up my meagre belongings, eradicate all marks of my stay on the island, and paddle away over the horizon, all the while not knowing whence I go ... and vanish without a trace, never to be seen again. As no one on the mainland knew where I was, no one would know where I had gone. In fact, I would become as extinct as the dodo and with no skeletal remains. [...snip...] this was total annihilation’. (Richard, Articles, A Brief Personal History). As a computer search on my portion of the website returned 136 hits for ‘parinirvana’, and 19 hits for ‘parinibbana’, then ignoration of my reports/ descriptions/ explanations means weeks or months – even years – of unnecessary suffering may ensue (even if only being ‘slightly fed up’ for instance). To illustrate this point: there is no hedonic-tone (aka vedanā) here in this actual world; furthermore, each of those handful of daring pioneers reported the extinction of hedonic-tone – along with the extirpation of the instinctual passions and the feeling-being formed thereof – at the very moment an actual freedom took place ... just as it did for me, at my moment of becoming (newly) free, in an abandoned cow-paddock all those years ago. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘Without an affective faculty, surely there would remain only sensate pleasure and sensate pain?’ • [Richard]: ‘Indeed ... and as such pleasure/ pain is anhedonic – as contrasted to hedonic pleasure/ pain – it is impossible to ever be hedonistic here in this actual world’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 110b 10 Jun 2006). There really is no substitute for taking notice of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website. Regards, Richard. Re: It is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism RICHARD: [...] As a matter of related interest, the computer search for the above exchange shows that I have used the word marry in several similar contexts. For instance: [...] • [Richard]: ‘Anyone who attempts to marry Buddhism and Hinduism is bound to be confused’. (Richard, List B, No. 12n, 21 October 2001b) Incidentally, that last one there (about being ‘bound to be confused’ by attempting to marry Buddhism and Hinduism) should give due pause for re-consideration to anyone artfully trying to dismiss my eleven-year experience, night and day, of full-awakenment/ full-enlightenment via asserting it to be ... um ... more in line with how enlightenment is conceived in the Hindu tradition (for instance). (Richard, List D, No. 3, 14 December 2012a) RESPONDENT No. 12: I do not see how that follows Richard. I’m not trying to marry Buddhism and Hinduism. I’m pointing out the flat obvious. Namely that the Awakening the Buddha taught is NOT the Enlightenment that the Indian spiritual tradition talks about(neither in it’s pre-Buddha expressions nor it’s after-Buddha expressions). I am also(obviously) aware that the Indian spiritual tradition has not always been called ‘Hinduism’ and I was just using that term as a convenient well known catch phrase. I hope that was not cause for some confusion. I am also not denying that you were authentically Enlightened as per something similar/identical to what Enlightenment means in the Indian/Hindu tradition. Again, however your Enlightenment is not the same as the Awakening the Buddha taught per the Pali Canon(it is best to not even use the term ‘enlightenment’ for what the Buddha was on about as Awakening is a much better translation of what the Pali was getting at.). Your very own testimony shows you were not free of the 10 Fetters, so I’m really surprised how you do not understand this. I guess we need to go into the 10 Fetters to try to clear this up. [quote]: ‘The Pali canon’s Sutta Pitaka identifies ten ‘fetters of becoming’: 1. belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi). 2. doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā). 3. attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso). 4. sensual desire (kāmacchando). 5. ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo). 6. lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo). 7. lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo). 8. conceit (māna). 9. restlessness (uddhacca). 10.ignorance (avijjā). The Pali canon traditionally describes cutting through the fetters in four stages: one cuts the first three fetters (tīṇi saṃyojanāni) to be a ‘stream enterer’ (sotāpatti); one cuts the first three fetters and significantly weakens the next two fetters to be a ‘once returner’ (sakadāgāmi); one cuts the first five fetters (orambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni) to be a ‘non-returner’ (anāgāmi); one cuts all ten fetters to be an arahant’. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_ (Buddhism)]. This certainly does not jive with my understanding of what you have written about your enlightenment. Just to be clear, I will ask you a direct question: As an Enlightened Being, were you *totally* free of *all* sensual desire, ill will, desire for material or immaterial existence in any way/form, sense of self(either personal or impersonal. Ie this is part of ‘conceit’), and restlessness(any subtle form of anxiety whatsoever)? Because if you were not, then you were not an Arahant. The 10 Fetters are not ‘suppressed’ in Arahantship, they are totally cut, eradicated, blown out forever. My understanding of your Enlightenment was that ill-will/ malice/ aggression and fear/ restlessness were not eradicate but m kept in check(surpressed? sublimate?) by Divine Compassion and Love Agape. Which I gathered from https://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/abriefpersonalhistory.htm as well as reading certain things in your correspondences. I would appreciate you answering this question. (Message 11972). RESPONDENT: G’day Richard A very good question imho and I’m also interested in knowing the answer to this. RICHARD: G’day No. 32, Yes, up until the ‘total annihilation/ complete oblivion’ episodes, on some uninhabited islands in the tropics off the north-eastern Australian seaboard, my ongoing experiencing, night and day, of full-awakenment/ full-enlightenment was indeed being totally free of not only *all* of the above saṃyojana but others which appear elsewhere in the Pāli Canon as well. (I have re-inserted the 1-to-10 Wikipedia list you had snipped off as your co-respondent has left out the pivotal saṃyojana, upon which all of them depend, in the rather selective 4-to-9 follow-up question of his which you have re-presented here). And it was those ‘uninhabited islands’ episodes, of going beyond awakenment/ enlightenment, which experientially gave the impetus for further investigation/deeper penetration into that highly-prized and much-exalted state of being. I had already begun to question karuṇā whilst in India (and had been referring to that questioning with the phrase ‘the trap of compassion’) so my attention then turned to an intimate investigation/ penetration into the very nature of mettā as well and ... well, the rest is history. RESPONDENT: If they say that the fetters are cut from the root, then this means that it cannot arise anymore. RICHARD: Yes, and they are accurately describing their experience; in the fully-awakened/ fully-enlightened state there is the ongoing experiencing of all saṃyojana having been uprooted, rendered groundless, thrown away, unable to sprout again. For instance: • [Richard]: ‘With the death of ‘I’ as ego, in 1981, I abandoned my flourishing career, my alternate life-style, my self-sufficiency property in the country and commenced a barefooted, itinerant, homeless, celibate lifestyle of aimless wandering in nature: I lived and slept in forests; I lived and slept in the hills; I lived and slept in the valleys; I lived and slept beside streams; I lived and slept on the beaches; I lived and slept on uninhabited islands ... and so on. No woman could entice me as the allure of the love and beauty of nature was unsurpassable ... I had no need for a vow of celibacy. Just being in nature, totally, fully, completely, would transport me into the unknowable ... so I know full well what I talk of via personal experience’. (Richard, List B, No. 33d, 23 January 2001) And another example: • [Richard]: ‘(...). I had whittled my worldly possessions down to three sarongs, three shirts, a cooking pot and bowl, a knife and a spoon, a bank book and a pair of nail scissors ... I was homeless, itinerant, celibate, vegan, (no spices; not even salt and pepper), no drugs (no tobacco, no alcohol; not even tea or coffee), no hair cut, no shaving, no washing other than a dip in a river or the ocean. I possessed nothing else anywhere in the world and had cut all family ties ...’ (Richard, Articles, A Brief Personal History #2) Just as a matter of related interest: when I left Australia in 1984, to fly to India via Singapore on an Indian airline, all I had was three sarongs and three home-sown shirts (plus hairbrush, passport, nail clippers and so forth) in small bag; at the baggage departure counter (in Perth, Western Australia) the attendant, a locally-born employee, somewhat mystified by my lack of luggage, took one look at my bare feet, and insisted on me purchasing footwear in order to board the aeroplane, as per some rule, or regulation; I politely declined, he insistently insisted, I politely declined again, he most insistently insisted, I once again politely declined and the impasse was only broken when a senior airline executive, an Indian woman in Indian garb, came out from her office, took one long look at me (long hair and long beard, full-length sarong, home-sown shirt and bare feet) and clasped her hands together Indian style, bowed her head respectfully, then gestured me gracefully to proceed on through to the departure lounge and, soon, out and on board the aeroplane. Moreover, I had an eighteen-hour stopover in Singapore; in those days hippie-type men with tattered jeans, long hair, beards, etcetera, were banned from entering – an outright crack-down had been taking place for some time – yet, upon approaching the checkout doorway the attendant deferentially waved me through without me having to pause even; I spent the day sight-seeing the CBD, strolling hither and thither as was my wont, and was never approached let alone accosted. There are some distinct advantages to being spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened when in eastern countries. Regards, Richard. * Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism CO-RESPONDENT: [...]. Just to be clear, I will ask you a direct question: As an Enlightened Being, were you *totally* free of *all* ... ... [i.e. saṃyojana]? RESPONDENT: A very good question imho and I’m also interested in knowing the answer to this. RICHARD: Yes, up until the ‘total annihilation/complete oblivion’ episodes, on some uninhabited islands in the tropics off the north-eastern Australian seaboard, my ongoing experiencing, night and day, of full-awakenment/ full-enlightenment was indeed being totally free of not only *all* of the above saṃyojana but others which appear elsewhere in the Pāli Canon as well. RESPONDENT: G’day Richard Thank you for the detailed reply and I really appreciate them. That said, I recall this from one of the articles: [Richard]: ‘So do I ... the altered state of consciousness called spiritual enlightenment does not end anger. An actual freedom does, however, which is one of the many reason why it is superior to enlightenment. I may be a lot of things, but I am not silly. I lived enlightenment for eleven years and irritation came up in me four times (once peeved and three time annoyed) These days I do not even get peeved ... and have not done so since 1992’. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Aggression). This is something I find a bit confusing – you mentioned having being irritated 4 times during those years ... RICHARD: G’day No. 32, Yes, and not only just four instances of irritation (which were quite mild, by the way, and only momentary) but several brief flashes of fear, as well, which I further explicate in the next paragraph following on from the section you quoted above. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘(...). These days I do not even get peeved ... and have not done so since 1992. Now, four times in eleven years may not sound like much but it was enough to make me question. Also, there were three or four ‘bleed-throughs’ of fear from the sublimated passions in that period ... the evidence indicating the transcendent nature of the ASC became too much to ignore. I owe a lot to my companion at the time for her persistence in endeavouring to ‘unmask the guru’ (this is her verbatim, and very apt, terminology at the time)’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Alan 13 December 1998) RESPONDENT: ... but going by the fetter model , that does not look possible as the fetters of ill-will and restlessness are uprooted completely and cannot arise any more. RICHARD: No, neither vyāpādo-saṃyojana nor uddhacca-saṃyojana are ever actually ‘uprooted, rendered groundless, thrown away, unable to sprout again’ in the state of full-awakenment/ full-enlightenment – despite that being their ongoing experiencing – as the transcendent nature of that highly-prized and much-exalted state of being is such that the negative emotions/ passions have been sublimated (and not extirpated). I wrote about this distinction betwixt an ASC and a PCE earlier this year on this very forum. Viz.: • [Richard to No. 2]: ‘The very fact that you categorise an actual freedom from the human condition as being ‘Mahasamadhi’ (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) and ‘Parinirvana’ (on your ‘Remains of the Day’ weblog) is evidence that you cannot even distinguish the marked difference betwixt a PCE (with its abeyance of the entire affective faculty/the identity in toto) and an ASC (with its sublimation of negative affections/its transcendence of egoic identity). And the very fact you cannot even make that very basic kind of distinguishment undermines any basis whatsoever for making such a judgement as ‘supremely deluded’. (Message No. 11042, Richard, List D, No. 2, 15 February 2012) RESPONDENT: I would appreciate further clarification here. Maybe I’m missing some point here. RICHARD: Yes, you are indeed missing some point ... the whole point of me going public, in fact, and thereby exposing myself to all manner of totally unwarranted abuse (including the most massive invasion of privacy this forum has ever seen such as to put into jeopardy both my personal security and my physical safety). Look, you provided a quote, further above, which you found in the ‘Selected Correspondence’ on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website, and not only did you not read what immediately came after the section you quoted – as in ‘the sublimated passions’ plus ‘the evidence indicating the transcendent nature of the ASC became too much to ignore’ part – you did not click on the follow-up link, with the word [quote] ‘(more...)’ [endquote] in blue, and read what came next in the exchange that particular ‘Selected Correspondence’ came from. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘(...). I owe a lot to my companion at the time for her persistence in endeavouring to ‘unmask the guru’ (this is her verbatim, and very apt, terminology at the time). • [Alan]: Also I did not have any urges to stop doing anything – from eating meat to enjoying sex – on the contrary, all such things became a pure delight. What caused you to became vegetarian, vegan and, ultimately, fruitarian? • [Richard]: That was all in an effort to ‘purify myself’ according to the wisdom of the ages that I was busily studying at the time. Once again, there was something ‘amiss’ about the state of being I was living. I called it ‘Absolute Freedom’ – and denied being enlightened [at the time] – because there was something different about it that did not quite fit what I was reading. Consequently, I initially reasoned that I was doing something wrong ... and set out to correct the fault by whatever means the Saints and Sages advocated. Eventually I wound up on an uninhabited island ... I was homeless and itinerant; single and celibate; no worldly possessions other than what I could carry; no family ties; no drugs whatsoever including tea, coffee, sugar or salt; no ambitions or desires ... in other words: whatever was traditionally seen as an impediment to freedom I discarded. It was on that island that I first experienced the ‘Greater Beyond’ (as I called actual freedom then). It was then I discovered that it was Spiritual Enlightenment that was at fault ... and that I could ‘purify’ myself via these ‘Tried and True’ means until the moon turned blue to no avail’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Alan 13 December 1998) RESPONDENT: haha , your encounters at the airport with Indians are amusing ..I do know these very well ! Indeed , the whole spiritual enlightenment thing in India is one of the biggest, corrupt money-making markets out there and every now and then you get to hear some sex-scandal or some other money-making scam exposed by these so called ‘babas’ and ‘gurus’ .. I’m surely not impressed by any of that. RICHARD: Then why on earth are you aspiring to become one of them – as in being awakened/ enlightened – such as to actively participate on another forum where that very goal is (purportedly) the out come of their practices? (Not that you will become awakened/ enlightened, of course, via those meditative detachment-dissociative techniques/ meditational affective-repression procedures, but the intent is to become one of them, obviously, else why the participation). RESPONDENT: Thanks once again for your reply. RICHARD: You are welcome, No. 32, and I appreciate you asking for clarification because (even though such clarification is already on the website many times over) more than a few otherwise intelligent peoples have been badly led astray by the affers and their dastardly ‘self’-survival act. Regards, Richard. * Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism Posted RESPONDENT: Again, there is a bit of confusion about what you’ve written. On one hand , you’ve written this :– [Richard]: Yes, and they are accurately describing their experience; in the fully-awakened/ fully-enlightened state there is the ongoing experiencing of all saṃyojana having been up-rooted, rendered groundless, thrown away, unable to sprout again. [endquote]. And this is what you’ve written in the last post : – [Richard]: No, neither vyāpādo-saṃyojana nor uddhacca-saṃyojana are ever actually ‘uprooted, rendered groundless, thrown away, unable to sprout again’ in the state of full-awakenment/ full-enlightenment – despite that being their ongoing experiencing – as the transcendent nature of that highly-prized and much-exalted state of being is such that the negative emotions/ passions have been sublimated (and not extirpated). [endquote]. On one hand , you say that ‘they are accurately describing their experience’ and on the other hand you say that they have only ‘been sublimated’. When they say that the fetter is cut off completely, they do mean that it that it cannot arise ever again unless they are lying or they are deluded. RICHARD: G’day No. 32, I had to chuckle when I read your ‘or they are deluded’ words as the entire awakened/ enlightened state is a massive delusion, from beginning to end, and to ponder whether in one aspect of it they are either deluded or lying is really neither here nor there. Also, as I am on record as describing that anti-life state as being ‘a disassociated delusion, a massive hallucination’, amongst other similar characterisations, it does appear you may not have read much of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website. And I say ‘anti-life’ because the whole aim, the very raison d’être, of Buddhism (and Hinduism for that matter) is to escape samsāra, the innumerable successions of life, inasmuch Buddhism (as well as Hinduism) is not an existential solution to the human condition, as is Actualism, but a salvational solution (i.e. deliverance from samsāra). In short, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is amata (just as amṛta is the ultimate goal of Hinduism). RESPONDENT: I do understand that the so called ‘babas’ (especially the Hindu ones) have only sublimated, but the Buddhist criteria is uprooting forever (not sublimating) , otherwise they have technically not achieved what they are supposed to. RICHARD: Maybe this will throw some light on the issue: in my previous email I quoted a paragraph of mine (from Message No. 11042 Richard, List D, No. 2, 15 February 2012) in which I pointed out the quite marked difference betwixt a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and what is generally known as an altered state of consciousness (ASC). In a PCE both identity in toto and the entire affective faculty are in abeyance (aka in suspension, dormant, latent). The advantage a PCE – the direct experience of being a flesh-and-blood body only – bestows is that it provides first-hand experience of the existential solution to the human condition known as an actual freedom (whereas an ASC provides first-hand experience of a salvational solution). And in a PCE not only are the negative emotions/ passions in abeyance but so too are the positive emotions/ passions abeyant (as well as the felicitous/ innocuous feelings, of course, as it is the entire affective faculty which is in abeyance, but the current issue is the positive and negative emotions/ passions). Now, the positive emotions/ passions include karuṇā (and/or anukampā/anuddayā) and mettā (and/or pema), for example, and the negative emotions/ passions include soka (and/or cittasantāpa) and vera (and/or viddesa), for instance. If you can find it recorded anywhere in the Pāli Piṭaka (or the Chinese Agama) that all of the positive and all of the negative emotions/ passions have been extirpated, become extinct (as directly experienced, albeit abeyant, in PCE’s), it too would surely qualify as the discovery of the millennia. RESPONDENT: This is why I wish there can be a direct dialogue between you and some of the accomplished Buddhist teachers.. RICHARD: I have no interest whatsoever in a dialogue with accomplished *sectarian* Buddhist teachers – and especially not any such teachers of sukkhavipassaka – as the buddhaghosavacana is too far removed from the buddhavacana for any meaningful discussion. RESPONDENT: ..but not with the so called new-age deluded ‘babas’ of the likes of Sri Sri Sri Ravi Shankar etc who have only sublimated and there are just way too many of them around ..I think this will help seal the whole Buddhism vs Actualism debate forever.. RICHARD: There is no Buddhism versus Actualism debate – never was and never will be because they are 180 degrees opposite – and what you have been sucked into is comparing a buddhistic-flavoured therapeutic humanism, with phenomenological overtones (per favour Mr. Edmund Husserl et al.) and a dissociative/ affectively-repressive psychiatric state. Or, as already expressed, a watered-down-and-westernised Buddhism and a watered-down-and-bastardised Actualism. As I have remarked before, it can be quite amazing, at times, to see just how deep shallowness extends. RESPONDENT: ..until then such debates will go ad nauseum. RICHARD: No, I brought ‘such debates’ to a conclusive end, in Message No. 11955 (regarding that nibbāna = the actual world nonsense), and all what remains is a few diehards who have yet to wake up to the fact that it is all over. Viz.: • [Richard to No. 3]: ‘If you can find nibbāna described, anywhere in the Pāli Piṭ aka (or the Chinese Agama), as being the world of the senses, the sensate world, the sensorial world where flesh-and-blood bodies already reside, as experienced in PCE’s, it would surely be the discovery of the millennia’. (Message No. 11955, Richard, List D, No. 3, 14 December 2012b). And I will probably keep on utilising this ‘discovery of the millennia’ format (just as I did further above) until it dawns upon those few that they are unable to back their fancies with facts. * RESPONDENT: Indeed, the whole spiritual enlightenment thing in India is one of the biggest, corrupt money-making markets out there and every now and then you get to hear some sex-scandal or some other money-making scam exposed by these so called ‘babas’ and ‘gurus’..I’m surely not impressed by any of that. RICHARD: Then why on earth are you aspiring to become one of them – as in being awakened/ enlightened – such as to actively participate on another forum where that very goal is (purportedly) the outcome of their practices? RESPONDENT: My intent is simply to end suffering , whatever it takes me to.. RICHARD: With your [quote] ‘end suffering’ [endquote] words you are obviously referring to dukkha-nirodha ... as expressed in, for instance, the Anurādha Sutta. Viz.: ‘(...) pubbe cāhaṃ anurādha, etarahi ca dukkhañce va paññāpemi dukkhassa ca nirodhanti’ [endquote]. (SN 22.86; PTS: S iii 116 & SN 44.2; PTS: S iv 381). And here are four regular online translations (with the word dukkha re-inserted where they used an English word): • [Mr. Geoffory DeGraff]: ‘(...). Both formerly & now, it is only dukkha that I describe, and the cessation of dukkha’. • [Mr. Jeffrey Block]: ‘(...). Formerly, Anurādha, and also now, I make known just dukkha and the cessation of dukkha’. • [Mr. Maurice Walshe]: ‘(...). As before, so now I proclaim just dukkha and the ceasing of dukkha’. • [Ms. Else Buchholz]: ‘(...). Even earlier and now too I point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha’. First, I will paraphrase that fourth rendition: Even earlier (in 1997 when I first went online) and now too in 2012 I do *not* point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. In fact (to paraphrase all four of them) nowhere at all, on The Actual Freedom Trust website, do I point out and/or proclaim and/or make known and/or describe dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. Never have done and never will do. And in order to explain why not, I will provide an example of your further above sentence with the word dukkha similarly inserted where you used an English word: • [example only]: ‘My intent is simply to end dukkha, whatever it takes me to..’ [end example]. Now, quite evidently, when your intent to simply end dukkha succeeds it will take you to nibbā na(because that is the whole point of ending dukkha), right? Put simply: the end of dukkha = nibbāna. Yet, it has already been demonstrated that nibbāna is *not* the actual world (the world of the senses, the sensate world, the sensorial world where flesh-and-blood bodies already reside, as is experienced in PCE’s). Ergo, the end of dukkha does not = the actual world. Put differently, the end of dukkha does not = an actual freedom from the human condition. And because I already knew that, when I first went online in 1997, there was no way I was going to point out and/or proclaim and/or make known and/or describe dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. No way at all. What I went online in 1997 for was to inform my fellow human beings about what lies beyond nibbā na ... namely: this actual world (the world of the senses, the sensate world, the sensorial world where flesh-and-blood bodies already reside, as is experienced in PCE’s). (Incidentally, the English word suffering does not have sufficient explanatory power to be useful for translating the Pāli dukkha). * RESPONDENT: so far I’ve found that both Actualism and Buddhism have helped me in that..I also did take your advice/ caution about the ‘mongrel’ state of being of the ‘affers’ very well. These days , in fact I am more and more seeing that whatever it is – its the universe in action – be it another person in front of me..Its like I’m seeing the universe and the concept of a ‘person’ or a ‘me’ is dropping away.. one more question that I’d once asked and I think this might help a lot of people :– How often would you recommend locating the sincerity/naivete point below the navel ? Is it something that you , Vineeto, Peter and (others that you may know of) were using it on a regular basis ? I will appreciate a clarification here as well. RICHARD: I would not recommend [quote] ‘locating the sincerity/ naiveté point below the navel’ [endquote] at all, ever, unless you are 100 percent certain – beyond all doubt – that all of those highly-prized and much-exalted states of being are, in fact, disassociated delusions/ massive hallucinations as it seems to be far too dangerous, otherwise, if a quote I posted last week, in Message No. 11944 (Richard, List D, No. 12, 13 December 2012), is anything to go by. Viz.: • [Tarin to No. 12]: ‘regardless, i got enlightened and i am now working toward a virtual freedom, largely using haietmoba and the golden thread.. that sweet spot between my sub-navel centre and sex centre, anterior to the spinal column, enticing me to be sincerity and naivete, and pulling me toward the actual world’. (16 Dec 2009; 3:54 pm. Message #8958). Regards, Richard. * Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism RICHARD: [...] as I am on record as describing that anti-life state as being ‘a disassociated delusion, a massive hallucination’, amongst other similar characterisations, it does appear you may not have read much of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website. And I say ‘anti-life’ because the whole aim, the very raison d’être, of Buddhism (and Hinduism for that matter) is to escape samsāra, the innumerable successions of life, inasmuch Buddhism (as well as Hinduism) is not an existential solution to the human condition, as is Actualism, but a salvational solution (i.e. deliverance from samsāra). RESPONDENT: This is true if we go by the multiple-life model (or rebirths) I had once found that several Buddhist teachers had rejected the commonly held notion of rebirth (aka taking physical birth again and again) and rather considered rebirth as the rebirth of suffering again and again and samsara as the that state of mind which experiences that suffering again and again. RICHARD: G’day No. 32, Unlike those several *sectarian* Buddhist teachers (who evidently know not what the Pāli word dukkha refers to) I do not have the option of picking and choosing amongst any such smorgasbord of buddhistic models as I am directly informed by my eleven years, night and day, of living that/being that which Mr. Gotama the Sakyan referred to, via the Pāli text, as dhammam (aka ‘Dhamma/Dharma’) in the Vakkali Sutta, for instance, where he unambiguously states, after first making it abundantly clear that he is not the flesh and blood body, that anyone who sees dhammaṃ sees him and whoever sees him sees dhammaṃ. Viz.: • `Yo kho, vakkali, dhammaṃ passati so maṃ passati; yo maṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati’. (SN 22.87; PTS: SN iii.119). [yo = whoever, anyone; kho = indeed, surely; dhammaṃ = dhamma/ dharma; passati = sees; so = he; maṃ = 1st person pronoun, me]. (See: www.actualfreedom.com.au/announcement.htm for context). Thus I experientially know, from that ongoing lived reality, how what is nowadays called Buddhism (as well as what has come to be called Hinduism) is not an existential solution to the human condition, as is Actualism, but a salvational solution (that is, deliverance from being yoked – saṃyojana, fr. saṃyuñjati (saṃ+ yuñjati) where yuñjati = to yoke, literally means ‘yoked together’ – to sensory phenomena (aka ‘sabba’, SN 35.23; PTS: S iv 15) or, conversationally, from being yoked to/ fettered by worldly existence). (Incidentally, as the Pāli word dhamma has some equivalence with the Greek word lógos, considerable light is thrown upon what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan is indicating, in that Vakkali Sutta passage, via the ensarkosis of Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene, in the Greek phrase ‘ho lógos sarx egeneto’, meaning ‘the lógos was made flesh’, in John 1:14 in the Christian scriptures. (The Latin word incarnatio – fr. in + caro, stem carn, meaning ‘flesh’ – corresponds to the Greek ensarkosis). As the Greek term ‘ho lógos en pros ton theon’ and ‘theos en ho lógos’ means ‘the lógos was with the theos’ and ‘the theos was lógos’, in John 1:1, then that well-known epigram ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the theos’, in John 14:9, can be rendered ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the lógos’ by virtue of that very theos = lógos equivalence. Its parallel, then, with ‘Anyone who sees dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the dhamma’ is obvious). RESPONDENT: Personally, I am more interested in such a line of reasoning because ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘because’ justification): that ‘line of reasoning’, conceived by ‘several Buddhist teachers’, is at odds with, and has no basis in, the buddhavacana (lit. ‘the words/ teachings of buddha’). It is also a classic example of why I have no interest whatsoever in a dialogue with such peoples – as already made clear in this very email you are responding to – and the fact you regurgitate some of their watered-down-and-westernised Buddhism (as in a buddhistic-flavoured therapeutic humanism, with phenomenological over-tones per favour Mr. Edmund Husserl et al.), as if you are having an engaged, sensible discussion with me, makes me wonder whether you suffer some type of ‘reading and comprehension’ disability. Either that or you are vainly hoping to engage me in a defacto dialogue with them, with yourself as a proxy interlocutor, by pretending you are ‘more interested in’ their hypotheses than my first-hand experience. If so, these will be my last words to you because a pretend dialogue holds no interest for me. If not, and you really are ‘more interested in’ their hypotheses than the buddhavacana, then these will also be my last words to you as any such fancies hold no interest for me either. RESPONDENT: ... [because] as you have very rightly said something like :- ‘Whether it is the first life or last , this is the only life we are sure of’. RICHARD: I have never said ‘the first life or last’ and neither have I ever said this is ‘the only life we are sure of’, either. You are obviously referring to a half-sentence of mine in the second paragraph of the explanatory text on the home page of my part of The Actual Freedom Trust website. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time ...’. (Richard, Homepage) That half-sentence is self-evidently written in the context of introducing ‘The Third Alternative’ (i.e. Actualism), to either Materialism or Spiritualism, and is, therefore, poor justification for a ‘line of reasoning’ conceived by some persons illuding themselves they can know better than Mr. Gotama the Sakyan just what it was he directly experienced in the luminous hours immediately prior to, and leading him on towards, his highly-prized and much exalted rediscovery of the awakenment/ enlightenment of all of his predeccessors. That they may very well be the same peoples who also illude themselves they can know better than Richard, just what it was he experienced, night and day, for 11 years (not to mention what he has been, since then, experiencing for the last 20+ years now), would not be at all surprising. * You are frittering away a vital opportunity, No.32, so if you would like to start afresh, here is the sequence, from the beginning up to where it could have been an eye-opener for you, with an added last line from me as a self-explanatory lead-in. Viz.: • [Respondent No. 12]: [...]. Just to be clear, I will ask you a direct question: As an Enlightened Being, were you *totally* free of *all* ... ... [i.e. saṃyojana]? • [Respondent]: A very good question imho and I’m also interested in knowing the answer to this. • [Richard]: Yes, up until the ‘total annihilation/ complete oblivion’ episodes, on some uninhabited islands in the tropics off the north-eastern Australian seaboard, my ongoing experiencing, night and day, of full-awakenment/ full-enlightenment was indeed being totally free of not only *all* of the above samyojana but others which appear elsewhere in the Pali Canon as well. [... ] And it was those ‘uninhabited islands’ episodes, of going beyond awakenment/ enlightenment, which experientially gave the impetus for further investigation/ deeper penetration into that highly-prized and much-exalted state of being. (Richard, List D, No. 32, 19 December 2012). • [Richard]: [No] saṃyojana are ever actually ‘uprooted, rendered groundless, thrown away, unable to sprout again’ in the state of full-awakenment/ full-enlightenment – despite that being their ongoing experiencing – as the transcendent nature of that highly-prized and much-exalted state of being is such that the negative emotions/ passions have been sublimated (and not extirpated). (Richard, List D, No. 32, 20 December 2012). In fact, it is the very reason why the adage ‘The lotus has its roots in mud’ has such an immediate and intuitive appeal. * RESPONDENT: There is not one instance of the recorded history that says that the Buddha had mild irritation or bouts of fear post-awakening ... RICHARD: G’day No. 32, First of all, and purely for the sake of clarity in communication, what I had referred to was several brief flashes of fear – three or four ‘bleed-throughs’ from the sublimated/ transcended negative emotions/ passions (i.e. the ‘mud’ in the above the-lotus-has-its-roots-in-mud adage) – rather than the common, everyday fear which a phrase such as ‘bouts of fear’ could convey. I also delineated those momentary instances of mild irritation as being ‘once peeved and three times annoyed’ during those 11 years, so what you may very well have missed, when you were examining the entire recorded history (i.e. the Pāli canon), sutta-by-sutta, in the 2 hours and 39 minutes which elapsed betwixt me posting my above ‘start afresh’ email and you posting your response, was just which spoken words and/or behaviours and/or actions to look-out for which would indicate any such momentary and mild instances of negative instinctual emotions/ passions as being the instigator of such out-of-character lapses. Having said that – and apart from there being several instances in that canon of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan being irritated enough to (for example) abruptly withdraw from communal interaction and retreat into solitude in the forest – the topic under discussion is clearly about whether or not that highly-prized and much-exalted state of being, known as full-awakenment/ full-enlightenment, is in fact *totally* free of *all* saṃyojana [emphases as per the initial question further above]. Moreover, it is not just the recorded words, behaviour and actions of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan which can be fruitfully examined, in this regard, but the recorded words, behaviour and actions of all of the duly recognised and acknowledged Arahants (including both male and female) in the Pāli Canon. Therefore, it is going to take more than a mere assertion – and that, surely, is what it really is – about ‘not one instance of the recorded history’ of (1) only brief flashes of fear/ momentary mild irritation out of *all* saṃyojana and (2) only one out of all the many awakened/ enlightened feeling-beings, reverentially preserved in the Pāli Canon, to provide sufficient cogency, eh? Furthermore, to properly conduct an exhaustive examination of the Pāli Canon would not only take years but would require an in-depth knowledge of all the Pāli words, and their many and varied grammatical nuances, as well (as the regular printed or online translations are all flawed, to some degree or another, partly because of translator bias and also because of corrupt dictionaries due to Pāli being a dead language). Obviously, there has to be a better way of discerning the truth of the matter ... and there is, of course, and that way of finding out, for yourself and by yourself, features prominently on The Actual Freedom Trust website. (Of course, that would require actually reading the website – which is something most pragmatic/ hardcore dharma peoples appear to be quite reluctant to do – rather than making ill-informed assertions about both awakenment/ enlightenment and an actual freedom from the human condition). RESPONDENT: ... yet you expect me to agree to that your state of mind during those 11 years was the same as that of Buddha’s state of mind. RICHARD: Quite frankly, I do not expect anyone to agree and am always quite surprised when somebody actually does; generally speaking, they are people who either can recall or are having a PCE as it usually is *experiential* proof which ultimately convinces. However, there are those who can intellectually comprehend what is being presented – taking *all* the words and writings regarding actualism/ actual freedom as a prima-facie case worthy of further investigation (rather than capricious dismissal) – and thus arrive at an (intellectual) agreement. * Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism RESPONDENT: G’day Richard I have catalogued the points of interest from this conversation on the Dho. This will help prevent another fool like me to waste time discussing such things with you. Right, eh ? RICHARD: G’day No. 32, Whilst I am pleased to see you are trying to make it clear to pragmatic/ hardcore dharma practitioners that Buddhism is not Actualism (your emphasis on the fact I do *not* point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha might very well drive it home to them), was it really necessary to resort to lying? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Keep in mind however , the above link on the AFT does not depict everything that was spoken..in fact *several things I’ve said have been totally removed*’. [emphasis added]. (dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/3819845#_19_message_3821207). Nothing, absolutely nothing you said in any of my five (5) emails to you on the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum has been edited-out ... let alone [quote] ‘totally removed’ [endquote]. Regards, Richard. Re: Chaos at the Overground RESPONDENT No 32: Indeed, the whole spiritual enlightenment thing in India is one of the biggest, corrupt money-making markets out there and every now and then you get to hear some sex-scandal or some other money-making scam exposed by these so called ‘babas’ and ‘gurus’..I’m surely not impressed by any of that. RICHARD to No. 32: Then why on earth are you aspiring to become one of them – as in being awakened/ enlightened – such as to actively participate on another forum where that very goal is (purportedly) the outcome of their practices? RESPONDENT No. 32: My intent is simply to end suffering , whatever it takes me to.. RICHARD to No. 32: With your [quote] ‘end suffering’ [endquote] words you are obviously referring to dukkha-nirodha ... as expressed in, for instance, the Anurādha Sutta. Viz.: ‘(...) pubbe cāhaṃ anurādha, etarahi ca dukkhañce va paññāpemi dukkhassa ca nirodhanti’ [endquote]. (SN 22.86; PTS: S iii 116 & SN 44.2; PTS: S iv 381). And here are four regular online translations (with the word dukkha re-inserted where they used an English word): • [Mr. Geoffory DeGraff]: ‘(...). Both formerly & now, it is only dukkha that I describe, and the cessation of dukkha’. • [Mr. Jeffrey Block]: ‘(...). Formerly, Anurādha, and also now, I make known just dukkha and the cessation of dukkha’. • [Mr. Maurice Walshe]: ‘(...). As before, so now I proclaim just dukkha and the ceasing of dukkha’. • [Ms. Else Buchholz]: ‘(...). Even earlier and now too I point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha’. First, I will paraphrase that fourth rendition: Even earlier (in 1997 when I first went online) and now too in 2012 I do *not* point out dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. In fact (to paraphrase all four of them) nowhere at all, on The Actual Freedom Trust website, do I point out and/or proclaim and/or make known and/or describe dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. Never have done and never will do. And in order to explain why not, I will provide an example of your further above sentence with the word dukkha similarly inserted where you used an English word: • [example only]: ‘My intent is simply to end dukkha, whatever it takes me to..’ [end example]. Now, quite evidently, when your intent to simply end dukkha succeeds it will take you to nibbā na (because that is the whole point of ending dukkha), right? Put simply: the end of dukkha = nibbāna. Yet, it has already been demonstrated that nibbāna is *not* the actual world (the world of the senses, the sensate world, the sensorial world where flesh-and-blood bodies already reside, as is experienced in PCE’s). Ergo, the end of dukkha does not = the actual world. Put differently, the end of dukkha does not = an actual freedom from the human condition. And because I already knew that, when I first went online in 1997, there was no way I was going to point out and/or proclaim and/or make known and/or describe dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. No way at all. What I went online in 1997 for was to inform my fellow human beings about what lies beyond nibbā na ... namely: this actual world (the world of the senses, the sensate world, the sensorial world where flesh-and-blood bodies already reside, as is experienced in PCE’s). (Incidentally, the English word suffering does not have sufficient explanatory power to be useful for translating the Pāli dukkha). [...]. (Richard, List D, No. 32, 21 December 2012). RESPONDENT: The DhO seems to be in a sordid state of affairs. Their situations can be readily summarized in three points: 1) They have divorced the Dhamma-Vinaya from morality. 2) They have divorced the Dhamma-Vinaya from its benefits. 3) They have divorced the Dhamma-Vinaya from the actual words of the Buddha. As such their Dhamma-Vinaya can readily be described as the not-Dhamma-Vinaya of the Buddha. What follows is an ordinary account of a DhO experience: ‘Today I was labeling phenomena intensely (a practice not found in the Pali Canon), then I felt a rush of energy come up my spine (probably contrived), it exploded in my head and I blacked out.’ That account is made up but it reads like most DhO accounts. The point is, when it is readily read, there is no Dhamma, Sila, Vinaya or any such related topic you can extrapolate from it. It is nothing but literal mental illness. And completely unrelated from the Dhamma of the Buddha. Furthermore, they hallucinate, experience extreme suffering and have all sorts of bizarre experiences. Yet they still seem convinced... of... IDK, that they are doing something revolutionary, (an old and outdated viewpoint that was done away with when it rapidly became obvious that everyone at the DhO was basically deluded). They have also divorced the goal from its benefits, making the goal, useless. They have also, used the teachings of the Buddha to enforce their viewpoints, whilst ignoring the fact that much of the practice is not found in the Pali Canon but contradicted by it. Vipassana is not found in the canon, the maps are not found in the canon, fruition is not found in the canon, none of it is found in the canon. The canon rarely talks about meditation, but more often talks about right attention, right view and faith. They also ironically banned me, the only authentic Buddhist among them, Viz.: I possessed the four factors of stream-entry, the five indriya, the noble eightfold path, was scrupulous in morals, strong in faith, went for refuge several times. I could discern the four noble truths, the anatta of the six sense bases and five aggregates. And just recently realized the nature of dukkha. RICHARD: G’day No. 34, I have positioned the (further above) section of my No. 12054 Richard, List D, No. 32, 21 December 2012) post, which focuses on the topic of dukkha, before your No. 120xx post, which finishes on the nature of dukkha, so as to provide context for that terse ‘just recently realized the nature of dukkha’ report of yours which you posted a little over four hours later. For the sake of convenience, here again is what I wrote at the end of that (further above) section: • [Richard]: ‘Incidentally, the English word suffering does not have sufficient explanatory power to be useful for translating the Pali dukkha’. [endquote]. If you could expand upon that ‘just recently realized the nature of dukkha’ report of yours it will be most appreciated. Regards, Richard. Re: Emptiness JONATHAN: From what I can recall, Richard’s view of the buddha is not in the mainstream. As I understand it, the view that Gautama believed in a universal self is held by a significant minority of scholars. But the mainstream believes that Gautama and the bhagavad gita were on to two different points of views. Because Richard is with the minority, he doesn’t speak of emptiness ever. ( I found a definition of it in the AFT and I found a page referencing Zen but I haven’t found anything on emptiness as the pragmatic dharma crowd speaks of it.) My question is. Is emptiness as the dho and kfd folks talk of it a feeling? When those folks speak of emptiness and r. speaks of Being with a captial B, are they talking of the same thing? (Message 162xx , 19 Jan 2014, Subject: Emptiness) RICHARD: G’day Jon, First and foremost, it is not [quote] ‘Richard’s *view* of the buddha’ [emphasis added] which you recall reading, on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website, as I make it unambiguously clear that I lived that/ was that, night and day for eleven years, which Mr. Gotama the Sakyan rediscovered whilst sitting under an assattha/ pippal tree (‘Ficus religiosa’) around two and a half millennia ago. Second, and also because Mr. Gotama the Sakyan lived that/ was that which he rediscovered, albeit night and day for 45 years, neither is it recorded anywhere canonical that [quote] ‘Gautama *believed* in a universal self’ [emphasis added] either. Third, what you are comparing his experiential state to, by referencing [quote] ‘the bhagavad gita’ [endquote], stems from the sublative ‘no-genesis’ vedantic doctrine (i.e., ajativada) which Mr. Gauda the anchorite recovered, at Gowda Desha circa the 6th century CE, from the Upanisads – principally the Mandukya, Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanisads – which was subsequently consolidated by Mr. Adi Sankara of Kaladi (nowadays called Kerala) and which serves to epitomise what is more generally referred to as Hinduism. Fourth, what you twice characterise as [quote] ‘the mainstream’ [endquote] is, given the context, presumably the *sectarian* Theravadin lineage, of a broader religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical tradition generally referred to as Buddhism (as contrasted to what is generally referred to as Hinduism), and, as such, is comprised of the many and various practitioners, commentators, translators, scholars/ pundits, and so on, who have successively contributed to and/or perpetuated the prevailing ‘ditthi’/ ‘drsti’ (i.e., ‘wrong view; theory, doctrine, system’) about what anatta/ anatma refers to – especially obvious as it is the word niratta/ niratma which means soulless (‘soullessness or unsubstantiality’) – for at least the last two millennia. (And I say ‘for at least the last two millennia’ advisedly because it is duly recorded, in Pali text in the Mahavamsa (abbrev. Mhv. or Mhvs.), that the last Sinhalese Arahant, Maliya Deva Thero, lived during the time of King Dutugamunu (101-77 BCE), a period which is something like 500 or so years before the reformist pundit Mr. Budhaghosa penned his highly influential ‘Vizuddhimagga’ and commentaries). * Now, I mention these four points because where you then say [quote] ‘Because Richard is with the minority’ [endquote] – after having just designated that ‘minority’ as being [quote] ‘a significant minority of *scholars*’ [emphasis added] – your conclusion that this is why [quote] ‘he doesn’t speak of emptiness ever’ [endquote] is thus a non sequitur ... and actually erroneous as well. For example (regarding ‘erroneous’) from the year 2000: • [Richard]: (...) when you use such a phrase as ‘the empty nature of ...’ it invokes the Buddhist understanding that the physical world, as seen through their ‘sense-doors’, is impermanent, lacking in substance, having no inherent existence ... whereas this actual world of direct sensate experiencing – this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – is already always here being substantial, enduring, and having nothing but inherent existence. • [Co-Respondent]: That simply means that for you, the state of emptiness is just an idea. • [Richard]: No, *I lived that ‘state of emptiness’ night and day for eleven years* ... I am well aware of what the physical world is seen as when seen through their ‘sense-doors’ (it is seen as impermanent, lacking in substance, having no inherent existence and so on). [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, 12i, 27 December 2000). Moreover, a computer search through all my publicly-available correspondence – freely available on-line 24/7 for anyone with internet access – for the word emptiness returned 118 hits. Similarly, the Sanskrit word sunyata (=the Pali sunnata, abstracted from sunna, and said to mean ‘emptiness, void, unsubstantiality’ and so on) returned 42 hits. For instance (from 1999): • [Co-Respondent]: Dualistic approach is effort to bring about a desired result of freedom for me. It starts with belief that I know what is and I know what I want, what should be, so I will work to get there. But that is like a fish trying to become water. Fish or form is the time aspect and water or emptiness is the timeless aspect. • [Richard]: (...). The word ‘emptiness’ as you use it is the Buddhist ‘Sunyata’ ... which is a ‘timeless and spaceless and formless absolute’. (Richard, List B, 12d, 1 July 1999). More specifically, though, I explain that the word empty usually means ‘without self’. Viz. (from 2001): • [Richard]: This is an intriguing translation ... usually ‘empty’ means without self (the self is not to be found in the material world) ... (Richard, List B, 12o, 14 November 2001). And again (also from 2001): • [Richard]: The religio-spiritual meaning of the word ‘emptiness’ is that the material world is empty of ‘self’. (Richard, List B, 12o, 21 November 2001). * Fifth, the reason why you did not find anything in my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website on [quote] ‘emptiness as the pragmatic dharma crowd speaks of it’ [endquote] is because what they speak of is the result of the presently-popular but controversial sukkhavipassaka practice (what is known colloquially as the ‘Dry Burmese Vipassana’, as in ‘Noting/ Mahasi Style’ and ‘Goenka Vipassana’, for instance) and which is more akin to the much-diluted modern-day ‘Neo-Advaita’ form of secularised/ westernised nondualism than anything else. I have written about my degree of interest in that practice on this very forum. Viz. (emphasis in the original): #12054 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:47:49 -0000 From: Richard Subject: Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism • [Richard]: [...snip...]. • [Respondent No. 32]: This is why I wish there can be a direct dialogue between you and some of the accomplished Buddhist teachers.. • [Richard]: I have no interest whatsoever in a dialogue with accomplished *sectarian* Buddhist teachers – and especially not any such teachers of sukkhavipassaka – as the buddhaghosavacana [‘the word/ teaching of Buddhaghosa’] is too far removed from the buddhavacana [‘the word/ teaching of Buddha’] for any meaningful discussion. [...]. (Richard, List D, No. 32, 21 December 2012). To explain: that sectarian ‘ditthi’/ ‘drsti’ (i.e., ‘wrong view; theory, doctrine, system’) already mentioned – institutionalised by all those unawakened/ unenlightened practitioners, commentators, translators, scholars/ pundits, and so on, as the anatta/ anatma doctrine – has reified (reify = ‘to consider an abstract concept to be real’) and/or hypostatised (hypostatise = ‘to construe as a real existence, of a conceptual entity’) an otherwise simple expression which essentially means what the English word devoid conveys (devoid = without, sans, free from, completely lacking or wanting in, bereft of, empty of, deficient in, denuded of, barren of; destitute or void of) into being an (affectively) subjective ‘thing-in-itself’, so to speak, as in some kind of a metaphysical ‘emptiness’ and/or a timeless-spaceless-formless ‘void’ beyond all reckoning. * Having attended to all the points in your preamble your question can now be addressed as-is. Viz.: • [Jonathan]: ‘My question is. Is emptiness as the dho and kfd folks talk of it a feeling?’ [endquote]. As all subjective experiences within the human condition – taking place as they do in the human psyche – are essentially affective/ pathematic in nature (including any psychic noumena) it is all-too-easy to just say their emptiness is ‘a feeling’. (Generally speaking, ‘a feeling’ is an emotion or a passion – love/ hate, anger/ amity, sadness/ gladness, and so on, for instance – whereas a reified/ hypostatised entity such as an ‘emptiness’ and/or a ‘void’ is more a product of the affective faculty’s imaginative/ hallucinatory facility). Besides which, even a genuine awakenment/ full enlightenment is essentially affective in nature. * Lastly, your query as to whether that ‘emptiness’ the pragmatic/ hardcore dharma folk speak of is the same thing as what I refer to when speaking of [quote] ‘Being with a captial B’ [endquote] can be answered quite simply: Nothing they speak of is the same thing as what I have to report/ describe/ explain, about those eleven years (1981-1992) of awakenment/ enlightenment, as none of them experientially know what it is to be awakened/ enlightened. (See my Footnote No. 2, for example, where I have deliberately gone into a particularly pertinent aspect of what constitutes awakenment/ enlightenment, in some detail, for this very purpose). This is all such fun! Regards, Richard. SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON BUDDHISM (Part Four) 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