# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Enlightenment RICHARD: Even more to that point is that those same sane peoples, who consider me insane, consider insanity (albeit institutionalised) to be the solution for all the ills of humankind – as in, all the ills of sanity – and deliberately leave it out of the DSM IV because of ‘religious sensitivities’. RICHARD: Put differently, why are the subsequent crop of so-called enlightened/ awakened beings of the just-add-water-and-stir variety? (Richard, List D, No. 22, 5 January 2010) RESPONDENT: This made me pause. It is worth pondering. Are you saying there is a mysterious reason for no more potent (as contrasted with just-add-water-and-stir variety) Godmen/ Godwomen? RICHARD: G’day No. 2, No, the reason for there being no more potent embodiments of the divine/ the diabolical is not at all a mysterious matter (as in inexplicable) but, as the impotency of the subsequent crop of wannabe saviours of humanity has a mystical cause (located as it is in the apotheosised field of consciousness popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment), it might as well be a mystery, to all intents and purposes, for the layperson. RESPONDENT: Is that reason have anything to do with your (as claimed) being actually free, even though very few people know about you as of now? RICHARD: No, it is not by being actually free of the human condition per se but, rather, because of what the grandiose identity/ the aggrandised affections indwelling via having possessed this flesh and blood body did, in 1992, to bring that about/ to have that happen/ to occasion that to occur ... to wit: the extinction of ‘Being’ itself (otherwise known as ‘The Ground Of Being’ out of which all gods and goddesses arise). In short, and to paraphrase Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche purely for dramatic effect, that which is referred to as The Absolute is dead ... as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains (nor any ashes for some hoary phoenix to arise from). Or, in a word, extinct. RESPONDENT: Or is that reason simply due to the rise of scientism and scepticism and access to information, as you hinted somewhere with words to that effect (that the gurus will not be able to avoid scrutiny in this age, etc.). RICHARD: No, that incapacity to avoid scrutiny is how the layperson is able to see that all the sages and saints and seers have feet of clay (given they do not have access to the apotheosised field of consciousness popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment). (Richard, List D, No. 2, 6 January 2010) RESPONDENT: If the essence of who I am is formless as you say on your website, then how can you see it and describe it as a beautiful rosy pearl nestled coyly amidst the delicate fleshy tissue of its host in its shimmering nacreous shell? RICHARD: G’day No. 11, You are obviously referring to an email exchange of ours, on this forum, over 2 & 1/2 years ago. Purely for the sake of clarity in communication I will re-present it in full. Viz.: #7620 From: richard.actualfreedom Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:47 pm Subject: Re: Richard I have a question • [Respondent]: G’day Richard, How do I learn and discover the essence of who ‘I’ am? Thank you, No.11. • [Richard]: G’day No. 11, In a word: intuitively (aka feeling yourself out subjectively). Also, much use can be made of what is known as hypnagogic (pre-dormient) and hypnopompic (post-dormient) states which occur, respectively, in the drowsiness stage of intermediate consciousness preceding sleep or in the semiconscious state of transitional consciousness preceding waking ... of the two the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago found the pre-dormient state the easier to manifest. However, as it was the hypnopompic state which revealed the essence of who ‘I’ am – the precise nature of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – an anecdote from that period may throw some light on the matter. I was on a coastal sea voyage, making a northerly passage under sail in a trimaran I then owned, off the north-eastern seaboard of Australia when a storm came up from the south late in the day. Rather than make a run for the port I was heading for under a storm jib alone (with all that entails) I chose to anchor overnight in the lee of a nearby island until the storm blew itself out. A perusal of the appropriate chart showed a narrow bay, between two jagged coral reefs, with a tiny beach at its head and the notation ‘fair-weather anchorage’. I figured, were the worst to come about, I could beach my yacht (an advantage multihull yachts have over monohull yachts) and weather the storm out thataway. I negotiated the two jagged coral reefs, dropped anchor several boat-lengths short of what was actually a miniscule beach, and retired below for the evening. I slept soundly, despite the storm howling all about and the yacht pitching and tossing at anchor, only to emerge from deep sleep into a crystal-clear fully-lucid hypnopompic state just after midnight. (Please note that it was, of course, the ‘I’ who was hypnopompic). In that crystal-clear fully-lucid hypnopompic state ‘I’ was able to penetrate deeply into ‘myself’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – or, rather, the penetration took place via ‘my’ full acquiescence – and there, in the centre of all the feelings swirling around, the essence of who ‘I’ am lay gorgeously exposed ... not all that unlike a beautiful rosy pearl, nestled coyly amidst the delicate fleshy tissue of its host, in its shimmering nacreous shell. Except that the essence of who ‘I’ am was a void (and not a ‘thing’ like a pearl is) so the analogy of the void at the centre of whirlpool of water – which is the whirling water in motion – is more apt (albeit not conveying the ethereal radiant beauty of the rosy pearl analogy). Or, in other words, the essence of who ‘I’ am is akin to the calm, still centre of a swirling cyclone/ hurricane/ typhoon. The swirling air/ whirling water is, of course, all the feelings – all of the emotions/ passions – which ‘I’ am comprised of (as in ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). * At that point, as the storm howled even louder and the yacht lurched sluggishly at anchor, I was fully awake in an instant; sitting up and swinging my legs to the edge of the bunk I stood up ... knee-deep in seawater! Now, when something like that happens in a house one can quickly discern that one’s home is being flooded; on a ship at sea, however, it can mean only one thing ... to wit: one’s home is sinking. But, all the while I was starting the auxiliary engine (mostly underwater) and hauling in the anchor (getting thoroughly soaked) and somehow driving the waterlogged trimaran up onto the miniscule beach (unseeable in the pitch black night) without dashing to pieces on the enclosing jagged reefs, that penetration into the essence of who ‘I’ am became indelibly etched into the memory banks. And, as ‘I’ knew exactly who ‘I’ was, that very knowledge was in itself empowering (to use the jargon) and thus contributed enormously to ‘my’ eventual demise. Ain’t life grand! Regards, Richard. (Richard, List D, No. 11, 16 November 2009). And, again for reasons of clarity in communication, in a follow-up email I expanded somewhat upon that which lay so gorgeously exposed, completely unprotected, a little after the witching-hour on that revelatory and empowering (to again utilise the jargon) night in mid-1987. Viz.: #7641 From: richard.actualfreedom Date: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:13 pm Subject: Re: Richard I have a question • [Richard]: [...]. So as to put it into perspective: it [#7620] was a response to being asked how to learn and discover the essence of who ‘I’ am, and not who ‘I’ am in general (social-self + ego-self + soul/ spirit-self), and my anecdotal reply refers to what took place the sixth year (1987) of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment. [...] what lay exposed (as in completely unprotected) was the essence of ‘me’ in all ‘my’ glory ... beautiful, radiant, resplendent and unquestionably worthy of the utmost adoration, worship and veneration. (Hence my lustrous pearl analogy; the eddy analogy is for void, in contrast to thing, as the essence of who ‘I’ am is formless). Kings and Emperors and Sages and Seers alike tremble at the rare honour bestowed only on a graced few, to prostrate before that sacred effulgence, upon choice revelation of its almighty presence. For instance: • [Ms. Pupul Jayakar]: ‘... the feeling of presence was overpowering, and soon my voice stopped. Krishnaji turned to me, ‘Do you feel It? I could prostrate to It?’ His body was trembling as he spoke of the presence that listened. ‘Yes, I can prostrate to this, that is here’. Suddenly he turned and left us, walking alone to his room’. (page 364; Jayakar, Pupul: ‘Krishnamurti – A Biography’; Harper & Row; San Francisco; 1986). Regards, Richard. (Richard, List D, No. 2, 17 November 2009). Now, back to your question (about how can that which is essentially formless be seen and described as a beautiful rosy pearl and etcetera): first and foremost, the seeing is neither a retinal percipience – as in, the seer –> the retinae –> the seen – nor a dichotomous ‘inner’ perception (as in, the seer –> the seen) as the seer *is* the seen ... or, rather, there is only the seen (‘There is only That’). (In short, ‘seeing’, in my above words ‘the seeing is ...’, is being used in its figurative sense). Second, as that which is formless (as in, timeless and spaceless, ethereal and supernal, immaterial and incorporeal and so on) is not only neither existent nor non-existent, but is not neither existent nor non-existent either, then my lustrous pearl analogy serves to convey the ethereal radiant beauty of that which is devoid of any personality whatsoever – utterly non-egoic in any way, means or manner (aka, void) – and, thus, totally ‘other’, resplendently supreme, sacred and absolute. (In short, ‘seen’, in my further above words ‘... there is only the seen’, is also being used in its figurative sense). Lastly, as all my words and writings are informed by the post-parinirvana/ mahasamadhi condition known as an actual freedom from the human condition, it must be stressed that the ongoing experiencing, night and day, for the eleven years 1981-to-1992 was *not* of being a (capitalised) ‘Self’ or ‘Being’ – ‘God’ or ‘The Creator’ by whatever name – but of having gone behind that, in the first few weeks or so, into that which all such gods and goddesses arise out of or are grounded in. (In short, that whence all avatars and buddhas emanate). Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: These are just two quotes of many possible quotes which show that the masters’ teaching is very well beyond ‘Love Agape’ and ‘Compassion’. • [Richard]: You may find the following informative in this regard: • [Co-Respondent]: “What do You understand by being enlightenment?” • [Richard]: “There is nothing other than The Absolute”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25, 30 July 2001). And this: • [Co-Respondent]: “Richard, what is your description of enlightenment as you experienced it 20 years ago? (My understanding of the same event can be found in an earlier post)”. • [Richard]: “And my answer is to be found in response to that earlier post: there was only The Absolute (God by whatever name) and nothing else existed. Howsoever, I can flesh it out a little ... my experience, for eleven years in the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’, was an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss: unconditional Love Agapé and Divine Compassion poured forth for all suffering sentient beings twenty four hours of the day. It was a truly euphoric state of being”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25, 9 January 2002). And this: • [Co-Respondent]: “I invite all of you who have had a Self experience to try describing it”. • [Richard]: “Sure ... there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed”. • [Co-Respondent]: “I question if actual freedom from Human Condition is attainable without surpassing the last psychic Archetype, the Self, our Creator, out of which everything has begun?” • [Richard]: “My experience is that an actual freedom is attainable by going beyond spiritual enlightenment ... however I do not advise going that route (via enlightenment) as it is too traumatic. Also it is just plain silly”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25, 6 August 2002). And this: • [Co-Respondent]: “As an example [of a description of ‘Self’], is the description ‘a very old child’ valid in your case?” • [Richard]: “No, the description “there is nothing other than The Absolute” is what is valid in my case (...)”. • [Co-Respondent]: “If you can provide a brief description for your particular Self image, so as to compare notes, I would be pleased to read it”. • [Richard]: “Sure ... there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed”. • [Co-Respondent]: “Or is it indescribable?” • [Richard]: “No, it is easily described: there was nothing other than The Absolute”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25c, 25 August 2003). In other words, in full-blown spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment, there is only ‘That’ (the unmanifest by whatever name) and the manifest – all time and all space and all form – is but a dream/ an illusion/ an appearance ... meaning that in reality there is neither creation nor destruction, and thus, neither bondage nor liberation/ neither a seeker after liberation nor the liberated. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 89b, 13 May 2005). * I am also stressing this so as to address the mis-information/ dis-information bruited abroad by a pretermitting whippersnapper whose main function in life is, it would seem, to be a mouthpiece for a once-failed Singapore businessman he publicly identifies as Mr. John Tan (he may as well have said ‘John Smith’ or ‘Joe Citizen’). Ha ... this is all such fun! Regards, Richard. * RESPONDENT: If the essence of who I am is formless as you say on your website, then how can you see it and describe it as a beautiful rosy pearl nestled coyly amidst the delicate fleshy tissue of its host in its shimmering nacreous shell? RICHARD: You are obviously referring to an email exchange of ours, on this forum, over 2 & 1/2 years ago. Purely for the sake of clarity in communication I will re-present it in full. Viz.: [...snip...]. Second, as that which is formless (as in, timeless and spaceless, ethereal and supernal, immaterial and incorporeal and so on) is not only neither existent nor non-existent, but is not neither existent nor non-existent either, then my lustrous pearl analogy serves to convey the ethereal radiant beauty of that which is devoid of any personality whatsoever – utterly non-egoic in any way, means or manner (aka, void) – and, thus, totally ‘other’, resplendently supreme, sacred and absolute. [...snip...]. (Richard, List D, No. 11a, 15 June 2013). RESPONDENT: Existent and non-existent are one? RICHARD: G’day No. 11, If by ‘one’ you mean the two faces of the same coin then, yes, existent/ non-existent are one; mystical literature often mentions how the polar opposites continue to subsist (as complimentary poles) in awakenment/ enlightenment. Indeed, one of the appellations used to describe that integration of the divine/ diabolical divide upon transcendence, wherein the opposites unite without ceasing to be themselves, is the phrase ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ (coincidence of opposites). Another term is ‘complexio oppositorum’ (union of opposites). The (mystical) experience of being both existent and non-existent, simultaneously, is a god-experience (goddess, if feminine). But behind the god/ goddess-experience (‘behind’, not beyond) is That which is not only neither existent nor non-existent, but is not neither existent nor non-existent either. This double-negation is not just a fancy play of words but a precise depiction of that which is, essentially, ineffable (as in, no attributes to speak of). RESPONDENT: Also, can you describe how one initiates the act of penetration into one’s being? RICHARD: Yes, and I can do no better, for now, than to confirm the selection made by a discerning reader in an earlier post (#14009) as it is the very quote I had in mind to re-present for your appraisal. RESPONDENT: Richard, God is real? RICHARD: If you are using ‘real’ as it is used in actualism terminology – unlike the dictionaries I draw a sharp distinction between the word real and the word actual – then, yes, ‘God’ is real (just as all gods and goddesses are real) but is in no way, means or manner actual. With no God (or gods and goddesses) to meddle in human affairs any longer one walks freely, as this flesh-and-blood body only, in the already always existing peace-on-earth. Regards, Richard. RESPONDENT No. 45 (List B): By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/ ‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways: 1. Jnani (cognitive realisation as epitomised by the ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this; not this’ approach). 2. Bhakti (affective realisation as epitomised by devotional worship and surrender of will). 3. Yoga (bodily realisation as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’). (Richard, List B, No. 45a, 6 January 2001a). RESPONDENT: Richard, I’ve been following this discussion with interest and have a couple of questions for you: Which of the 3 ways did you use to achieve spiritual enlightenment in 1981? RICHARD: Well, none of those 3 ways, actually ... I inadvertently ‘discovered’ another way: ignorance. I was aiming for the pure consciousness experience (PCE) and landed short of my goal ... and it took another 11 years to get here. To explain: I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again. By being born and raised in the West I was not steeped in the mystical religious tradition of the East and was thus able to escape the trap of centuries of eastern spiritual conditioning. I had never heard the words ‘Enlightenment’ or ‘Nirvana’ and so on until 1982 when talking to a man about my breakthrough, into what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ via the death of ‘myself’, in September 1981. He listened – he questioned me rigorously until well after midnight – and then declared me to be ‘Enlightened’. I had to ask him what that was, such was my ignorance of all things spiritual. He – being a nine-year spiritual seeker fresh from his latest trip to India – gave me a book to read by someone called Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. That was to be the beginning of what was to become a long learning curve of all things religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical for me. I studied all this because I sought to understand what other peoples had made of such spontaneous experiences and to find out where human endeavour had been going wrong. I found out where I had been going wrong for eleven years ... self-aggrandisement is so seductive. RESPONDENT: If people can use any of these three techniques, and I’m thinking in particular of the 3rd via raising of the kundalini, doesn’t this verify part of the spiritual theory? RICHARD: The ‘spiritual theory’ needs no further verification than that it is indeed possible to become illuminated or enlightened. Similarly, it is also possible to become angry or sad or loving or compassionate ... and so on. It is also possible to be intuitive, to be telepathic, to be clairvoyant (not accurately though). As well as that it is possible to see fairies or sprites or goblins ... the whole range of psychic phenomena. RESPONDENT: If one can practice to send the kundalini up the sushumna opening chakras along the way – for this to work mustn’t there be a kundalini? RICHARD: Not only the ‘kundalini’ ... there must also be ‘the sushumna’ , the ‘chakras’ and ‘prana’ (one cannot practice ‘pranayama’ if there be no ‘prana’). The word ‘prana’ (meaning ‘vital air’, from the root ‘pran’: ‘to breathe’) refers to what is known as the vital energy or vital force or life principle ... and has corollaries in other cultures (‘chi’ in China, pronounced ‘ki’ in Japan) and is also known as ‘vitalism’ (popular in Europe in the early twentieth century) or ‘vital élan’. And, as ‘pranayama’ basically means the practice of breath control (prana = outgoing breath, apana = incoming breath, vyana = retained breath, Udana = ascending breath and samana = equalising breath), it is relevant to remember that the word ‘psyche’ (Greek: ‘psukhe’: breath, soul, life; related to ‘psukhein’: breathe, blow) relates to breath and breathing ... and thus to life and living (as opposed to death and dying as in ‘taking your last breath’). For many early peoples (called ‘primitive people’) what animated the body was breath (air, vital air, vital force, life force, life principle and so on), because when a person stopped breathing they were dead ... their soul had left their body as their last breath. In the animistic religions (called ‘pagan’) of the Bronze Age and earlier, spirit was everywhere, especially in the air (in the ‘ether’) and it is no coincidence that the ‘etheric body’ is considered the ‘vital body’ or ‘essential body’ (the Sanskrit ‘akasha’ means the same as ‘ether’ ... hence ‘akashic’ and ‘etheric’ refer to a similar psychic phenomenon). Lastly, there are some spiritual people who do not seem to ‘get it’ that the word ‘spiritual’ means of or pertaining to the spirit ... and take umbrage at being linked to the spirit-ridden animistic Bronze-Age peoples whence their much-vaunted ‘Ancient Wisdom’ comes from. Facts, of course, are irrelevant to spiritualists ... even though, these days we know that the ‘vital force’ in the air we breath is oxygen and that what we breath out is carbon dioxide (amongst other elements) which is the ‘vital force’ that plants imbibe ... and plants exude the very oxygen we breath in. And, unless science can be proved incorrect about the physical element called oxygen, and the wisdom of the ancients proved right about the non-physical etheric force, called prana or chi and so on, the following has no relationship whatsoever to physical actuality. Viz.: • The ‘sushumna’ is one of the ‘nadis’ (‘conduits’) and a ‘nadi’ is traditionally held to be a nerve fibre or energy channel of the subtle (inner) bodies such as the etheric body. It is said there are 72,000 and that these interconnect the chakras. In China the equivalent could be the ‘meridians’ made famous in the West through acupuncture advocates (acupuncture is based upon the flow of ‘chi’ energy or vital energy or vital force or life principle travelling along these meridians). The three main nadis are: 1. the ‘ida nadi’ (also known as the ‘chandra’ or ‘moon’ nadi) and is held to be pink in colour and downward-flowing, ending on the left side of the body, considered feminine in nature, and is said to be the channel of physical-emotional energy. 2. the ‘pingasa nadi’ (also known as the ‘surya’ or ‘sun’ nadi) and is held to be blue in colour, upward-flowing, ending on the right side of the body, considered masculine in nature, and is said to be the channel of intellectual-mental energy. 3. the ‘sushumna nadi’ is the major nerve current, which passes through the spinal column, from the ‘muladhara chakra’ (at the base of the spine) to the ‘sahasrara chakra’ (at the crown of the head). It is the channel of kundalini and it is through yoga that the kundalini energy, lying dormant in the ‘muladhara chakra’, is awakened and made to rise up ‘sushumna nadi’, through each chakra, to the ‘sahasrara chakra’. • A ‘chakra’ (‘wheel’) is any one of the nerve plexes (known as the centres of force and consciousness) located within the inner bodies and there have been attempts to correlate them with nerve plexuses, ganglia and glands in the physical body. The seven principal chakras are psychically seen as colourful multi-petalled wheels or lotuses and are situated along the spinal cord from its base to the cranial chamber. Additionally, seven other chakras are held to exist below the spine and are said to be the seats of instinctive consciousness ... the origin of jealousy, hatred, envy, guilt, sorrow and so on (they constitute the lower or hellish world, called ‘Naraka’ or ‘Patala’). The seven upper chakras are: 1. muladhara (base of spine): memory, time and space; 2. svadhishthana (below the navel): reason; 3. manipura (solar plexus): willpower; 4. anahata (heart centre): direct cognition; 5. vishuddha (throat): divine love; 6. ajna (third eye): divine sight; 7. sahasrara (crown of head): illumination, enlightenment (Godliness). The seven lower chakras are: 1. atala (hips): fear and lust; 2. vitala (thighs): raging anger; 3. sutala (knees): retaliatory jealousy; 4. talatala (calves): prolonged mental confusion; 5. rasatala (ankles): selfishness; 6. mahatala (feet): absence of conscience; 7. patala (located in the soles of the feet): murder and malice. • The ‘kundalini’ (‘She who is coiled; serpent power’) is considered to be the primordial cosmic energy in every human being which lies coiled like a serpent at the base of the spine and, eventually, through the practice of yoga, rises up the sushumna nadi. As it rises, the kundalini awakens each successive chakra. ‘Nirvikalpa Samadhi’ (spiritual enlightenment) comes as it pierces through the ‘Door of Brahman’ at the core of the ‘sahasrara’ (crown of head) chakra and enters. This ‘primordial cosmic energy’ is sometimes known as ‘Parashakti’, or ‘Satchidananda’, the supreme consciousness and primal substratum of all form. This pure, divine energy unfolds as ‘ictha shakti’ (the power of desire, will, love), ‘kriya shakti’ (the power of action) and ‘jnana shakti’ (the power of wisdom, knowing). This ‘primordial cosmic energy’ is most easily experienced by devotees as the sublime, bliss-inspiring life-energy. The sublimated carnal passions (the ecstatically blissful sexual energies in the pleasure centre of the amygdala), coupled with a fertilised imagination, do have amazingly energetic manifestations. RESPONDENT: Obviously I’m having a little trouble leaving behind some of my spiritual baggage. I wonder if perhaps I have misinterpreted what you said to me in an earlier email: [Richard]: ‘The entire psychic world is real – at times very real – but none of it is actual’. Initially I interpreted this as ‘real’ meaning something akin to the spiritual concept of maya – seemingly real but ultimately not so. Now I am re-reading the definition you give of ‘actual’ and it occurs to me that perhaps you mean only the actual world is important – I’m guessing that’s something made clear during PCE’s and in Actual Freedom itself? – and that the world of the ‘real’ is more unimportant than illusory. Would this be an accurate summary? RICHARD: The ‘world of the real’ is the ‘inner world’, born of the affective faculty, and superimposed as a veneer over this actual world ... creating what is known as the ‘real-world’ (the ‘outer world’). There is no ‘inner world’ or ‘outer world’ in actuality: there is only the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. And, yes, this actual world is stunningly obvious in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: Richard, I have some questions. 1) Do you see enlightenment as pathological? RICHARD: Yes, my experience, night and day for eleven years, showed me intimately that it is indeed a morbid condition. In psychiatric terminology it is a dissociative state of being, sometimes known as ‘disassociative identity disorder’, complete with self-important delusions of grandeur and megalomaniacal demands for recognition, adulation, surrender and total obedience ... the ‘contracted ego’ (or ‘self’) has transmogrified into a fully expanded soul (the all-expansive ‘Self’). Generally speaking, all dissociative reactions are attempts to escape from excessive trauma tension and anxiety by separating off parts of personality function from the rest of cognition as an attempt to isolate something that arouses anxiety and gain distance from it. For example, in everyday life, mild and temporary dissociation, sometimes hard to distinguish from repression and isolation, is a relatively common and normal device used to escape from severe emotional stress and anxiety. Temporary episodes of transient estrangement, depersonalisation and derealisation are often experienced by normal persons when they first feel the initial impact of bad news, for instance. Everything suddenly looks strange and different; things seem unnatural and distant; events can be indistinct and vaporous; often the person feels that they themselves are unreal and everything takes on a dream-like quality. Dissociation becomes abnormal when the once mild or transient expedient becomes too intense, lasts too long, or escapes from a person’s control ... and leads to a separation from the surroundings which seriously disturbs object relations. In object estrangement the once familiar world of ordinary objects – the world of people, things and events – seems to have undergone a disturbing and often indescribable change. Thus, just as a traumatised victim of an horrific and terrifying event makes the experience unreal in order to cope with the ordeal, all the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages have desperately done precisely this thing (during what is sometimes called ‘the dark night of the soul’). Mystics have been transmogrifying the real world ‘reality’ into an unreal ‘True Reality’ via the epiphenomenal imaginative/ intuitive facility born of the psyche (which is formed by the instinctual passions genetically endowed by blind nature for survival purposes) for millennia. Mysticism in general is a psychotic sickness; a head-in-the-sand escapist ‘solution’ to all the ills of humankind and is otherwise described (in non-psychiatric terminology) as ‘Theodicy’ (a vindication of a god’s and/or goddess’s goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil). The altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ is nothing more and nothing less than a frantic coping-mechanism that became culturally institutionalised, into being a legitimate and venerated social metaphysics, over thousands and thousands of years. RESPONDENT: 2) Do you see enlightenment as necessary step to get to where you are at? RICHARD: No ... no one else need ever take that route again (and I would not wish upon anyone to have to follow in my footsteps for I had to run the full gamut of existential angst to break through to what lay beyond). I always liken it to the physical adventure that Mr. James Cook undertook to journey to Australia two hundred plus years ago. It took him over a year in a leaky wooden boat with hard tack for food and immense dangers along the way. Nowadays, one can fly to Australia in twenty-seven hours in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain. No one has to go the path of the trail-blazer and forge along in another leaky wooden boat. SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON ALTERED STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS 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