[removed]

Thought this might be some interesting reading (and warning) for all you guys persuing AF. Apparently its from Richards ex wife Irene [redacted] who claims Richard suffered from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. According to her he still suffers anxiety attacks, depression and in her words "sexual perversions." She also sheds some interesting light on his 'Enlightenment' episode which she witnessed as being nothing more than bi-polar disorder: "He had no kind of manifestations of Love Agape, which I have been witness to in such a being but not in Richard [redacted]. His claim is entirely false because what he was diagnosed with is a form of Bipolar disorder. In manic phases he would manifest the larger than life existence and in the opposite phase he would dig a hole and lie low in it."

Make up your own minds...

[edit: the disclosure of personal details (such as a person's full name) against the wishes of that person (such as richard) is not welcome at the dho, either in the actualism/actual freedom section or any other section of the discussion forum, or on any other part of this website. please respect this guideline so that no further moderation is necessary. further, it should be noted that none of the 'revelatory' assertions contained in this post or in the links originally provided therein have been verified, as well as that their poster has refused to provide evidence that he or she is actually richard's dead ex-wife irene. -tarin, mod]

the actualism/actual freedom section of the dho discussion forum is intended exclusively for the discussion of the practice of the actual method and the results obtained therefrom. though this guideline has been relaxed somewhat recently, in order to accommodate the significant number of dho participants who have adapted and combined the actualism method with other practices and methodologies and/or innovated their own approaches towards the goal of an actual freedom, this thread is a far cry from any such adaptation or innovation - indeed, it is not even remotely about practice at all. therefore, it has been moved to the dharma battleground sub-forum, where 'flame wars, battles, and high controversy should happen with all the compassion, listening, clarification, passion for the truth and intelligence [participants] can muster.'

tarin, mod

Make our minds about what, exactly?

There are many attacks and unsubstantiated rantings on various forums, but they do not affect the personal verifiability of Actualism, or affect the reproducibility of the state of Actual Freedom in increasing numbers of people.

What are YOU looking for on the AF website, or in what is written about AF, that would convince you AF is worth delving into? There are plenty of people on DhO who are always happy to answer questions you might have about AF.

Swaying one way or another based on the opinions of other people is going to lead you nowhere. Finding out for yourself is the best thrill there is.

good luck

If you read the referenced article[1], you'll notice that most of in Richard's own words.

You'll find out just what "actual freedom" really was for him, and how it came about.

Now, having presumably read it, how can you act like that doesn't matter?

How can you advise people not to care exactly what it is they're striving for, but just strive for it anyway?

John

[1] [edit: removed reference to link because it contains private and extraneous information]

"Make our minds about what, exactly?"

If you read the entire article it clearly suggests (in Richards own words) that he had a diagnosed mental illness BEFORE going 'down the wide and wondrous path.' I understand DHO is a pragmatic practise orientated forum, but isnt this information worth taking into consideration? Why do you find it unreasonable to be even slightly apprehensive about following the practises of a man clearly suffering from various serious mental disorders?

And, more importantly, afterwards.

Richard became actually free in September 1992, yet he describes October 1992 onwards as follows:

"By October 1992 my world fell apart and I suffered
yet another – and my most major – breakdown. Not only had I a fear of going
crazy all those years, I had had an even stronger fear of seeking psychiatric
help … for my understanding then was that I would be locked away in a
psychiatric ward for the rest of my life. It was not until 1993 – when I just
could not keep it up on my own any more – that I admitted myself to hospital
care.

My symptoms had become so intense that I no longer had any choice. I had also
come to understand that it was now Government Policy to return mental patients,
on suitable medication, back into the community and not lock them away. They
tried me first on `Meloril' and `Valium' which only exacerbated the symptoms so
they put me on `Modicate' and `Valium' which turned me into a walking zombie
with wooden legs … and still the symptoms persisted. `Rivotril' and `Valium'
had me in a near catatonic state … with once again no relief. Finally
`Stellazine' and `Valium' worked together to ease the strain somewhat so that I
could operate and function, to a limited degree, in the world outside.

The medication made life barely tolerable – it did not take the symptoms away,
it only reduced their severity. I felt like an alien in a strange and eerie
world of maddened creatures, called fellow human beings, who were hell-bent upon
destroying one another. Murder and mayhem reigned supreme throughout the globe,
even into the homes in the form of domestic violence and child abuse. I had
nightmares of being back in the Army again … back in South Vietnam again … and I
would wake in terror and a cold sweat … I slept for periods of about an hour and
a half at a time … only to wake from a sleeping nightmare into the living
nightmare of everyday reality. Although PTSD is diagnosed an Anxiety Disorder I
found the word "anxiety" to be far too mild a term. This was an utterly ghastly
existence.

I had no social life or friends. My only companion was my second wife, a
Registered Nursing Sister, who was thus well-equipped to be with me in my
distress. Even so, PTSD put an enormous strain upon her and we split up five
times during our eleven years together … the last split-up being the final one.
I had no wish to start a new family with her so I had a vasectomy … I had four
children from my first marriage who would have nothing to do with me. I had
also become alienated from my parents and my siblings … I had no family life at
all. All of the psychiatrists, psychologists and counsellors were of the firm
opinion that I would have this disorder (such a politically correct word for
insanity) for the remainder of my life – a bleak future which appalled me no
end. I could not generate any interest in pursuing a career for all activity
was pointless and meaningless.

I had frequent panic attacks and could not bear to be in crowd, as even with a
small group of people I would get easily startled, for I experienced their
normal assertiveness as being outright aggression. Any aggressive displays
would trigger of an attack in me and I would take days to work through it to
some semblance of `normality'. My mind would jam up as if three radio stations
or television channels were trying to fit on the same frequency and still
produce a coherent show. My wife had to escort me everywhere for she was my
connection to the real world `reality' where everyone else lived but me. I
would rely heavily upon her to be able to make sense of the world, for I could
not understand it at all. I could not experience love and affection – let alone
express them – and eventually moved into such a strange condition (described
below) that eventually my second marriage ended."

(see original for continuing narrative).

It seems to me that one of the main issues here is that people in general are continuing to take Richard's claim seriously that what he's practiced is 180 degrees different from spiritual practices in other traditions.

When one doesn't take that seriously, one sees a man who perhaps had serious mental health issues and found a way to deal with that. Great! Buddhists claim that life is suffering caused by craving...to the extent that is true, we all have some serious mental health issues. Perhaps one should worry about how spiritual practices in general can affect one's mental health...or, perhaps one is more worried about the fundamental mental health issue that afflicts people, the ongoing existential woe that motivates many to even consider these practices in the first place.

What the transformation of a person who follows these practices is like will probably depend on whether their prior issues were of psychiatric significance or the common-or-garden type.

Richard is clear that his experience of AF was not the same in the beginning as his experience of it some years later, which needs to be taken into account.

It would be interesting to hear to what extent Richard still has mental health issues (so as to see in what way those issues could possibly persist and interact with his current condition of AF), but other than that (and keeping in mind that these claims are just claims, not well-substantiated), I myself see little significance to the issue.

EDIT: It is interesting to read the claim that Richard's "enlightenment" experiences were manifestations of bipolar disorder. I don't believe that anyone here who has attained any paths can recognize very much of Richard's experience in their own, so that possibility does go a long way towards clarifying things.

Also, I did not read through the materials at the provided links thoroughly (I am not especially interested in Richard's personal life), but I did skim them, and found this:



Did Richard practice vipassana? Was Richard a model Buddhist in terms of his practice without even realizing it? Oh, the irony!

Think A&P/Dark Night cycling. At one point I wondered if all I had accomplished with my practice up to that point was to make my moods more unstable than they used to be.

Did you believe that you were Love Agape (etc.), or merely that your moods had become unstable in some way that was related to the paths you attained?

I was just about to edit my post to say: "But I didn't seem to have it quite as bad/as intense as Richard did."

Just moods unstable. Lots of torment. Some shockingly miserable experiences. But nothing as intensely terrifying as Richard describes.

And on a few occasions I did 'throw my awareness around me' and consider 'wee I'm enlightened!' and self-aggrandized a bit in my room, without other people around... but it seemed silly and didn't really stick.

My theory is that it's the same phenomena, just far, far intenser for Richard. I was certainly never in a war zone.

Apparently no one has read the background to the quoted text, doing so reveals the text is from a hostile, unverified source, and most probably is malicious and fraudulent. The author has made no secret of their clear and open hostility to AF, Af'ers and Richard.

I have read the quote, but with an open mind.

To one and all - why so keen to find fault with Richard? Easier than questioning your deepest beliefs?

Re validity of Richard's180 degrees position, given the history of failure in all systems of psychology/religion/spirituality/metaphysics, over all recorded history, the balance of probability is that AF is indeed new and 180 degrees opposite to previous paradigms, for fundamentally sound reasons. As always, the simplest explanation is usually the best.

If anyone can point to a geometrically increasing circle of enlightened/free people, anywhere in history, that can evidence a workable paradigm, please do so. Of course it never happened, if it had, we would have ended compassion, love, empathy, malice, hate, war, pacifism etc long ago.

It now remains to be seen if Actualism will achieve unbounded growth in numbers of people who are actually free; so far the signs are promising.

EDIT: this is not a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, but to steve d, John Wilde and e.i.s. Sorry for the confusion

Have you?

What if you found out that the text was indeed written by Richard?

Would it change anything for you?

John

Aziz Ansari voice: WHOAH WHOAH WHOAH hold on, I thought Irene was dead.

"

RESPONDENT: Is your second wife still alive?

RICHARD: No, she died at 11.25 AM (AEDST) on Saturday, 14 November, 2009.

"

http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd22.htm

Unless of course, Irene is not his second wife.

Then my bad.

"To one and all - why so keen to find fault with Richard? Easier than questioning your deepest beliefs?"

Hi John, apologies to all if I came across as vehemontly against Richard. Im not.The man has clearly been through intense suffering and seems to have found a way to cope with it and fair play to him.

But when someone claims to be entirely free of the human condition, of malice and sorrow, fear and aggression, as well as claiming infallible insight into the nature of reality/the universe surely, SURELY we have to investigate? I mean, this has got to be of vital importance to the world? This man is a one in a billion!

The point is, if he isnt what he claims to be, the legitimacy and ultimate nature of the AF state is called into question. Im glad some people persuing AF like EIS can still maintain a realistic view of Richard and the fallible nature of the human mind.

No, you would be right in your intitial reaction. Irene is indeed his 'dead' ex wife. If this is true, which i am not claiming it to be (i am merely pointing to the evidence), this is beyond reprehensible behaviour. Happy and harmless indeed......

Same.

John

If you are willing to put in enough hours of vipassana / dry insight, you can find out the truth about this for yourself.

Personal experience of that nature has a way of producing strong opinions about the subject.

I would like to make a general comment on this matter.

The degree to which people appear to be interested in Richard, the validity of Richard's claims concerning uniqueness, his take on what "the human condition" is and what can be abandoned, etc. is surprising to me.

Speaking personally, I found that the main problem of life is that every affective experience, no matter how pleasant or refined, is a form of suffering. When I was able to realize this (having used the testimony of people who claimed AF as food for thought), I saw that it would be for my welfare and in my best interest to end these experiences.

Perhaps this was an easier thing for me to decide upon than for many other people, as I had previously spent a great deal of time meditating and seen that many transformations of experience were possible (and so had confidence that this would be too). But, I see this as the fundamental thing.

So, I would like to ask Steve D and John Wilde this: do you see for yourselves (personally, directly) that affective experience is suffering? If so, are you motivated to end affective experience?

If so, and if the sole problem for you is one of confidence or faith (i.e. not knowing whether it's possible, given the possibility that Richard may be untruthful in various ways), why don't you start a thread here to discuss the matter of this lack of confidence (since it is the thing that potentially stands between you and peace)?

As I have emphasized, I do not believe that what Richard describes is a state unique to humanity...indeed, it occurs to me that the Pali suttas have described the problem of affective experience in a much more detailed and accurate way than Richard managed to. (From physical sensation of pleasant / unpleasant / neutral comes craving, from craving comes clinging, from clinging comes becoming, and those three things, craving-clinging-becoming, are the tripartite nature of these experiences; this is enshrined in the core of Buddhist doctrine.) Recognizing this may take the emphasis off of Richard and off of questions about his uniqueness, sanity, and honesty.

Hello EIS,

"So, I would like to ask Steve D and John Wilde this: do you see for yourselves (personally, directly) that affective experience is suffering? If so, are you motivated to end affective experience?"

I can agree with you that yea, there are various affective experiences that cause suffering. Sadness at the knowledge that everyone I know and love will be gone, anger at the cruelty people can inflict upon one another. These all cause me suffering. But I truly dont want to let these emotional/affective experiences go. Not feeling anger or a sense of injustice in the face of cruelty is in my opinion perverse and dissociative in the extreme. Without empathy there would be little motivation to reach out and help others. A part of me believes it is cowardly and narcassistic to want to go through life unperturbed and emotionally detached to other peoples suffering. Existential suicide cant be the answer. Surely theres gotta be another way.

And yet.....

Saying this I do agree with Richard in that deep down I know this life is not set up to be an endless veil of tears and bullshit. Ultimately I understand that my own suffering and misery achieves nothing. Im here for a short while and then im gone. "All sound and fury signifying nothing" The possiblility that maybe, just maybe we've been living in paradise all along if only we could see it blows my mind. Writers and poets ive long admired have always spoken about the perfection in our midst. Dostoevesky, William Blake,HP Lovecraft, Huxley all have spoken about this purity of experience. And for most of my life ive been driven to seek out this perfection like a moth to a flame. Theres no going back for me.

So maybe AF and the extinction of being is the answer to the happiness we all seek? I dont know, but it just seems to be the case of 'too good to be true' and these recent revelations seem to point to the truth of this statement.

something to bare in mind in this connection: without empathy it would be impossible for sociopaths to experience pleasure at inflicting pain on others. Cruelty as such could be well defined as the empathic enjoyment of inducing suffering in another. I've always thought about sociopathy as being a lack of empathy but I was recently disabused of this notion by a professor who's a practicing therapist. He described a client (a sociopathic violent offender) who responded to the suggestion that he use a heavy bag to get out his pent up rage rather than beating the shit out of people by saying "that would never work; a heavy bag doesn't wimper".

that's not to say that empathy is intrinsically "bad" either-- given our repertoire of instinctual passions it seems that empathy, for non-sociopaths at least, provides an important set of neurological training wheels developmentally for humans to learn to take the feelings of others into account as we act to pursue our individual desires. Apparently for most sociopaths (some apparently ARE born that way) there are early childhood experiences that flip the way the use empathy, and from a given point on in their development they feel compelled to use their empathy for cruelty (they never again want to be on the recieving end of that kind of abuse, you see, and they click into a 'best defense is a good offense' strategy).

All of this is just to say that empathy shouldn't be associated exclusively with positive behaviors, as this is simply innacurate from a neurological and psychological point of view. Likewise there has been some research on "compassion fatigue" and burnout in the helping professions which indicates that being able to bypass the mirror-neuron system which underlies the felt sense of resonating with anothers' pain is an important skill for helpers (therapists, social workers) who work professionally day in and out with severely disturbed people-- and it's entirely possible to understand and see very clearly the pain and distress of another human being, and respond helpfully, without these mirror neuron empathic training wheels.
-Jake

I challenge you to reflect on this. I have not attained an actual freedom, but having read as much as I have about the people who have attained it, I have come to the conclusion that one does not need the kind of "empathy" that you are talking about here to reach out and help others.

If I could come to that conclusion, and lending me the benefit of doubt (in that I am not deluded in this), you should also be able to reach that same conclusion.

I also want to point out that your thinking that an actual freedom is narcissistic is the complete opposite of my view of an actual freedom. Once again, if I was able to come to this conclusion, than you are so too.

Granted, you will have to have an open mind and be generous with that benefit of doubt. You do agree that a judging mind is a clouded mind? So blow away those clouds and see for yourself, with real intent, whether or not what I have quoted is necessarily so.

---

What is the meaning of narcissism? What are the synonyms of narcissism?

preoccupation with self, self-absorption, self-admiration, self-confidence, self-importance, self-interest, self-love, self-possession, self-regard, self-worship, selfishness.

What exactly does "self-immolation" lead to?

What are antonyms to narcissism? Altruism and selflessness. What are synonyms to altruism and selflessness? Benevolence, benignity, magnanimity.

What is the meaning of altruism?

What exactly is "humanity", as a characteristic of behavior? What are the synonyms of "humanity"?

Do you recognize any of these words from a certain website? The secret is in the meaning of the words.

This is true, but this is commonly understood (very few people would not stand aghast at the more extreme horrors and cruelties in the world), and is not the core of what I see the spiritual path as being about. I was getting at something deeper.

Do you see for yourself (personally, directly) that every affective experience is suffering?

That means all of the "bad" ones, plus all of the "good" ones, plus all of the "neutral" ones.

Do you see for yourself (personally, directly) that a constant flow of good, bad, and neutral affective experiences are being generated so long as one is conscious and normally percipient, and thus, life is a constant stream of pointless and gratuitous suffering?

If you do not see that, would you be interested in seeing that?

If you do not see that, would it change your mind about the value of trying to eliminate these experiences if you were able to confirm (personally, directly) that it were true?



I think it is unjust (in the sense of being pointless and gratuitous) that anyone should have to suffer, I empathize with the plight of those who do (as 'my' plight, when I was still stuck in the deepest throes of affective experience, was the same), and I am here spending my time talking to you and others about it despite the fact that I could be doing all kinds of other things.

Isn't it strange? Isn't it wonderful?



I can confirm (speaking from personal, direct experience) that seeing and living this kind of perfection is possible. As my practice progresses, this has become powerfully and abundantly clear to me, more and more so with each passing day. I do not claim to be fully liberated or fully free from suffering, but I believe, on the basis of my personal, direct experience, that it is possible, and that it would be more worthwhile than anything else in life.

I have no financial or personal motive to say such a thing, so I hope you will take my claim at face value, as nothing more than an attempt to share what I have found in my experience as a contemplative.

It occurred to me just now that I use "empathy" in a different way than most people...not to mean "feeling the pain of others", but "understanding the situation of others".

This usage, as far as I know, has been life-long. It never occurred to me that empathy had to include feeling the pain of others (even though that is how it typically worked for me in the past). I am not sure I ever believed that feeling the pain of others was a good thing, except insofar as it helped me to understand their situation, despite the fact that I was unusually sensitive about certain kinds of pain that others felt.

Although now I appear not to feel the pain of others in any normal, visceral sense, I see no reason not to continue to use the word "empathy", as the core thing for me has always been understanding. Hence my having written what I wrote above without batting an eye, without being aware of how out of place it was (as your point was about feeling others pain).

I don't want to derail this conversation (as the core point is about what is suffering and what isn't), but perhaps it's worth considering how I, a well-adapted person, went through life with such a different default understanding of what empathy was than the understanding you have, and how I managed to live well given that.

(EDIT: There were times in my life where thinking about certain kinds of injustices visited upon innocent people would leave me quasi-paralyzed by emotional pain, and I would often get stuck in "loops" thinking about such things, feeling terrible, being thus inclined to think about such things more, continuing to feel terrible, etc. I would estimate that my sensitivity to others' suffering was significantly higher than average. Despite that, it genuinely never occurred to me that "empathy" was about sharing pain.

Someone once told me that they couldn't think about the conditions through which certain food items were produced, as they involved a great deal of suffering for the animals involved...so they continued to purchase those food items, but studiously avoided thinking about the conditions behind their production. They experienced the pain they imagined animals felt quite strongly...but, to me, lacked empathy in any meaningful way with respect to the situation, as their only goal was to avoid feeling vicarious pain, rather than to understand the situation and to act in such a way as not to contribute to it after understanding it. At the time it struck me that they would have been better off with no emotional response to pain, and a little bit of genuine concern for the suffering they professed to care about.

Similarly, someone once told me that they couldn't eat any food product that reminded them of the animal from which it came (e.g. a whole fish), because they didn't like the idea of eating living creatures...so they only ate animal products, such as ground meat, that did not remind them of living creatures. At the time I thought it was self-serving behavior, and not remotely empathetic.)

Considering that Richard epitomizes Actual Freedom, why is this surprising to you?

Richard is adamant that he was the first person in human history to discover the condition he calls Actual Freedom. If he's wrong, as you seem to suggest, what would his persistent and utterly adamant wrongness say about Actual Freedom?

Aside from that, if the referenced article is Richard's work, there are now two conflicting accounts of how Richard's enlightenment and actual freedom occurred. In the version on the AF website, a normal guy devises a practice/method that induces profound psychic changes, first enlightenment and then utter 'extinction' (actual freedom). The other article paints a completely different picture in which the method/practice was not the driver of change, but was a desperate strategy to cope with irresistible psychic changes that were already underway, driven by his underlying pathology.

I was surprised by how casually this was waved away.

John

To the extent that one thinks Richard is deluded, it's strange to me how much stock is continuing to be put in some of his claims (uniqueness etc.) but not others (freedom from the human condition etc.).

Perhaps another reason is that, as this is the DhO, we are more interested in practical techniques, and (for historical reasons) more likely (to various degrees, depending on the poster) to view things through the lens of Buddhism...and thus, not wedded in any fundamental way to the AFT worldview nor to Richard as a figurehead. It occurs to me that you may not be aware of this. (Have you read MCTB, for instance? In order to understand this forum, you really should.)

As for the claim that Richard epitomizes Actual Freedom...to the extent that some posters view this through the lens of Buddhism, Richard does not epitomize Actual Freedom; he is merely a vocal proponent of an attainment which, due to his having stumbled upon it haphazardly, he failed to understand in context of human history and spiritual practice. (Note that, in the excerpt I quoted, Richard [assuming he wrote the excerpt] describes practicing Buddhist meditation, apparently unaware that he is doing so.)



Speaking only for myself, I will say that pursuing the line of inquiry that I hoped to begin with you earlier will help you to understand my reasons.

Let me redirect these questions to you:



To the extent that I was able to see the fact of, the origin of, the cessation of, and the way to the cessation of suffering, Richard's personality and behavior and back-story became irrelevant to me. While Richard and the AFT may have helped me to consider these issues, to the extent that I have seen and understood them for myself, my seeing and understanding has become the sole basis for my practice. Whatever the case with Richard is, my experiences of the fact of, the origin of, the cessation of, and the way to the cessation of suffering remain the same.

As such, I do not have (and have never had) any reason to rely on Richard in a way that would make his personal details deeply relevant.

Would it be otherwise for you? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the questions I asked.

I will post this again, because it does not seem to have gone fully appreciated.



Sounds like vipassana.

Yes, that section really stood out to me as well.

Re "empathy":

I have not had a good reason to post this, until now:

I consider "sympathy" to be a process in which one creates understanding by mirroring another persons current mind/body-state, including emotions.

I consider "empathy" to be a process in which one creates understanding by intellectually considering/grasping another persons current mind/body-state.

When something sympathetically vibrates with another thing, that first thing takes on the vibration of that other thing.


This after having given the matter a great deal of thought

That would perhaps be more accurately described as "theory of mind", which doesn't necessarily require affective empathy.

Empathy (as indicated by the root word 'pathos') pertains directly to feelings, emotions.

John

I would comment but it isn't even necessarily the case that Richard wrote that article. I assumed he did, up till now, but the source seems a bit shady.

good point!

The legitimacy and ultimate nature of the AF state are only established by each of us personally, by doing the Actualism method.

Remembered, or new, PCEs are the impetus to forge ahead with Actualism.

Window shopping for the best metaphysical system presumes the self is capable of discerning what is best, a universal fallacy, as the self can only choose what is most appealing. The PCE as absence of self (briefly) provides a basis against which all methods can be judged. The PCE allows insight that shows that metaphysical methods involving any projection of the self, any movement of desire, any ambition, are in the wrong direction. Once a person has this insight, they will not waste time on mental & emotional forays away from the purity of experience that is now the end goal, the PCE.

I write from my own experience, many PCEs as a child & teen triggered in me these irrefutable insights, into the simple error of ambition, and all belief, and of any mental or emotional exercise to achieve a selfish exalted state.

So, now, to spend effort looking for flaws in Richard, or investigating seriously into Actualism?? I think the two are mutually exclusive.

A small part of the method of Actualism was a reality for me during my childhood/teen years. So when I came across the AF website, and I then remembered the long-forgotten PCEs and subsequent insights, I realised my searching for a description of what I had experienced was over.

So here I am, able to draw on a lot of early PCEs, reading AFT website, reading forum posts from Actually Free people, spending more time felicitous. Last week the craving for chocolate disappeared, and I have been needing much less sleep in recent weeks. A few days ago virtually the whole day was happy. It really is like awakening from a dream.

So, no, Actualism for me has moved past Richard. It would however surprise me if it could be shown that Richard is not AF, but I don't think that is likely.

BTW I said I read it with an open mind, that included reading with a critical faculty, the text, and the context (the credentials and motivations of the author). A lot of people are quite happy to level any abuse at Richard, and maliciously fabricating a false history is simply a matter of word-smithing.

best wishes

"Remembered, or new, PCEs are the impetus to forge ahead with Actualism."

Hi John, I'm just beginning to see the truth to this statement. To be honest I was and still am getting slightly caught up in Richards personality flaws and his dallys with mental illness. But i'm beginning to understand after reading the af'ers testimonies around here (especially nick and dan) that the PCE or pre-symbolic awareness exists IN SPITE of Richard and his various eccentricities and is most definately worth exploring.

I need to see this for myself.

Being a pre path and maybe even pre a+p (not sure Ive ever had any major spiritual/mystical experiences although Ive always been a seeker after god/the ultimate for as long as i remember) guy I honestly dunno were to begin. Im pretty sure ive never had a PCE, but it completely fascinates me thats for sure, so its gonna be tough.

I just gotta grow a pair and go for this thing with all I got....

Just got one question in regards to perception while in the PCE. Do any of you guys experince the universe as infinite, benevolant, saturated with fairytale, magical quality? Or is this perception just peculiar to Richard? If so in what way is this actually sensed? (Im just confused cos if our bodies along with our senses and consiousness is finite and impermenent how can we possibly percieve that which is infinite?)

Reasons not to "put in enough hours of vipassana / dry insight":

The PCEs in my experience, set my benchmark for what can't possibly take me back to a PCE. I know that any ambition, any belief, is failure. A method has to be without any movement of the self, to even have a glimmer of success in getting back to a PCE.

Hurricane Ranch audio, Tarin and Daniel mention the fundamental difference between AF and vipassana. A very worthwhile listen/re-listen, if you haven't already.

If vipassana is "one of the world's most ancient techniques of meditation" (Wikipedia), I have no interest in (a) a tried and failed method or (b) structured meditation of any form.

=========

I know some suggest that it may be helpful to practice vipassana on the way to AF, good luck to any already doing that. It seems to me that AF has clearly defined the goal, finally. I perceive the Actualism method to be the way the goal is realised, but I can't prove that to anyone else.

as always, best wishes

They have not had the experience I have had.

However, the point of my comment was that seeing for oneself is a rather different affair from taking other people's opinions...and so, it is ironic that you are telling me about other people's opinions.

As for what could possibly take you back to a PCE...the day that one has a PCE due to the assiduous practice of dry insight is the day that one's opinions on the matter go out the window.

However, I am not asking you to practice vipassana, as there is no need to do that if you have a method that suits you better.

This is one of those things which is best not worried about. It will make sense on a personal level if and when it makes sense, due to your practice, but not due to thinking about it.

Hi EiS,

You're going to need to explain yourself here. Here's what I read:

'Don't worry if it's a deluded state, wait till you're in that deluded state, then you'll understand.'

First of all, I'd echo that the new 'Irene' source has not established itself to be very credible yet. But remember that Richard claims this person is deceased. I see no mention in this thread of the massive deceits that Richard would be engaging in if the source is accurate.

I wouldn't write this off as nitpicking Richard's personality. With this pre-symbolic awareness state, consider what evidence you have that it is free of delusion/malice/deceit. On the other hand, consider whether there's anything that, to you, suggests it might still possess delusion/malice/deceit - whether hidden/masked from the person or not.

To the extent that it doesn't make sense now, how could it be explained?

For a person who is curious, they will have to wait until they see and understand for themselves (if such a thing happens) in order to understand for themselves.

From Richard's descriptions, it is clear that what he proposes is a mystical path (in the normal definition, not his definition)...if one expects that such a thing is easy to explain, there are a long line of people in history who have walked it and said otherwise (except in this way: "the end of suffering").

After or during a full blown PCE would be the optimum time to do this investigation. The full blown PCE, which lasts longer than just a couple of seconds, is reversible and nothing will be lost except maybe some of the doubts about what the hell people are talking about. Nitpicking is nitpicking. If one nitpicks to their satisfaction and then has a full blown PCE, they will look back and see that the nitpicking had nothing to do with it.

The nitpicking is a hindrance to setting up the conditions for a full blown PCE to occur. Plain and simple. When you work your way through the nitpicking phase eventually and set up the conditions for a full blown PCE to occur, you wont have any use for nitpicking about Richard and how he takes a dump in the morning. I assure you.

It will then not be about Richard and his manner of operating and how it rubs 'you' the wrong way, but about 'you' and your own happiness and the question of your own suffering and what you can do about it. I repeat for emphasis, the nitpicking, although a common occurence for many including myself in the past, is a hindrance to setting up the conditions for a full blown PCE to occur.

I seriously hope everyone works through the nitpicking stage to the actual stage where all focus shifts onto 'you' and doing something about your own happiness as you will now know what options you now really have in that regard. Otherwise, 'you' will spend a long time nitpicking and defending the nitpicking and nothing more.


Nick

To echo Nick...

At some point one has to decide whether they're interested in walking a path like this. If one is interested, they're in good company. If one is not interested, they're in good company as well.

At some point, I hope it will become obvious that one's doubts are ultimately and fundamentally one's own creation and one's own problem, not things that anyone else will be able to eliminate.

Ruminating endlessly on one's doubts is fine, but that is tantamount to choosing not to walk the path, and one should realize this.

Ok, if you can't explain how the universe is benevolent, or how you can know that it is infinite and eternal then that's fine, but realise that you're not helping to dispel the valid criticism that in these respects your state may be deluded. Realise that telling people to wait until they share the same deluded certainty will be very unsatisfying for those who care about not being deluded.

I said that I wouldn't write it off as 'nitpicking' at all. If valid concerns stand in the way of a PCE happening then that is a problem for actualism, not the rest of us.

I'm very very interested in walking a path 'like' this, eradicating any institutional delusion that comes with being human. I'm very very interested in avoiding cults, deluded states and the like.

Unfortunately, as I have talked about what I know of that may be helpful to you (both in this thread and others) from my own personal experience, if you aren't yet satisfied with what I've said, I don't think I can help you with this problem.

I hope you will realize that I am not writing you off, but simply unable to see a way in which I could resolve your doubts.

"From Richard's descriptions, it is clear that what he proposes is a mystical path (in the normal definition, not his definition)...if one expects that such a thing is easy to explain (except in this way: "the end of suffering"), there are a long line of people in history who have walked it and said otherwise."

I suspect Richard's extinguished being would roll in its grave if it heard that haha. Seriously though, I have no idea why Richard,Vineeto and Peter are so completely anti-spiritual. Maybe its bad former experiences with gurus or whatnot, but I think the mystical dimensions of life cannot be wrote off so easily. Is atheism/dielectical materialism really the outcome Acual Freedom? Does the PCE completely outright destroy any belief in the transcendant?

Experincing this universe as a magical fairytale like paradise free from self and suffering is, to me anyway, as mystical as one can get. Ive always seen this as the end point of most contemplative traditions, christianity included. "All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well"-Julian of Norwich

"I'm very very interested in walking a path 'like' this, eradicating any institutional delusion that comes with being human. I'm very very interested in avoiding cults, deluded states and the like."

I echo Nad's sentiments. Dont think any of us want to live in a delusion. Richard can keep his beliefs about the universe etc.
Im just gonna aim for a PCE and then go from there.....

First of all, just to be clear, I didn't state anything at all with respect to what I know...merely that that sort of knowledge is not something that I see a way to explain.



Looking at people who have been interested in mysticism throughout time, it would be quite easy to voice the same criticism with respect to them.

At one point, you'll realize that what you do is ultimately in your hands, and no one else's.

That is really all that I can say...sorry for being unable to be more helpful.

How will you ever know what is a deluded state?
How will 'you' ever know what is not a deluded state?

No it would not.

It's yet another version of what Nad said earlier:

'Don't worry if it's a deluded state, wait till you're in that deluded state, then you'll understand.'

If AF results in deficits that are invisible to the one experiencing them, leading to delusory certainties that are impervious to feedback or correction (because that would depend on precisely what is deficient), then how can being in that state tell you anything about it's true nature?

That the actually free people don't seem to grasp this simple point is not exactly reassuring.

John

PS. Both Nad and I have been in that state, and it makes not the slightest difference to what is being discussed here.

As I see it, the exact opposite of "being in that state" is not being in that state. As you are obviously not in that state, congratulations - you are, by your own definition, capable of judging the "true nature" of that state. As eligibility has been established, will 'you' now go on to cast your judgment of this state? How will you do that?


I don't seem to understand what the problem is. Does Richards past trouble you? Does the Buddhas past trouble you? The Buddha was an idiot (read: "someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way" -Wikipedia), a fool and an ignoramus with a desire for deliverance who blindly followed the contemporary ways of contemplative study. His very troubled persona lead him to discover some absolutely amazing. Do I need to point out the similarities here?

If it is not Richards past that troubles you, then what is it?

Can you answer my previously posted question?

Yep, exactly. I'm a skeptic and materialist by nature, so to speak, so I'm not on the mystics' side either.

I'm not seeking 100% certain knowledge that something is or isn't deluded. Just no reason to believe it's deluded and reason to believe it is what it says it is, especially when it comes to extraordinary claims like being free of delusion/malice/deceit.

but how do you know your not experiencing the delusion when not in PCE and then the PCE is the clarity?

i "know" that i have a self right now, a knowing that can't be backed up with any sort of proof. during the one PCE i had i knew i didn't have a self, this again couldn't be backed up by proof. couldn't it be that i have some intangible soul which when i become actually free i will no longer be able to perceive?

if your standard of whether or not something is deluded or not is based on whether that which is perceived can be proved to be an actual part of the universe, then every state of consciousness is always deluded no matter what, because to prove that something perceived by consciousness isn't real would take another perception by consciousness which could only be proved to exist by another such perception

perhaps you would claim that outside of apperception one can more clearly see the possibility that what one perceives could be a delusion. this i think is a red herring. if i am as close to being totally honest with my self as i can get, i would guess that not for a single moment of being outside of a PCE have i truly stopped perceiving that "i" exist. but as someone with affect, i am compelled by various pressures to intuitively believe that i stopped perceiving that. an actually free person doesn't have these pressures so when they perceive something they don't pretend that they are unsure of its existence.

also, affective sensations can be perceived as phantasmal, so even when one sees that these sensations are not in fact representative of actuality, it isn't due to being less deluded (going by my interpretation of your interpretation of the word) but due to different perception of sensations. actual sensations aren't perceived as such, so the "knowledge" that they reflect actuality is absolute.

also af people can in fact grasp that what they perceive to exist could be an illusion... as tarin said in this thread.



if deluded means perceiving things that can't be proved to exist, then all states of consciousness are deluded, but different things are perceived and unproved in different states.

edit: as for the claim about free from delusion, they aren't claiming that it is not within the range of possibility that what they perceive could be an illusion (at least not all of them are), but just that they no longer have perceptions which can be perceived to be delusional. right? af people? you could be in a dream with a dream within a brain with a hot dog with mustard and fries?

edit: so is it a delusion when what is perceived first hand can't be proved to exist? if so every state of consciousness is a delusion. or is it a delusion when what is perceived first hand conflicts with other first hand knowledge?

Ok, then. I wish you luck as you may just have to put it off forever or jump in the deep end. I'm not sure how to help you.

I'm not asking for help here, never have been. I was commenting on the topic of the thread, and have been surprised by how casually it is all being waved away.

As for "how to help" (in this context): you already have, by being willing to participate in research that compares first-person experience with third-party observable data.

John

If State A is of doubtful validity and State B is not State A, it doesn't mean that State B is of undoubtable validity.

Never said that. Never would.

John

Why not something more down-to-earth and relevant?

Sometimes people are unaware of deficits that other people can observe.

To take an extreme example, it can be obvious to a third-party observer that a stroke patient is paralyzed on one side. But sometimes that person has no awareness of this and sincerely denies it, even in the face of hard evidence. They're not lying, they simply lack the means to perceive it and process it.

When somebody claims to be entirely free from instinctual passions, there are at least two possibilities:

1) They are.

2) They're unable to experience those passions affectively, because the faculty for experiencing them is lost.

Some things just can't be ascertained from a first-person perspective alone.

John

to quote tarin again from here



but ok, i can see how you would want some sort of evidence first. maybe the FMRI testing will reveal some stuff. for me though, i would take either of your two possibilities for an actually free person in an instant.

If you make that choice with open eyes, good luck to you. Refreshing to hear some frankness.

John

my value systems may differ from most peoples'. that much is a question of preference and i can't pretend one preference is better than another. for example, if i am again to be frank, i would likely take constant apperception at any price whatsoever. however this is based on a delusion that apperception is something "i" achieve for "myself" rather than a change in the way a human brain perceives the world around it, something "i" don't value at all.

this is an example of one perception being counter-perceived by intellectual reasoning based on assumptions based on other perceptions. a perception subject to such countering is what i would call a delusion, rather than a perception which can't be objectively proved to be accurate (the way i think you are defining it), that definition will never fit any state of consciousness, so i label it totally not worth pursuit.

Then what exactly was the intended purpose of what I quoted?


There are some questions that it seems you have skipped, John Wilde. Answering them might clarify your position.

Does Richards past trouble you? If so, does the Buddhas past trouble you? If not so, then what is it?
How do you know that it is not the case that you are experiencing a delusion when not in PCE and that a PCE is reality/actuality?


It can be obvious to a third-party observer that a person is experiencing affect or behaving strictly in the interest of perpetuating a self/'I'/'me'. But sometimes that person has no awareness of this and sincerely denies it, even in the face of hard evidence. They're not lying, they simply lack the means to perceive it and process it.

Most, if not all, of your arguments can be turned around to equally make the case for the opposite premiss. Did you intend this? What is the use of such discussion?

Like, for example, the best way to ascertain the validity of any person's perception of a situation is NOT to EVEN CONSIDER any third party observation and/or objective data in support of it?

Since that would be the true "opposite" of what I've been saying, I invite you to make a case for it.

John

I sincerely do not understand what the core of this discussion is and since you have once again skipped the questions that I posed, and given that I do not want to engage in a discussion just for the sake of it, I won't reply to this thread anymore unless it becomes clear to me what it is you are trying to communicate.

If you want to know what I'm trying to communicate, I invite you to read the thread from the top.

If you have any problems with any part of what I've written, and genuinely want to talk about it, let me know.

Until then, best we stop wasting each other's time.

John

third party observations - conflicting, tending towards validating. also, note that people who have experienced PCEs, and are already interested in AF have perceived that AF people have no sorrow/malice. whereas people already thinking that AF was some delusion saw malice and sorrow.

objective data - nonexistent

edit: if at any point you decide you don't want to continue this, i really won't mind at all, i'm doing this because i think it has the possibility of helping you, not because i think i can't learn anything from you, but because i'd pursue permanent uninterrupted apperception even if i were proved wrong.

To remove any confusion that might keep you from clarifying for me what your intent is in this discussion, I can assure you I did read the full topic closely before I claimed not to understand the core of your correspondence.

To specifically let you know and to state my genuine interest in talking about this, I once again ask you to clarify for me what you intent is in this discussion. May I suggest you do that by answering the questions that I previously posed?

No, it's fine Josh, I know where you're coming from. I'm not looking for 'help' on this at all (though I appreciate the intent). I'm just expressing my own thoughts about what's being discussed. I appreciate your frankness. With that, there's no need for contorted pseudo-arguments. And I mean it when I say good luck in your quest.

John

The point was "Some things just can't be ascertained from a first-person perspective alone". Seems to me that the turned-around argument you gave actually supports John's point.

We have things like reason and testable observation to help us avoid the kind of philosophical stalemate you're alluding to. The problem is when people claim you just need to wait till you experience a certain state to understand something.

Especially when the potential blindness of that state to its own limitations, shortcomings or errors is the very thing that's in question!

John

Say you never tasted a banana before, and nothing quite like it. I attempt to describe the taste for you, the flavors, my favorite parts about it... but would you ever know what it tastes like until you actually taste it?

I've tasted the 'banana'. It makes no difference to what's being discussed here.

Have you read the thread?

John

Typically humans are able to predict the (emotional) effects that their words or actions (or lack thereof) will cause in others by taking into account the image they have build of that person´s inner world, i.e. their values, beliefs and preferences.

Is someone actually free or in a PCE unable to make those predictions and/or disregards them?

From my observations, I´d assume that they are able and willing to disregard these predictions selectively, i.e. when they think the situation calls for it.



Emphasis in bold mine.

In this example calling Konrad a liar, could be considered as a simple statement of fact.

Calling him stupid is Richard´s personal opinion and displays either a disregard for Konrad´s feelings or an inability to predict them.

Seeing that it is a simple function of memory to know that most people don´t like to be called stupid, a liar and similar (even if the truth), it seems fair to assume, that at least in these cases Richard consciously chose to ignore those feelings he would provoke in Konrad.

Is expressing a disagreeable fact or opinion (and possibly causing anger, hatred, sorrow etc) neccessarily a result of malice or simply inconsiderate?
Is it possible / desirable / helpful to never say/do something which someone else may find offensive?

And probably most importantly: Does someone actually free display such behaviour with higher or lesser frequency than others?

In my experience (as a result of the application of the actualism method) it is a far lesser frequency.... simply because I´ve less (emotional) motivation to do so.

This misses the point again.

If we were talking about one first-person viewpoint (by itself) vs another first-person viewpoint (by itself), what you're saying would have some relevance and validity. But we aren't, and it doesn't.

John

Would you be interested in sharing what it was like with us?

Sure. The quickest way is to point you to an older thread:

http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1201014

You could jump straight to the PCE by searching (on that page) for "stillness".

The rest of the thread might be interesting to Stian as it would clarify my intentions better than what I've written here.

I'd stress, though, that I'm not looking for any 'help' on this. I've responded to what others have written in order to prompt or goad them into thinking more critically, and not let their intelligence be eclipsed either by the authority they accord to others on account of their supposed attainments, or by their own desperation to escape (what they believe is) their suffering.

(There is a condition of morbid over-sensitivity, very common among Buddhists and Actualists, in which just about anything can be construed as suffering. If it's built into your viewing lenses, everything you see confirms it. Just as "you get what you optimize for", it's also true that "you see the way you look". The suffer-or-'die' mentality that many actualists get inadvertently sucked into would be a huge joke if not for the real consequences: either a perpetually painful sanity, or the irreversible loss of it).

Don't think there is much I can add to this until more information about the true nature of "actual freedom" becomes public in time.

John

So: what do your PCE experiences have to do with what Richard says or does? If Richard were batshit crazy, then got a PCE, and now lives life in a PCE... vs Richard being totally sane, then got a PCE, and now lives life in a PCE... how does that change what you experienced?

Did you feel you lost your sanity while those experiences were happening?

In that thread you wrote:

So, were there emotions affecting your actions that you couldn't see clearly? Did you intend to harm anybody during those experiences? Especially as you said:


What do you see as the downside to always experiencing life like that? (Take into account that a PCE on drugs is probably not exactly the same as a PCE sober.)


NOTE: I'm not particularly trying to 'help' you get past this or what-not, but am curious to know why you have the point of view you do given the experiences you have had.

I understand. At this point I am merely curious about your experiences.



Apart from stating this on the grounds of common sense, how would you confirm or deny this, using rational / empirical methods?

I used to believe, before becoming interested in meditation in a serious way, that there was something bizarre or deluded about "pessimistic" views (such as the First Noble Truth: "Life is suffering / the clinging-aggregates are suffering"), and suspected that belief in them had to do with viewing the world through a certain lens. Even after taking up meditation seriously and making significant process, I continued to suspect that. So, while I have changed my mind, I wouldn't say that this kind of opinion fails the common-sense test...I merely gained what I consider to be definitive empirical information (concerning my own 1st person experience) with respect to this issue, and changed my mind on that basis.

I would agree that this path involves eventually setting an extremely high standard concerning what doesn't count as suffering (compared to the standards that are typically employed).

To me, that sounds like a foundational practice for both Buddhism and Actualism.

It doesn't change what I experienced, but there are some external facts that might change the meaning and value of that mode of experience.

Re Richard, some possiblities:

1) Was sane ----> AF ----> Now sane.
2) Was insane ---> AF -----> Now sane.
3) Was sane -----> AF -----> Now insane.
4) Was insane ---> AF -----> Now insane

You're looking only at possibilities 1 and 2, both of which are fine.

I'm also considering possibilities 3 and 4, neither of which are fine.



No.



Experientially, none.

Behaviourally? Maybe. That's why I'm surprised when people wave Richard away as if he's irrelevant. He's the best living example of what a permanent PCE is and what it does to a human being.

I see two open questions that can't be answered from first-person perspective alone:

1) Does one's experiential certainty accord with third-person observable data? I would not be too keen to knowingly part with that for the sake of experiencing no suffering. I can understand why others might make a different choice.

2) Am I blindly, unknowingly, uncaringly, behaving like an obnoxious turd and not giving a shit because I have the answer to all the ills of humankind, and if everyone were like me there would be no problem, and if you don't like anything about me it's 'you' who needs to be looked at because I'm inherently perfect, because I've eliminated the one and only source of imperfection, and anything you might say against it is simply 'you' and your survival instincts trying to maintain your 'self', and 'you' by 'your' very existence are inherently wrong, don't you see?

It happens.



Yes. Taking that into account.



Sure, I can understand why you would be perplexed.

Possibilities 3 and 4.

John

I don't know. I hadn't really thought about it, and can't think of a way off-hand.




I think whether we talk in terms of "high standards", "low thresholds" or "fundamental misperceptions" depends a lot on the intent and the values underlying it. Clearly you've seen this from both ends, and your choice makes sense in light of that.

All very interesting.

John

In theory, yeah!

John

No it is not.

By the way, is 'expressing a disagreeable fact or opinion' neccessarily a lie?



No.

Those were irrelevant questions, in my view.

The relevant question is: have you got (or did you ever have) any reason to believe the extraordinary claim that Richard is a human completely without malice/deceit/petty insults/manipulation/one-upmanship... or not?

Someone with no investment in actualism being correct sees Richard calling someone stupid and calling someone a liar because they stated something that was contrary to Richard's assessment of himself (not contrary to any facts). The quote you provided does not paint a positive picture of Richard, to say the least.

You can't prove intent/motivation either way from text, but you can assess whether you have any reason to believe one way or the other.

I wonder what you see as the possible value in calling Konrad stupid? And would you consider the 'liar' comment to be a statement of fact, based on the quote you gave?

Considering the idea that Richard has an idea how someone will react but may or may not disregard it, here's another one of the many examples you could have chosen. It's from http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/gardolcorrespondence/04How-I-Achieved-Actual-Freedom.htm .. It may at least entertain me to hear more attempts at defences for it.

and also regarding some other discussions about Richard's personal life.


I will jump in a bit here. Buddha did not have a personal life after his (reported) attainment, whereas Richard has been in marital relationships after his (reported) attainment. His wife and partner Devika/Irene left him and the parting has been reported as less than pleasant. The last time news was heard of Richard's next partner/de facto wife was in December 2009, where he reported that she was to join him and other actualists after which some sort of 'mutiny' took place. No news of her after that. And then Richard declared that he will no longer dabble in the yahoo list and only answer emails/messages via some email system, which was more of less a one way communication line, set up under the aegis of AFT, where they could have all the rights/control over the text written and posted etc.

The reason I give all of this background is that a man who wrote in his journal about living in couplehood, whose expressed purpose was to live in harmony with a woman; his main purpose of doing what he did in his life, who has written in glowing terms about his domestic and personal life; how great it was to have sex with his chosen partner/(s); who has expressed his focus on women; who has given so much importance to sexual relationships and intimate relationships; who has written about the deliciousness of domestic life and ending the war of sexes as his primary reason for walking on a path; whose quest for Peak experiences commenced when he met this woman on a beach and decided to end his celibate life, to explore the freedom through that method - who has expressively written that until men and women can live in peace, their can be no peace on earth, whose primary focus has been personal life - of course, PERSONAL LIFE of such a person OUGHT TO BE a matter of intense discussion, concern and debate. It is indeed surprising that vital details about such a person's life are overlooked and undermined, when that person has himself claimed it to be the very purpose of his quest and achievements.

and when a person appears, claiming to be his previous partner, her claims, instead of being examined are dismissed for lack of proof of her identity, for being anti- Richard or anti- AF when the information that is revealed by her is verifiable. Anyone who takes the trouble, can find out the validity of her claims about the man she is reporting about - instead of that, all the information she provides is thrown out of the window. For example, one can take the trouble of calling up the doctor she has revealed about, or checking up the address she provides and other details.


so, really what's happening to intelligence, here. Being trashed in the name of blind practice. But that is not what Buddhism or AF is all about, is it?

Sorry Nad, when I was writing the post I had a specific answer in mind but it turned into a more general, personal reflection. In that context those questions were supposed to be rhetorical.



I do not see a proof of malicious intent in the example (or anything else I can remember), no.
That doesn´t imply that I find Richard to be particularly skilled in communication, though.



I don´t see any value in it and I have indeed been wondering why Richard chose to do it anyway.



I´m not particularly interested in defending Richard.

I´ve drawn my own conclusions from what I´ve read.... i.e. what an actual freedom entails and what it doesn´t.

An interesting excerpt Nikolai posted on KfDH was this:



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html

Ah OK, I see where you're coming from.

So: you didn't feel you lost your sanity during your PCEs.

Did the experiences give any evidence that you might blindly, unknowingly, uncaringly, start behaving like an obnoxious turd and not giving a shit because you have the answer to all the ills of humankind, etc., etc.?

I am not aware that this occurred at the DhO.



"Blind practice"...what an interesting turn-of-phrase.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask if you had proof of malicious intent or what you thought about Richard's communication skills.

My question was: have you got (or did you ever have) any reason to believe the extraordinary claim that Richard is a human completely without malice/deceit/petty insults/manipulation/one-upmanship... or not?

If the reason you avoided the question was that it's not a fair question then I'd appreciate you pointing out the reasons why.

You presumably read what I said about not being able to prove intent/motivation either way. Have you personally ever read text of (anyone's) correspondence that constitutes 'proof of malicious intent'? I'm wondering whether you think you have a reasonable standard of evidence, as well as whether you understand where the burden of proof lies.

You´re right, I did ommit the "/deceit/petty insults/manipulation/one-upmanship" part.
The reason is that - as you pointed out - it is very much up to interpretation if you consider something an insult/manipulation or one-upmanship.
I can´t recall reading something from Richard I´d consider as deceiving.

The way I approached the AFT site after my initial skepticism was giving R. the benefit of the doubt, i.e. assuming he didn´t have any of the intentions you mentioned and thus reading his words very literally....
I came to understand how much projection of intention / feeling is really occuring. As there was no way for me to actually proof he did have mentioned intentions/feelings when writing, I chose to find out for myself by practicing.



"I´m going to kill you", "I hate you", ...

Basically anything that clearly, directly or implicitly reveals this intent.



As I´ve said, I don´t think there is a way to proof the not-existence of a certain intent. Therefore the question "where the burden of proof lies" isn´t really applicable nor relevant to me.

Martin

I'm not sure you're understanding me.

I do think I understand your approach towards this. However, I don't want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent your view generally, so unless you answer my question directly, I won't point out where I think the crucial error of your thinking lies.

It's a yes or no question, but of course you can say if you think it isn't an appropriate question.

My question was: have you got (or did you ever have) any reason to believe the extraordinary claim that Richard is a human completely without malice/deceit/petty insults/manipulation/one-upmanship?... or not?

edit: removed the 'or not' for clarity of the yes/no question.

(Those /'s can be taken as simple 'or' conjunctions, so limit it to just malice if you want, but please answer the question.)

Yes, I had a reason to believe his claim, as without first believing it to be possible at all, there would be no point in practicing.
With practice comes personal (subjective) verification and the initial belief loses its meaning.

(italics mine)

Ok.

Would I be right in presuming that the latter part I put in italics is just a side-point? It isn't actually the reason why you believed the extraordinary claim that Richard was free of malice, is it?

Rather than getting on to the real reasons why you believed Richard's claim, I'd like to return to one question you happened to overlook. You said you didn't see the value in calling Konrad stupid, but as to the liar comment... you'd previously said it "could be considered as a simple statement of fact". Do you consider it to be a simple statement of fact?

Here's the quote you provided again:



I personally don't see how anyone being reasonable could think that what Konrad said necessarily constitutes 'lying'.

I am just going to throw in my generic two cents on his topic, realizing that this is a reply to this thread in general more than a specific person or comment...

The number of people who taught me who were former and/or current:

Alcoholics
Drug Addicts
Perverts
Child Molesters
Drug Dealers
Bi-polar patients
Narcissists
Loud-mouths
Philanderers
And sometimes some combination of those

is large. Had I declined to take their meditation advice because of those reasons, I would be unlikely to have my current skillset and insights. Had I obsessed about some of their grandiose and dogmatic promises of what all this lead to, I would have been much less likely to make real progress. If I had been thrown by their personality quirks, I would have missed much of value. I am not advocating abandoning common sense, nor am I advoating blindly following anyone. What I will loosely label the vibe of Richard's writings and his on-line personality has never particularly appealed to me personally, and yet I feel lucky to count some people who have claimed AF who are not Richard and who I know personally among my friends. I have found their advice useful, the results so far compelling, at least PCE's verifiable, and they do compellingly create the impression that something like that mode may be able to lock itself in.

Thus, Richard as a person is not much of an issue for me, but careful investigation of some things that my fellow adventurers and friends have had apparent success with is.

Daniel

Nad, I really don´t see the point in going over these examples. It was my mistake to start with these quotes to begin with. I don´t think there´s enough value to be gained by this discussion in relation to the time it´s taking me to reply. Sorry.

if I may:



okay.

let me reply to this:

a. PCE is not new to mankind, such experiences have been recorded and pointed out earlier as well, even if, in other words or sentences.

b. Richard has re-adjusted his earlier formulation/description of AF being a permanent PCE to something else now, as he has 'vocally' stated that one does not even require any PCE to become actually free. It is a choice one makes, according to him, when one decides to make that choice.

c. If, you were to meet him personally, you might think the same of Richard or differently (depending upon the duration of interaction, your own state of mind, expectations from such a meeting etc.). So, his personality rather personal traits, can very well be set aside. However, there is a big difference between personality traits (quirks, idiosyncrasies, such as : propensity for kinky sex, reading and watching hardcore porn, smoking, choice in clothes, lifestyle etc: although it might be difficult to completely put them aside as they are symptomatic of his state of mind as well) and psychological disorders ( PTSD and his own admissions of the disorders caused by this trauma that he lists out - Alexythemia, being one of them and, a subject of some discussion on this website, earlier).

d. Richard suffers from acute and chronic psychological disorders. He continues to, and in fact draws a pension on that account from the Government of Australia. This is a fact, and verifiable. I have verified it after the recent disclosures made on another discussion list regarding this. That puts a question mark on his state of mind, and his descriptions of it. If his claim is taken to be true, then surely his experiences are different from, let’s sat Tarin’s who has (presumably) no such mental disorders. The ASC that Tarin and many other people Daniel refers to is certainly different from that of Richard. Perhaps, Richard lives in a Altered State of Consciousness, but that is patently different from that of all other people who have ‘followed’ him in emulating his state of mind/experience. It will help to run through all the events and incidents which have been reported by him starting Decemeber 2009 through Jan/February 2010 on AF Yahoo list to see the difference clearly.
e. So, what is my point: that AF as describes by Richard has to be examined for what it is; what it really represents. It is also something to reflect about that the first few people who claimed AF were Richard’s close associates or prospective collaborators (Justine wanted to publish poetry apropos AF). And after Tarin achieved his ASC, many practitioners , who were (presumably) Buddhist have been reporting these states. The reason I call their states to be ASC may not be read as any criticism of their reports and claims, but only to point out the differences that underlie. None of them have reported ‘magical’ contents that Richard has often referred to and in glowing terms. Richard has maintained, and many of the flame wars that he engaged were to explain, impress and insist on the essential difference between AF & any spiritual or mystical practice. So dove tail AF into any other practice is an acknowledgement and evidence enough to make it clear that the ASC thus achieved is different from that Richard reports.

f. In the final analysis, if the aim and intent is to end one’s own suffering, then it is understandable why anyone will want to get into such a highly subjective state where one
becomes unaware of one’s own feelings; ‘unfeeling’, inconsiderate and not owning any responsibilities towards someone else feelings/state of mind/physical being – which arise specifically due to one’s behaviour.

However if the aim also involves ending suffering caused to others by one actions, intents and behaviour , then it is important to look at personal intimate relationships, one’s general behaviour and engagement with the world.

g. It has been reported by people who have met Richard that he says the same things that he has written about, sometimes to the extent of saying just all of that, continuously ( like a record on the loop – literally) and have been suspected of living, literally and figuratively, what he writes and reports ( this was mentioned on the AF Google list by a person who met him twice). It is not difficult to decipher then that he lives what he believes in, he believes what he reports, and he reports a carefully constructed survival mechanism to over come his psychological troubles.
The man would actually have my sympathy but for the fact that he trifles with the lives of others.

If you think I have overstepped any regulations of this thread or forum, let me know. My aim is not to derail any enquiry. I am sincere in my aim. I am not denouncing any one or indulging in mud-slinging, only being brutally realistic in my approach.

Speaking only for myself, I will say that my experience seems to move more and more in this direction with every passing day.

A few stray notes of music, or the sound of a person's voice, or even the feeling of my fingers against the keyboard right now, can be quite "magical" in a way that is entirely independent of what Richard calls "affect", and puts all affective experiences to shame.

I had considered (in the past), reflecting on PCEs, that there was something about sense-experience which was inherently wondrous and magical; however, it occurs to me now that the wonder is not a property of sense-experiences, but merely the absence of passion / craving; as far as I can see, wonder is what remains when the faculty of the mind that generates suffering is suppressed, and wonder seems likely to suffuse everything once that faculty is permanently destroyed.

As a tangential issue about how to interpret the claims of others, I am surprised that you do not consider the fact that many practitioners claim that their practices have led / are leading in the same direction as what Richard describes (in terms of the nature of their experience) to be clear evidence that such practitioners are experiencing something similar to what Richard describes (however they choose to describe or express it). It would be somewhat bizarre and irrational for a person to make such a claim and yet observe no subjective similarity between their experience and Richard's descriptions....yet, as far as I can see, those who are interested in this mode of experience and claim to have attained it or moved in the direction of attaining it appear to be fairly reasonable and rational.

For the record, so as to hopefully prevent further confusion on this subject, I claim that Richard's descriptions are apt with respect to my own experience; and while they are not my ongoing experience in every moment, nor are they necessarily yet experienced as thoroughly as they could be, things appear to be clearly moving in that direction. Here is a description that I especially like:



However, I do not claim to agree (or disagree) with Richard's interpretation of this mode of perception.

As a final note, I will state that a very intense and dedicated vipassana practice is likely to provide a practitioner with insight into what affect is and why its absence results in experiences like these. Without that insight, one may speculate in the way that you (George) are speculating; from your perspective, a reasonable thing to do, but from my perspective, based on a misunderstanding. (Discerning what makes an ASC an ASC is especially illuminating.) For example...



In a previous thread, Jill offered the metaphor of a juice-making machine in a house; when one sees how juice is made, and one does away with the process by which juice is made, one can confirm that there will be no further juice present. But, to the extent that one doesn't see this, one is able to speculate about whether this attainment is simply just one in which one ignores all the juice that is continually being made.

(As a side-note, I find speculation about this possibility to be especially bizarre, because of the particular path I have taken. Recalling my own insistence that vipassana is sufficient for this attainment (or at least that it has been so far for me), and that the practice of vipassana is merely a practice in which one examines the contents of one's mind with great precision, it defies common-sense to think that if one practices looking in this way, and develops their capacity to do it to an amazing degree, that the natural result of this will be that one simply begins to ignore some of the contents of one's mind without noticing that one has begun to.)

a. for 'magical contents' please refer to these:

http://actualfreedom.com.au/announcement.htm ( also how Richard describes what he experienced when Peter 'entered' into the actual world)

b. which descriptions of Richard are you mentioning here...the ones of PCEs or of his state of AF. I will state again that according to Richard PCEs are not needed for AF, in that he has made a significant alteration in 'his' report of AF, which was earlier stated as permanent and irreversible PCE.

c. I do not say that similarities cannot exist between both the states, or all the states: but there is a fundamental difference between these ASC and your references to Vipassana and other practices being still useful, despite achieving such a state is a clear indication of the difference.

I do not understand what you are referencing here (nor what "magical contents" refers to). Please quote the passage you're interested in, and state what you believe it shows.

EDIT: Sorry, I see that you use the phrase "magical contents" earlier. My mistake. Please quote a particular passage; the link you gave is filled with all kinds of stuff.



I simply quoted a description that makes sense to me, experientially.

You are free to find some quotes by Richard, and I will tell you whether they echo my own experience or not.

As you have asserted that there is a difference of some kind between what is being reported by others and what Richard reports, I am sure you have something in particular in mind.



As I do not hold myself out as an authority on what is necessary, I see no problem in the case that this is true, and no problem in the case that it isn't. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are getting at.



It seems here that you are merely asserting that there are two (or more) states which are fundamentally different (in the sense of not being related to each other, I assume). I am not sure what you are asserting with respect to vipassana.

It would be good if you could clarify your position and provide reasoning to support it.

Also, can you (precisely, phenomenologically) describe how an ASC differs from the case in which there is an absence of passion, or are you relying on Richard's assertions about ASCs (without having seen for yourself what their fundamental nature is) in order to build your theory?

This needs to be highlighted and expanded upon.

To the extent that what many of us are doing / have done results in a state fundamentally different from Richard's (due to some mental disorder Richard may have), it is prima facie unreasonable to assert that we are somehow ignoring any of our mental contents, as the process by which such a state is attained is to examine one's mental contents. Thus, worries about alexithymia are unfounded, and onlookers (who are not suffering from any disorder) may now freely toss all their worries with respect to Richard aside and jump in, as, according to our testimony, such a state is very, very, very good, and (by assumption) none of Richard's alleged problems have anything to do with it.

To the extent that what many of us are doing / have done results in a state fundamentally identical to Richard's, worries about his inability to observe some of his mental contents should be similarly laid to rest (since we, having observed our mental contents, confirm the presence of a "juice-maker" and the possibility of turning it off), and onlookers may now freely toss all their worries (with respect to this particular issue and its interface with Richard) aside, etc.

For the sake of specificity, Jill used Goenka-inspired vipassana, Nick used the "actualizing jhanas" approach, Owen (on KFD) as far as I know used the "actualizing jhanas" approach and Mahasi-style noting, I used dry insight-flavored variants of all kinds of things (including the "actualizing jhanas" approach)...all of these involve cultivating a profound sensitivity to one's mental contents, rather than ignoring them.

(As for other practitioners, I am less informed.)

OK, but in light of what AF is claimed to be -- by your friends as much as by Richard -- how do you account for whatever it is in Richard that doesn't appeal to you?

John

Hi John -

John:


What is your accounting of why Gotama would not initially teach women of his own accord? How much time does one spend dwelling on this before just looking at the actual fruit of buddhist science of mind?

I do remember that this guy Richard's words and my own forming of an idea of him were initially a big bother to me. So I read very little of his site, then did not read it any more.

Yet, his conclusion of permanent purity of consciousness can be found in buddhist doctrine (e.g., MN22) and yogic doctrine (e.g., book 1, 41), and friends in monotheistic traditions have confirmed this to me as well. So, these traditions (and the founder of the AFT) simply encourage and assure that pure consciousness can be the permanent operating system of a human being.

Personally, it comes to "what is sought is what is likely to be obtained": if one wants a personal problem with one's own ideas of a rural-living Australian guy gleaned via third party and internet writings from a few years ago, that goal is easily in reach.

Yet, one's life doesn't go on forever, so if life stops during this particular seeking activity, then that's what one gets to learn: their ideas of a rural-living Australian guy gleaned via third parties and internet writings from a few years ago.

Alternatively, the act of taking one's mind off of a rural-living Australian guy and putting it to use intently on seeing one's mind-nature, mind-nature, apperception and pure consciousness stands a chance at producing knowledge of mind-nature, apperception and pure/r consciousness.

Hi Katy. It's news to me that Gotama wouldn't initially teach women -- but knowing it doesn't change anything for me. To be honest, my attitude toward Gotama is similar to your (implied, recommended) attitude toward Richard. I don't particularly like the 'vibe' I get from the Pali suttas -- I find the general atmosphere distastefully sombre, unhealthy, lacking humor, morbidly negative about life on earth, and the teachings unbelievable in parts (e.g., rebirth) -- but this doesn't stop me from using ideas and practices rooted in that tradition. So I do get what you're saying.



Of course. Fussing over the details of Richard's life and mental state instead of working things out for oneself through experience and experiment would be a complete waste of time.

But I have to put an awkward question to you: what if the things that "were initially a big bother to [you]" about Richard are in fact a consequence of long-term living in the condition he describes and advocates, rather than being incidental to it and separable from it?

Don't the possible long-term consequences of being in this condition need to be looked at critically? And if so, how else can it be done?

John

Hi John,


First: why do you describe your question as awkward?
Please do consider answering this question of why your question is also awkward, because there is 1) a question and 2) a conditioning of that question as "awkward". Our mind's do not have the same conditioning of this question, and I do not perceive "awkward" in your question.


What if? This is a big, infinite question: what if, what if, what if? Have you concerned yourself with what the Australian Richard has eaten today? What if what he eats is what you and all AF persons shall eat as a consequence of long-term living in the condition he describes? What of his clothing today? What of mine? If I founded AFT would you become concerned that a post AF-condition of wearing sports bras would become your inevitable consequence?

Exclusive sets are the domain of mathematics and horoscopic traditions, otherwise, for example, there would be a least a few arising Jesus' after Golgotha (and a consequent, continual stream of crucifixions to fulfill the consequence of Jesus' own death): people who followed him, trusted his methods, sincerely and intently followed his words, and became the same consequences as what Jesus experienced?


I feel no need to spend my life examining this Australian fellow's life (or words), especially in a constantly retrospective viewing of his actions to personally formulate "consequences". Its been consequential to look critically at my own being.

How else can what be done?
Do you refer to pure consciousness? If so, I find putting my energies clearly on a relevant target helps. For example, I have not opened the Bhagava Gita since 5th grade when it was given to me by a friend. I turned to it on Friday and found useful references to stillness. Today, friends were reading Yoga Sutta book 1 (mentioned above), and I participated: it's references to pure consciousness and immersion were interesting. Had I still been bothering myself with personally generated mental formations which inherently distort an actual person in Australia whom I've never met, then I probably would not have been having such an enjoyable day and seeing how other traditions refer to pure consciousness.

So, where is your effort and intention, if not on forming ideas of the Australian, writings on his site, and third party opinions? What do you see in the Af writings that hooks you to the point that you do not let ideas of AF/Richard go, yet you modify its pronouns in your head?

If you say, "the Australian fellow Richard" one hundred times, what happens to the ideas of this person your mind is creating?
______________
*I changed your brackets "[ ]" to "{ }" to get quote formatting to work. Nevermind, it was my placement of a symbol in the brackets that caused the problem.

I utterly respect your right to do this, but it is not a need.
I do find it interesting that people are going for fMRI to see about neurological results (consequences) of their AF.

OK, well. I suppose I'll wrap this up.

Due to, perhaps, the failure of several people in this thread to respond a variety of questions posed to them.

We have thus determined that, basically no one on this forum is willing to accept the possibility that Richard may be a fraud, or that the condition that Richard is in may in fact be unhealthy.

We have also determined that, they have no reason not to accept those possibilities, or at least have not provided any reasons, even when asked directly.

Because people tend not to give a straight answer to it.

John

I'm not doing this for my own sake, Katy.

John

There are two possibilities: either the letter in the (deleted) link is fabricated, or what is written in the AF trust homepage, together with Richard and Peter's Journals, the AF videos, etc, is fabricated.

How much effort would be required to fabricate a letter? Not much.

How much effort would be required to fabricate the whole Actual Freedom Trust website?

Well, given that there are over one million words, that the various stories and writing written therein are vastly self-consistent, given that there are at least three people involved in the ordeal (Richard, Vineto, Peter), given that Tarin himself has visited Richard and confirmed that his attainment seems real (since both his current wife and friends all verified they had never seen Richard even mildly upset), and given that Tarin and others since him have gone to achieve the same attainment since, and etc, etc, etc...

The amount of effort required to fabricate "actual freedom" as a story would be so enormous that one would almost need to fall under the category of "conspiracy theorist" in order to consider such possibility as more than a futile exercise in intelectual deficiency.

So why are we writing page after page on what is obviously a fabricated letter? Devika most likely did not write the text, but whomever did (even if it was her) has made up the whole thing with the malicious intent to denigrate Richard and the AF trust.

Why someone would do such a thing is beyond me, but I am often surprised at various stuff people post about actual freedom and Richard. It is incredible how much negativity is stirred by the suggestion of doing one's best to bring peace on earth.

EDIT: Here is an interesting link: Richard’s Correspondence on the AF Mailing List With Irene.

Hi Bruno.

I understand your reasons for considering the PTSD article a fraud, a malicious fabrication.

If it were indeed a fraud, your reaction would be the only sensible one.

But let me ask you a hypothetical question:

If you absolutely knew it to be genuine, would it change your opinions about AF and your aspirations in life?

John

Is it strange if I refuse to imagine the scenario you propose?

I wish to give this issue no further attention, and will not read this thread any more. You might find interest in reading the link I added above.

Put it this way: I can understand you doubting the validity of the document, and the identity of the person who posted it.

But no, I can't really understand your refusal to say whether it would make a difference to you if you knew that it (ie. the article, allegedly written by Richard, outlining his war experiences and later difficulties) was indeed genuine.

John

Hi John


Well, I understand this. I spent some months a few years ago following the tales of a self-appointed monk in north Wales; the family of his student followed their concerns and determined the monk could not produce confirmed credentials.

It takes a lot of effort to document and confirm a person is a fraud or psychologically unsound at a level that is a risk to a community. If you google some of the above details you will find an archive website regarding this self-proclaiming monk and see the sustained effort the family of the student applied to outing an unconfirmed, claimant.

If you do not sustained a clear-headed effort into this which you are doing for others are you at risk of being considered as unsound as you may consider him (and producing unsound speculative data which can only reflect the mind of the author(s))?

If your effort is sustained and clear-headed you can enter the ranks of excellent journalists, and your effort can be exactly like the discipline of a sustained, pure practice (and result in insight). So, best wishes in your efforts.

John, from your contributions in other threads you seem to be interested in some form of practice, despite your reservations about Richard. Would you mind sharing what your practice is / was, and to what extent your concerns about Richard affect (or don't affect) how you pursue it? (As you have been participating at the DhO in other contexts, not just this one, I am curious to understand a little more about you.)

Great general point but:

Did a current alcoholic teach you how to achieve a state where you would not be an alcoholic?
Did a current drug addict promote an altered state in which you could not be a drug addict?
Did a current pervert host a website detailing how to end perversion in the human mind?
...etc

OK sure. Here's a brief summary of where I've come from. I've always been philosophically curious about mind, body, self, universe, consciousness. In DhO terms, I crossed A&P early, unintentionally. I stumbled around in content for decades looking for a way forward. During that time I looked into every teaching and practice I came across, including AF. I took away a lot of insights from AF, but the practice didn't work very well for me, and I didn't like the vibe of the AFT. Eventually I settled on a mode of practice (eclectic, using several sources) that really worked for me, and I ran with it. Not sure where you'd place me on the Theravada map -- it isn't my preferred mode of practice or paradigm of understanding -- but I seem to have attained at least some of the raw insights generated by path moments.. if not all of them.

The way this happened for me was: even though I didn't believe in the metaphysics of a Primordial Awareness, I used it as 'skillful means' to get beyond contracted ego states and find some breathing space where I could see / think / 'be' more clearly and feel more at peace. Informed by some earlier experiences, I intentionally used the idea or metaphor of a primordial Consciousness as a way of equalizing the entire phenomenal field, and this was when practice really started to gain some traction: it allowed me to see that the whole of 'me', which had been assumed to be the seer/experiencer, was in fact more of the seen, more phenomena, more sensation in the "sensation soup" as someone around here calls it. Eventually this notion of Awareness falls apart by itself. There's no screen on which things appear, no medium in which things arise and subside ... but they're useful ways of conceiving it at certain stages. They have an effect. (That's basically how I look at all teachings these days: not truths, but skillful ways of conceiving, apprehending and doing in order to undo or alter unskillful defaults).

John

Well, all I intend here/now is to prompt people not to take too much at face value, to be aware of how little verifiable information they actually have, to look at the role that hope / faith / belief is playing in their lives, and to question the wisdom of making profoundly life-changing decisions based on such scant (and IMO profoundly unreliable) information.

Oblique hints will have to suffice for now, but I have confidence it'll all come out in the wash.

John

Thanks. Do you have any practice goal, or any particular practice, right now?

(Keep in mind that what you call the "Theravada map" is the MCTB (and perhaps the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition's) interpretation of the Theravada map...a view not necessarily shared by many who associate with Theravada in some way.)

Hi Bruno

The fact that Richard receives a pension from Government of Australia [redacted] can be verified.

[redacted]

It is heartening to see you have so much belief and trust in Richard. It is heartening that so many people believe in his goodness.

[edit: the disclosure of personal details, particularly confidential details (including but not limited to medical information such that i have here removed), against the wishes of that person is not welcome at the dho, either in the discussion forum or on any other part of this website. please respect this guideline so that no further moderation is necessary. -tarin, mod]

In replying, I take your text "heartening" "belief" "trust" and "his goodness", to be sarcasm?

Speaking for myself, it is the description of PCEs, and the description of the Actualism method, that convince me of the authenticity of Richard and of AF. I don't see why this authenticity would not be self-evident to any individual who seriously chooses to investigate the method.

So... make the effort!, the journey is stunning. I now have the pleasant situation of waking up every morning, and wordless awareness of the potential for apperception is automatically there.

In replying, I take your text "heartening" "belief" "trust" and "his goodness", to be sarcasm?

Speaking for myself, it is the description of PCEs, and the description of the Actualism method, that convince me of the authenticity of Richard and of AF. I don't see why this authenticity would not be self-evident to any individual who seriously chooses to investigate the method.

So... make the effort!, the journey is stunning. I now have the pleasant situation of waking up every morning, and wordless awareness of the potential for apperception is automatically there.

Not at all sarcasm, but recognition of such a conviction as I suffered once and that lead to turmoil in my life which I have not been able to come out of since. The journey has been indeed stunning for me - for it revealed the depth of human condition, the darkness and pure selfishness that lies in what is touted as AF. It has been a harrowing experience and I do not wish it on any person on this earth ever. There is nothing authentic in Richard or AF except his reproduction of notes and writing that he has read from several sources, over the years.

Note to Tarin : I will stop writing here if you unilaterally moderate posts that have nothing to do with any disclosures someone has sanctioned or not. If you do not want facts and truth to be demonstrated and backed by evidence, please stop making claims about any kind of attainment.

I'm sorry to hear that. Could you tell us what happened to you?