Good day, Claudiu.
A forum where it is not safe to disagree is not a forum focused on growth — it is a forum focused on control.
Even though you and/or Vineeto tracked my IP (invasion of privacy) and even though you answered me that you had no intention of having a private correspondence with me, I will help you understand the path without resistance and answer your questions.
But let’s take it one step at a time:
“Your answer was that you will only respond if I send you an e-mail as you won’t participate on the forum anymore… after which you participate on the forum anyway, then later post an e-mail correspondence you claim to have had, back onto the forum itself!”
— Since H (nickname withheld) kindly allowed me to share our messages here, and since you refused to accept my invitation, my posts here may not be of interest to you, but they will be useful to other members.
“In other words your reason for not answering is that you want me to send the same text to you in an e-mail, that you can then answer in an e-mail, that you will then post to the forum anyway – instead of just responding on the forum.”
— As I promised you that our correspondence would be private, I would never post our messages here. Unlike you, I respect other people’s privacy.
“This makes no rational sense whatsoever and is just one of the many pieces of evidence that have accumulated indicating you are on a mission to purposefully waste people’s time and mislead people away from actualism and a genuine actual freedom.”
— I find that the longer I live, the more I worry about people and the less I worry about rules. What you failed to consider is that, just as there are different methodologies, there are different types of people to learn from different methods. In your zealous view, there could be no other method than the one proposed by Richard. And this is one of the most fundamental concepts that drives this culture: the concept of the “One Right Way”. There can not be good ways of doing something, there has to be a right way – one and only way, with all other ways wrong.
Now to your genuine questions:
“…why on earth do you claim to be actually free, as in, experiencing the same actual freedom that Richard did and Vineeto, Peter, Geoffrey, Srinath, etc. do?”
— Simple: without a legion of egos and without a Superego, the actual world has no resistance to being directly perceived by the senses and intellectually appreciated by the native intelligence. Every actually free man and woman has his or her idiosyncrasies, while simultaneously living in the same actual world where matter and motion are eternal.
But unlike many actually free man and woman, on the path without resistance there is no confusion between infinity and eternity. If something is eternal, it has no beginning or end. Eternity (forever) refers to the time metric of motion. It is not correct to use the word infinity when referring to the size of things (existing objects). This is irrational. “Eternal” can be applied only in the context of time (motion plus memory). When referring to the concept of matter and space, that is, the eternal universe, it is a context of dynamic concept – motion. There is no infinite matter and much less immobility/stillness in the universe: an infinite object is impossible and all matter is in movement, assembling and disassembling… forever! This happens because there is constant movement from the atom to the galaxies. All objects are continually pulling on and colliding with other objects.
In the actual world everything is on fire! (I see colors as more vivid).
And here no one can pull my strings. I don’t have any. There is no more an organized subject to be the enjoyer or sufferer, no owner of the experiences.
“On what basis have you ascertained yourself to be experiencing the same thing?”
— If all my words so far have not revealed this to you, I suggest you read them again from another perspective: that of an actually free man. All experiences of proximity (or intimacy, if you prefer) have something in common: the absence of the Self. Try it.
“If you are just straightforward and describe yourself as having reached some other end-goal that you think is more valuable than actual freedom, you can just go ahead and say that, and everyone will be far better informed and there will be no misleading. Instead you mingle words and mash concepts and attempt to mislead your fellow human beings. Why do this?”
— Actual freedom is the end-goal, I just discovered a different path and, for sure, there will be others even more direct and without the need for so many adjectives to describe a natural state that is a human right and not a patented brand.
To conclude, it was quite clear that your biggest objection seems to be the lack of proof, of evidence regarding the actual free condition of this author who writes to you:
“It is not a matter of how “difficult it is to accept”, but rather that you have provided absolutely no reason, rationale, or evidence indicating that you are actually free, and provided ample evidence that you aren’t.”
Read carefully:
Evidence is a part of religion. What part of explaining and understanding requires evidence?
“Evidence” can only be used to convince and recruit. Only religious people ask for evidence.
Religion is not about God or about the existence of God, and it is not about spirituality or holy books. Religion has to do with some of the key words contained in the instant question: experiment, validate, right, correct. Religion is about persuading, convincing, converting, and recruiting…
Religion: belief, opinion.
Pure consciousness experiences are 100% description full of adjectives. PCE has no power or authority to explain anything. Description and persuasion, remember?
And what is the purpose of an experience if not to change (or confirm) the mind of the experiencer and of the crowd?
Therefore, if someone is expecting proof and evidence of the path without resistance through experiment to confirm his/her preconceived and “correct”, “factual” belief or to change it, s/he is in the “wrong” method. There are churches and monasteries and temples for that sort of thing. In the path without resistance, I explain how to be actually free objectively, not for people to buy the snake oil, but so that people understand the proposed techniques. They can reach their own conclusions after that.
Asking for proof is proof that we are living in that movie Idiocracy where everyone is getting dumber…
What part are you having trouble understanding about the path without resistance? Kindergarteners understand what a path without resistance is. It should be straight forward.
However, it is curious that no one here is asking for proofs from the method proposed by Richard. However you raise the issue only when it comes to the path without resistance.
It seems like you read, but you do so very superficially. You end up not understanding. I’ll try again…
- There’s been a paradigm shift and you have not caught up.
- The path without resistance is about explaining, not about believing (i.e., religion). You are doing religion: opinion, evidence, proof, experiment, prediction, usefulness.
- In order to EXPLAIN how to be actually free, you MUST make an assumption (i.e., hypothesis) about an INVISIBLE, INTANGIBLE entity (e.g., I, self, ego, psyche, etc.) which you have no chance whatsoever of detecting through an experiment. There can NEVER be evidence of an INVISIBLE, INTANGIBLE entity, and proof is a personal opinion (i.e., religion).
There are traditionalists — those who believe in the ancient religions like, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamism… and the gods and fables that come with them.
And there are irrationalists or ideots — those who laugh at the ones who believe in gods and then begin to follow cherry-picking dogmas around and to talk about “pure intention” without ever having understood the concept after decades.
“Time is on my side”, like in that song. But you shouldn’t waste YOUR time searching for evidence when the path without resistance (and Richard’s proposed method) is at your disposal.
As for the process that led me to the path without resistance, I can say that it was the same one with which technologies are developed: through trial and error…
“I have not failed. I merely found 10,000 ways that don’t work.”
— Thomas Edison
All the best,
PWR
PS: I will soon post a short text about dopamine that may interest you.