Since PWR’s posts have been basically about witchcraft, or a rehashing of it, and not about coherent methodolgies on how to be actually free from the human condition whatsoever, even when asked about it multiple times, I suggest the moderators relocate this thread to the Watercooler category, in a similar treatment we have for, say, the real world wisdom thread.
3 Likes
I think this might be a projection
PWR, if you are fooling yourself that you are free, you are fooling only yourself. Why engage in such a charade? What purpose does it serve? Do you not wish to attain what is possible? These games draw you no closer.
3 Likes
Hi @PWR
I’m confident that people here are a rarest of the open-minded breeds around the planet, but it is you who is coming off as some sort of a robotic AI or an alien from another planet or plain simply a very muddle-headed person as Vineeto said.
You are anyways anonymous, so no harm can come to you from third parties like us here sitting on different corners of the globe far away from you, so why don’t you atleast share a short gist of the path without resistance technique just as getting back to feeling good is at the core of the Actualism Method ? You can choose not to respond further here if you feel its fruitless on this forum.
If you can’t share the details of your method publicly here, then you will continue to sound shady and delusional in which case you’ll be more like a PWR
= Proselytizer Without Reason 
Cheers
Shashank
4 Likes
Good day, … Eric?
As I share Vineeto’s preference to talk to a person, rather than a method[1], and you decline being Chaz, you will see I’ve adopted a new nickname for you, one appropriate for an… Entity Refusing Identification as Chaz.
If you are not the personifier, one of whose aliases was “Chaz”, then calling you Chaz does not damage your anonymity, as it is not your name anyway. Nor will using the “Eric” moniker.
Unless your state of being is so susceptible to “anastasis” that somebody calling you by a different name will undo the nullification you have so carefully enacted?
Besides which, you misunderstand the nature of psychic currents, and as such you have been, currently are, and will continue to be susceptible to them, whether you go by an alias or not, whether your physical location is known or not. More on this later.
It is nearly unbelievable that you’ve been aware and percipient of “the words of Richard, Peter and Vineeto”, to the degree of “read[ing] each page in detail” and “following the correspondence and messages”, since March 2007[2], and yet it is new information for you that feeling-beings are capable of projecting a ‘being’ onto an actually free person.
Here is just a brief collection of quotes for your perusal:
–
–
–
And, of course, most saliently:
Perhaps your reading over the years has not been so careful after all?
For being an Entity who Refuses Identification as Chaz, you sure do … act like Chaz sometimes!
To wit (all from known Chaz aliases [link]):
I see you have been as forthcoming with your advice here as with your advising of others on the “path without resistance”, namely… not at all, nothing more than a “you should do something about that”. Is this really helpful to your fellow human beings?
Psychic currents are not actual, and as such aren’t physical, they do not require any physical medium or target through which to travel, and don’t require a visible body with a known location to be aimed at. I cannot put it any better than Richard already has in 2013:
I have snipped the full explanation for the sake of space, but any interested reader is advised to read it in its entirety as it sheds considerable light on these manners.
With all the above in mind, it’s clear why seeing somebody or knowing their location is not required for psychic currents to have their effect, nor for a psychic battle to take place.
And this is experientially verifiable for anybody at any time. Who of us hasn’t gotten involved in a flame war over the internet, or a series of intense messages over text or a messenger app? Although it can be difficult to initially distinguish between one’s feelings and the psychic currents one is putting out, vs. those coming from the other, one can get better at differentiating them over time. It goes a considerable way towards explaining why those internet flame wars erupt as they do. (For an interesting example of one regarding climate change, see: Richard’s Replicable Experiments Requests).
Mais non, you are not. Merely by venturing out on this forum and engaging with the members here, you have rendered yourself vulnerable and susceptible to the psychic currents the feeling-beings on here are emanating, and thus by your own measure made yourself vulnerable to anastasis. Hiding your name and not disclosing your location is not protecting you from this.
However, your prompt retreat[5] will eventually render you safe from any psychic currents resulting from this thread, as the thread fades from recency and people stop thinking / feeling about it. Be warned, however, that if anybody takes you up on your one-on-one communication offer via e-mail or some other medium of exchange, you will be making yourself vulnerable again to whatever psychic currents may result from those interactions.
The only way to be completely safe from psychic currents is to become actually free from the human condition, of course. It is also notable that any interaction with actually free people will not result in any type of psychic current or power-struggle type of psychic swirls occurring (which was experientially evident to me in an interaction I had about climate change with actually-free Srinath:
How do you know that you aren’t currently susceptible to these psychic currents, which are affecting your body (to such a degree as to cause organ deterioration), yet without you being percipient of these? It sounds like from what you write that there’s no way you would know, as you would not be able to be aware of it happening, and as amply demonstrated above, hiding your name and location is not sufficient.
What may very well be happening here is a case of projection. In other words, although you think Richard was vulnerable to various psychic emanations, you actually fear that you yourself are vulnerable to them (which you are). And that your current state of being (clearly not actual freedom) is interfering with your ability to properly perceive your body and any issues that may be happening to it (which it may well be).
If it is, I would suggest this is a result of the “path without resistance” that you have embarked upon, which has caused you to be frightened of psychic currents to such a degree that you have repressed your perception of them, and this repression is having negative side effects. I would advise you to come out of your shell, so to speak, and stop fearing and repressing them. By thusly nullifying your (faux) nullification of the anastasis, you will be able to resume relating to your fellow feeling-beings the same as normal feeling-beings do.
Note that the regular course of flame wars and contentious events and discussions etc., do not cause an imperceptible yet total organ deterioration like you are concerned is happening. In other words, your fears around this topic are unfounded. This is good news as it means you don’t have to hide anymore!
With all that being said, it is of course entirely up to you what you do with this information.
Cheers,
Claudiu
2 Likes
Good day everybody.
I’ll repeat part of my response that I sent privately yesterday to one of the members (who also prefers to remain anonymous so as not to be “attacked”):
The problem is not being attacked and having my messages fragmented and distorted to the point of being unintelligible, but rather seeing how much intellectual integrity is compromised in this very important subjects.
The knee-jerk response to my messages proved that this reflexive rejection of new concepts is the antithesis of discoveries.
Although I was following the events of the Actualism groups and websites from a safe distance, I remained an outsider throughout these last 17 years. During this time I was traveling to countries in North, Central and South America, and also visiting Africa. However, it was perhaps this detachment that allowed me the freedom and flexibility to devote so much of my time to my own work and the development of my ideas, rather than having to focus on maintaining a neutral self (impossible task because there are many selves, one for each emotional state) or making a pilgrimage to some corner of Australia.
The approach of the path without resistance is maieutic, and that is why I have left clues in my messages so that each one can investigate them for themselves, thus learning to ask the right questions first.
Salutes,
PWR
Does your impression of the actualism amount to, “maintaining a nuetral self?” And/or making a pilgramage Australia? Where did you get his idea that you 'had to maintain a nuetral self?"
Hello, edzd.
I’m still not sure if you’re genuinely interested in understanding my messages, because you chose to ignore the explanatory sentence I put in parentheses right after “…a neutral self”…
In any case, I’ll recommend you:
To investigate emotions, without confusing them with instincts, read some books and scientific articles by neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barret (here is a good introduction to the topic): The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization - PMC
I also recommend that you consult the appropriate sources and reflect on everything you read, hear and watch. There is no free lunch.
As for the pilgrimage, at the time it was one of my alternatives that ended up being discarded as I began to understand the risks of anastasis (and I did not want to cause any problems for Richard, who could already be in poor health).
This is the “explanatory sentence,” which I fail to understand how it answers the questions, "does your impression of the actualism method amount to ‘maintain a nuetral self.’ It’s a yes or no question but including some explanation might be nice.
I’m unsure why you would bring that into discussion because I can’t see how it is relevant to improving the actualism method. The discussion seems as if you’re comparing your path to the actualism method, but then you introduce a technique such as this which has nothing to do with the method. “Maintaining a nuetral self,” is not a part of the method.
Where does this idea of ‘maintaing a neutral self’ come from? Are you saying that if you weren’t travelling and instead were involved in actualist discussion over 17 years you may have fallen into the trap of maintaining a ‘nuetral self?’
I’m trying to understand the point, because otherwise it seems as if you’re comparing your path to the actualism method while under the impression that the actualism method involves ‘maintaining a nuetral self.’ In which case, any advice on improving the method is fundamentally misguided.
1 Like
This is the “explanatory sentence,” which I fail to understand how it answers the questions, “does your impression of the actualism method amount to ‘maintain a neutral self.’ It’s a yes or no question but including some explanation might be nice.
Thanks, now your question has become more elaborate.
It’s not a question of yes or no, but of making clear what my alternatives were at the time. Neutralizing and maintaining a self proved to be an impossibility because there was not just one, but several selves, one for each emotional state. That’s why I recommended the findings of that neuroscientist to you…
I’m unsure why you would bring that into discussion because I can’t see how it is relevant to improving the actualism method. The discussion seems as if you’re comparing your path to the actualism method, but then you introduce a technique such as this which has nothing to do with the method. “Maintaining a neutral self,” is not a part of the method.
I never said I wanted to improve the actualism method devised by Richard. If you look at all my 24 messages above, you will see this for yourself. What I had were objections that encouraged me to find my own method, with a rational hypothesis and theory (which ended up becoming supra-rational).
In fact, maintaining a neutral self was not part of my method either, because a self continues to be an impediment, a barrier.
Where does this idea of ‘maintaining a neutral self’ come from? Are you saying that if you weren’t travelling and instead were involved in actualist discussion over 17 years you may have fallen into the trap of maintaining a ‘neutral self?’
A neutral self was equivalent to a neutral feeling for “me” at the time.
Thanks to those travels (first for professional work and only later for investigative researches), this detachment helped me to stand on my own two feet and not jump before looking.
I’m trying to understand the point, because otherwise it seems as if you’re comparing your path to the actualism method while under the impression that the actualism method involves ‘maintaining a nuetral self.’ In which case, any advice on improving the method is fundamentally misguided.
No problem, I understand your hasty interpretation, although I have already made it very clear in my messages above that I am not improving (whether adding to, reducing or modifying) the actualism method formulated by Richard, nor am I comparing “my” path with such a method. Others like Justine have already tried it without success.
In the path without resistance that I discovered (discovering is different from inventing) the objections that I had were explained. Remember: the method that “I” synthesized and applied to “myself” was tailored for one person and no one else, and for the specific circumstances in which that person lived. On the other hand, its hypothesis and theory can be shared. The cake has already been eaten, the recipe is left and it is up to each person to gather the ingredients and prepare them. So, it will be your method customized to “you” and the place where “you” live, and not that of someone else.
Salutes,
PWR
The scientific article you recommended seems to be indicating there is no central point of control for emotions - but perhaps I’ve misunderstood it.
If that is indeed the conclusion - doesn’t it seem to be indicating that there is no self? Neither one self, nor multiple selves?
Perhaps you can see where I got the impression from.
So to be clear, you devised a new method specifically for yourself and it has led to an actual freedom from the human condition?
Why don’t you explain your own method in detail like Richard did? A full explanation of the method seems to be the best thing you can do.
The scientific article you recommended seems to be indicating there is no central point of control for emotions - but perhaps I’ve misunderstood it.
It’s not about trying to control emotions, but rather about defining them scientifically first.
If that is indeed the conclusion - doesn’t it seem to be indicating that there is no self? Neither one self, nor multiple selves?
Once one understands what emotions really are, the next question is: “who” constructs them?
PWR: — A different (updated) hypothesis and theory about the method of actualism.
If something can be improved, just do it.
Perhaps you can see where I got the impression from.
Yes, another wrong impression, but this time a justifiable one.
“A different (updated) hypothesis and theory ABOUT the method of actualism.”
It is possible to improve any method without necessarily adding anything to it, taking anything away from it, or changing anything about it. In other words, just find a new method instead of reforming the old one.
My argument is qualitative; not quantitative. It deals with inevitability. I am saying that pure consciousness, once achieved by one person, becomes a process with many technologies, and that if applied by one and another like a chain reaction, it will eventually reach its critical mass and become dominant.
Hegemonic consciousness has already become unsustainable and is flirting with the old divided mind, with societies and entire generations increasingly “schizophrenic”, alienated and polarized, on the verge of a return to a New Dark Age. This is why discussing climate change, environmentalism and other irrelevant topics is like worrying about a leak on the Titanic.
So to be clear, you devised a new method specifically for yourself and it has led to an actual freedom from the human condition?
Yes and I called this new method because of its basic characteristic, a “path WITHOUT resistance”.
Time to add a few more explanations that may help others understand the process of this discovery.
The ego (a central operator for a legion of disconnected selves) chronically lies to itself, because otherwise it would evaporate in a few seconds like a snowflake under the midday sun.
The pragmatic function of any method of actualism is to eradicate this lying operator (in reality, a tyrannical censor) in oneself without allowing another Operator (with a capital O) to take its place.
The trick, in short, is to recognize intellectually and then experientially that that mindspace occupied by the constant (and exhausting) memory of maintaining an ego (with all its identities and reactive programs) is the only and last resistance to be overcome.
Without a resistor, even temporarily, the objective material world and its phenomena reveals itself instantly to pure consciousness.
The so-called “real” world is always seen through the optics of a tarnished and distorted lens that only creates illusions (circular emotions, feelings, beliefs and thoughts). Taking off those sunglasses requires a different kind of courage (or audacity, if you prefer). In my case, the conditions I was living in were more than enough to encourage such courage. “Eat the frog,” as they say. Necessity is the mother of radical paradigm shifts.
To live 24 hours a day, every day, free from this multitude of conflicting fictitious identities, is to exist and think in an almost indescribable condition (although it is possible to describe it, something Richard has already done in exemplary fashion).
My contribution is not to repeat what has already been said and written, nor to replicate the best quotes of my predecessors, but rather to reveal that there are other ways to reach the top of the same mountain (an allegory).
Hi Hanalia,
Welcome to the Forum.
This message is for you and for everyone on the forum –
Hi all,
Now that Chaz aka PWR has returned after his most recent swan-song (link), suggesting people should email him privately so as to avoid the scrutiny of “biased moderators or Guardians to dogmatize or censor you” (link) I will add a few more comments for a clarification, particularly for those who are seduced by the words of “no resistance”.
Since becoming actually free I have lost the capacity/ faculty to believe. I simply cannot believe anything, full stop. After all, etymologically, ‘belief’ means fervently wishing to be true [etymologically, ‘trust’ – a covenant with ‘the true’ – is in the same category as faith – loyalty to ‘the true’ – and both are aligned with ‘belief’; Proto-West Germanic “ga-laubon”: This Proto-Germanic word meant “to hold dear, esteem, trust”. (Wiktionary].
Especially in the situation when someone claims an actual freedom I would highly recommend the approach of suspending both belief and disbelief until clear facts are established in order to avoid confusion by disinformation.
Anastasis
Belief: PWR claims that he needs “anonymity” because of something he calls “Anastasis”.
Fact: Anastasis according to the NIH medical dictionary = “the recovery of (physical) cells from the brink of death” .
Belief: PWR redefines “anastasis is a psychic force of external origin incapable of reaching pure consciousness but capable of affecting the internal organs of an actual free body.” He claims that actually free people can be affected by psychic forces. (link)
Fact: For an actually free person the psychic faculty is null and void because the psychic faculty (Psyche=soul, spirit) arises from the instinctual passions which have no existence in the actual world.
Richard: “Inside this body there is no ‘being’ … nothing psychological or psychic left for ‘I’ am extinct.” (Richard, List A, No. 15, #No. 09) (see Greetings to all - #56 by Vineeto for an extensive explanation).
Indication: This person’s soul is still extant, hence his fear of being susceptible to external psychic forces having physical consequence.
His description of his “new condition as an actually free man” (link)
Belief: PWR claims “liberation”, “a freed native intelligence (…) in the world where “matter is not merely passive” and “psychic emanations do not affect” him, yet he is afraid of even be known by a first name, otherwise those “psychic emanations” would negatively impact on his health.
He says he lives in “the objective material world and its phenomena reveals itself instantly to pure consciousness”. “The so-called “real” world is always seen through the optics of a tarnished and distorted lens that only creates illusions (circular emotions, feelings, beliefs and thoughts).” (link)
Fact: What becomes readily apparent, when one leaves both ‘ego’ and ‘soul’ behind via ‘self’-immolation, is the actual world, the world of mountains and streams and flora and fauna, the stars at night and the firmament in the day. In actuality I am the universe (actuality) experiencing itself as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body.
According to his description however, there is the experience of a dichotomy – “the objective material world and its phenomena”** out there revealing “itself instantly to pure consciousness” inside of ‘me’.
Phenomena and phenomenalism are words, used by spiritualist and metaphysicians as intuited and imagined phenomena, and ambiguously in the general use. As such I prefer to say that in the actual world, where matter is not merely passive, I do experience everything my senses perceive directly as actual, not as “phenomena”.
Belief: He says he lives “24 hours a day, every day, free from this multitude of conflicting fictitious identities, is to exist and think in an almost indescribable condition”. He claims that he gained “liberation” after going through the stage of “acceptance” and as a result having “eradicate[d]” “the ego (a central operator for a legion of disconnected selves)”. Furthermore he is so demonstrably afraid of “psychic emanations” so much so that he mentions this danger in every single post he writes. [Emphases added]. (link)
Fact: There is no such thing as an “ego of disconnected selves” – the ‘self’ arises from the instinctual passions, overlaid by the social identity keeping the instinctual passions in check. When ‘being’ becomes extinct, both the ‘inner’ world and the ‘outer world’, which is created by the inner world, disappear – as such there is no “the objective material world and its phenomena” revealing itself to one’s ego-less inner world, perhaps looking like Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus”. (link)
He still sees the world “through the optics of a tarnished and distorted lens” of ‘being’ “that only creates illusions”. (link)
Belief: Liberation= “I value life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness”
Fact: Living in actuality I don’t have to value life because I enjoy being alive and fear of death is non-existent. I don’t have to value freedom because I am already free from the human condition and “am completely happy to be here now, securely inside eternal time.” (Richard’s Journal, Article 16). In the actual world the “pursuit of happiness” is superfluous, because simply being alive is deliciously experienced each moment of being here; the vast stillness of infinitude all around, the purity and perfection of the universe is plain to see right here, right now as I am the very experience of this purity as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body.
Belief: UG Krishnamurti and Richard were fatally affected by anastasis [psychically created organ deterioration] – both ideas are pure fantasy.
Fact: UG Krishnamurti was spiritual and subject to occasional emotions and instinctual passions, neither free from empathetic suffering, nor from anger, desire or fear. (link) PWR’s belief in protection against ‘anastasis’ – “re-emergence of a persona” via “psychic emanations” (link) was not applicable as a belief because UG still had his psyche intact anyway.
Richard, being fully actually free was incapable of “re-emergence of a persona” – all personas are fabrications of the passionate entity inside having hijacked the body, the very entity which becomes extinct to make an actual freedom possible.
Belief: “What few people know is that Richard also used a pseudonym to remain anonymous when he started to share his method on the internet.” (link)
Fact: Richard did not use a pseudonym, that is an invention, Richard used his first name in all his writings and correspondences. I should know, I lived with him for more than a decade.
Method:
Belief: PWR claims to have “created and tested” his “suprarational methodology”. (link)
“Suprarational” means transcending or going beyond what is rational, encompassing factors that cannot be understood by reason alone. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
“Suprarational”: not understandable by reason alone, beyond rational comprehension (Dictionary.com)
As such “Suprarational” describes intuitional, subliminal, instinctual and visceral and non-sensical and irrational methodology.
Fact: Actual freedom can be clearly explained, and ratiocinatively and sensibly described to the extent that one can “make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory … and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written.
Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light [a.k.a. ‘highest authority’] … not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation … and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path.” (Richard, Abditorium, Prima Facie Case).
Belief: In his summary of the PWR method its inventor states: The trick, in short, is to recognize intellectually and then experientially that that mindspace occupied by the constant (and exhausting) memory of maintaining an ego (with all its identities and reactive programs) is the only and last resistance to be overcome.
Without a resistor, even temporarily, the objective material world and its phenomena reveals itself instantly to pure consciousness. (link)
Even though he says the ego “is the only and last resistance to be overcome” he falsely and deceitfully advertises his method the “path without resistance”.
Fact: The actualism method, as described with great care and detail and with a proven track record can be practiced by anyone with sufficient interest and intent to ameliorate the human condition and/or become free from it.
Belief: PWR further expands: “I have been asked if I practiced some kind of meditation or followed some philosophy, due to the difference in my behavior and the most productive results under my leadership (in fact, the position of command that I occupy in itself prevents me from revealing my new condition as an actually free man). My answer was:
“I have found and understood the suprarational definition of two words: Exist and Object.”
“This is usually enough to discourage further interference in my personal life.” (link)
Demonstrably he is only talking about overcoming the ego (hence clearly relying on his knowledge/ understanding of the spiritual paradigm for spiritual liberation, and claiming “acceptance” as the last stage. He reveals himself as a leader, “in fact” in “the position of command” and warns people “to not reveal your actual free condition personally to third parties” on the threat of “anastasis”, in itself a “suprarational* definition”* as demonstrated above. (After all he had been admittedly an admirer of UG Krishnamurti, so much so that he wanted to translate one of his books into another language).
As per the definitions above “the supra-rational definition” for the word ‘exist’ means ‘transcendental existence’ and for the word ‘object’ it means a ‘transcendental object’, possibly a “phenomenon” of “the objective material world”. The very fact that he is proud to “discourage further interference” is revealing in itself.
Fact: In the actual world “equity and parity prevails amongst fellow human beings sans instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof.” (Richard, the Formation and Persistence of the Social Identity)
Nowhere does this promulgator of “pwr” reveal “an intimate connection, a golden thread or clew as it were, is thus established whereby one is sensitive to and receptive of the over-arching benignity and benevolence of the ‘another world’ of the PCE” (Richard, AF List, No. 27d, 23 Jan 2003) – hence his claim of many PCEs remains doubtful.
Neither do I detect even an inkling of pure intent operating, “a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself.” (Richard, Abditorium, Pure Intent).
To even consider, that this pure and perfect, benevolent and benign pure intent could operate in such a way that every revelation of the very existence of a flesh-and-blood body experiencing the purity and perfection of this infinite and eternal universe would result in organ failure and premature death is utterly preposterous and ridiculous.
Summary: This man’s experience is at best a delusional realisation, or more likely a fraudulent assimilation of borrowed words with no experiential understanding of what they mean. This is also confirmed by the fact that he shies away from rigorous questioning of his claims and experience by retreating to private messaging and emails, calling any critical questioners “biased moderators or Guardians to dogmatize or censor”. He is clearly acting like someone having something to hide (apart from a name).
As such, his so-called method, of a “path without resistance” can, if anything, only lead to where he himself it at.
Caveat emptor [Latin, ‘let the buyer beware’]. As Richard said –
Richard: Speaking personally I find the input from peoples of a religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical persuasion (if that is what you are referring to by your ‘circles in a circus’ phrasing) to be a salutary example – a real-life practical illustration – that the ‘Tried and True’ is indeed the ‘Tried and Failed’.
There is nothing like a practical demonstration to drive the point home. (Richard, AF List, No. 25d, 12 Feb 2004).
I would now add pseudo-actualist persuasion to the list.
I encourage everyone to use their own capacity for critical thinking to test the sincerity and veracity of those peoples who claim to have found something better than an actual freedom, if they are indeed living what they claim.
Cheers Vineeto
5 Likes
It’s funny because the other day I was writing to @Andrew about the modus operandi of the ‘deep thinker’ :
Every ‘deep thinker’ (intellectualiser) is afraid of being understood (seen clearly) and therefore ‘they’ are invested in making sure ‘they’ are misunderstood, which means ‘they’ have reason to be unclear. For the intellectualiser the more obfuscation the better because it means that ‘I’ get to play that game forever, and never risk being changed by the discovery of a fact…
Indeed this is what the ‘deep thinker’ fears, so much so that ambiguity, obfuscation and even hypocrisy can be made into virtues. The more unclear the better… the archetype of which would be the mystic
Well there is nothing like a solid example to demonstrate the point! And @PWR’s posts have done exactly that. Once the obfuscation is seen for what it is then it becomes clear that there is actually nothing of substance to be found in his posts.
2 Likes
Well-spotted!
Indeed pure consciousness is not some separate “thing” or “entity” to which actuality is revealed. Pure consciousness is nothing other than a flesh and blood body being conscious (hence “consciousness”) sans any identity whatsoever (hence “pure”). As there is no identity present, it’s thus a being conscious of the actual world itself, directly. There is no separation between a “consciousness” and the actuality being perceived — the awareness and perception of actuality is what the pure consciousness is (and this consciousness which is generated via the brain’s neuronal activity, is itself actual as well).
1 Like
I didn’t get this at first but are you saying that…
On @PWR’s proposed path, from the little he has said it sounds like he is saying the only thing to do is to end this egoic resistance, at which point you are liberated?
Hence the path (ie the part before the liberation) would be having resistance throughout (as ego still extant), and as soon as that resistance is somehow overcome (very sparse details if any on how to do this) one has succeeded and is thus no longer on the path?
Hence it would indeed be a path with resistance throughout (by his own descriptions)?
He lost my interest when asking “which topic?”
He is claiming freedom from “me”, then asks what topic i would like to read about.
SMH
1 Like
Claudiu: Even though he says the ego “is the only and last resistance to be overcome” he falsely and deceitfully advertises his method the “path without resistance”.
I didn’t get this at first but are you saying that…
On @PWR’s proposed path, from the little he has said it sounds like he is saying the only thing to do is to end this egoic resistance, at which point you are liberated?
Hence the path (i.e. the part before the liberation) would be having resistance throughout (as ego still extant), and as soon as that resistance is somehow overcome (very sparse details if any on how to do this) one has succeeded and is thus no longer on the path?
Hence it would indeed be a path with resistance throughout (by his own descriptions)? (link)
Hi Claudiu,
The short answer is yes.
The long answer is that even within his own belief system (that only the ego needs to be “overcome”) he is inconsistent in his advertising as the ego will resist being “overcome” all the way, just as the soul equally, if not more so, resists its own extinction (more correctly resists giving permission to abdicate).
And we know that even the path to liberation aka spiritual enlightenment is rarely successful (only 0.00001 % of the population have become enlightened).
Cheers Vineeto
1 Like
Good day, Frau Vineeto.
Now that Chaz aka PWR has returned after his most recent swan-song (link), suggesting people should email him privately so as to avoid the scrutiny of “biased moderators or Guardians to dogmatize or censor you” (link) I will add a few more comments for a clarification, particularly for those who are seduced by the words of “no resistance”.
While most members have nicknames, only mine was quickly labeled “sock puppet”…
And my explanations about the various reasons for keeping my real name private continue to be ignored…
I have returned to answering some members’ questions out of consideration for them, even though they also ignored my request to send a private message directly to my email…
I “believe” (and hope I am not mistaken) that everyone here, except those who have already fulfilled their destiny, is interested in finding out more about another path to reach the same destination. It is possible to get to Australia by boat, but a plane flight will be much faster and more comfortable. Fortunately, there is not just one plane that goes to that destination!
Now, I will take the opportunity to write about “beliefs” and “facts”.
Trading beliefs for supposed facts is equivalent to transforming facts into absolute truths.
Even if this is an absolute fact, if we cannot verify our existence/perception/reality as “absolute”, then we still cannot confirm any given “fact” as absolute.
What appears as a fact to us, may only be that based on our perception, of our knowledge, both of which may not be, and likely are not, absolute.
Until we can rule out all possibilities which leave possibilities such as this open, then we cannot conclude anything as an “absolute fact”.
Absolut fact = Truth
And truth is religion…
Few people on the planet understand that what is fact for them is not necessarily fact for others because all facts are like truths, they are OPINIONS.
In the end, all you have left are opinions. And personal opinions are personal beliefs.
As soon as I read Richard’s words in 2007, I understood that it was also necessary to believe in at least 0,000001% of what he was presenting, otherwise neither I nor anyone else would have any desire to delve into the topic of actual freedom.
And objections only arise after one begins to study and test a METHOD (1).
(1) Method, as a term, is derived from the Greek méthodos (from meta: after and ho’dos: path) along a path. Hence, a method describes the steps along a path, how to go about it, an approach, or as defined in the English language: ‘A way or manner of doing something’ (The Advanced Learners Dictionary 1958, p. 792).
From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232991016_There_are_no_qualitative_methods_-_nor_quantitative_for_that_matter_The_misleading_rhetoric_of_the_qualitative-quantitative_argument
Objections are part of the process. Therefore, in my opinion, it is smarter to accept them rather than avoid them.
“Nerve cells that fire together wire together” is one of the most basic principles of neuroscience that states that when neurons fire repeatedly in the same way, they become wired together. This is also known as Hebb’s Law (2).
(2) Hebbian theory - Wikipedia
To get around this, I started thinking like a Martian anthropologist (yes, I know Martians don’t exist, but I hope you’ll accept this metaphor).
To change beliefs and thought processes, WHAT I would learn would not be as important as HOW I think. That’s why the suprarational method I applied removes the observer.
Anyone is capable of thinking rationally, critically examining and completely understanding what another person presents to them.
The good news is that everyone CAN reprogram their brains and, therefore, their thinking. We can all improve our thinking, even while it is still held hostage by that mini ego legion (you are your emotions, and emotions are many and not just one. Here is another tip for the most attentive to investigate).
I used my intention to change the way my mind worked.
Neuroplasticity is a “fact”.
We have about 86 billion neurons firing. This is our mind, or brain in action.
Learning is making new neural connections. And it is memory that will maintain them.
For all these reasons, since my first post here, I have encouraged everyone to explore these neuroscientific topics by seeking more up-to-date sources (and I have even indicated some authors to start with). Ad hoc knowledge will not always be enough if it is based on obsolete information.
As for anastasis, just remember the psychic barrier projected by Devika/Irene over Richard, which only lost its power after her death.
I understand that this danger had gone unnoticed even by Richard. Fortunately, through serendipity, I discovered a way to nullify such an extrasensory phenomenon.
Using a certain person’s method, you can cause your body to neuro-chemically memorize or instruct the subconscious part of the mind. And replacing the old mind with new rational concepts leaves us in a better position than we started.
What is important for the irrational (materialist or spiritualist) person is to learn how to think rationally first and only then supra-rationally, because cognitive biases and illusions hinder decisions and judgment (just look at how I was quickly mistaken for an imaginary sock puppet…).
One of the best ways to refine your decision-making and judgment process is to understand the difference between what is actual and what is a human concept.
Understand the difference between actual and conceptual and you will have a chance to go beyond the limits of the rational (i.e. supra-rational). (3)
(3) More on the limits of rational thought here:
https://actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/rational.htm
As for the question of “pure consciousness”, since only a living and awake human body possesses it, then there is nothing to add. There is no need to misrepresent my messages by presenting synonyms.
Since I never expected confirmation from others, I decided to investigate with my own resources how to become an actually free man and finally, as expected, this happened last year. I would have liked to have contacted Richard, but that was not possible.
Now, pure intent is no longer necessary because all traces of resistance (objections created by an intellect hijacked by the ego) have been eliminated from this nervous system.
And that is extraordinary for this body and for others around it!
I know that various studies estimate that between 70% and 93% of communication is non-verbal. And so I also understand that many here do not appreciate my writing style. However, it is a matter, once again, of personal opinion, as well as preferences for colors and flavors.
For the record…
My biggest contribution to actualism (not that actualism from analytical philosophy from which Richard borrowed the term), is not the path without resistance.
I regard my most important contribution as the discovery, explanation, and definitions of the actual (exist) and phenomena (events that happen).
There is more than one way to become an actually free man or woman today!
Salud,
PWR
PS: “non-physical phenomena” such as the psychic “vibes” proposed by Richard do not occur… In the case of phenomena between the interaction of two or more concepts, there will still be a living brain and a physical body operating. And as for electromagnetic phenomena that occur without the need for direct contact between bodies and objects, these will still be occurring in the actual world and will continue to occur even when there is no human consciousness (in a living and awake body, of course) to contemplate them.
Hi Andrew (aka SMH),
Actual freedom is a broad topic and requires consulting different sources to investigate different topics.
But a rational person (preferably in virtual freedom) has the capacity to understand that better explanations can emerge at any time and will not be emotionally involved in the outcome nor emotionally attached to any specific conclusion or particular method.
There are currently two alternatives:
- Continue to postpone and enjoy that “plateau”, in the hope that one day that “I” and that “Soul” will delete themselves from your memory once and for all;
- Create your own method of manumission.
Mine worked!
PWR