Hi Chaz,
I will keep calling you Chaz because you are apparently too frightened by your own fantasies to give any name to use (and I prefer talking to a person, not a method or a ghost).
Your main thrust of your writing here is about what you call anastasis and this is the way you have used it before you even explained what it means for you –
PWR: the risk of an anastasis has been nullified (link)
PWR: failed in the end because he ignored anastasis, a law of Nature (link)
PWR: no one has managed to annul the anastasis (link)
PWR: When an enlightened person allows himself/herself to be visited, seen and heard by followers, he/she has abandoned anonymity and the anastasis is complete. (link)
According to Wikipedia anastasis may refer to:
Anastasis (Greek: ανάσταση), resurrection, most commonly the resurrection of Jesus
Anastasis, in Christian art, a pictorial representation of the Harrowing of Hell
Prote Anastasis, Holy Saturday, between Good Friday and Easter Sunday
Church of the Anastasis, an alternative name for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem
Hagia Anastasis, an Arian cathedral in Ravenna now called the Chiesa dello Spirito Santo [it], next to the Arian Baptistry
MV Anastasis, a vessel belonging to the health charity Mercy Ships
Anastasis (album), a 2012 album by the band Dead Can Dance
Gran Kiltias Anastasis, fictional character in Final Fantasy XII (Wikipedia)
So very obviously this meaning of anastasis is all about religious superstition and/or fiction. Then, after five days of using an unsubstantiated term, you finally give the definition you have in mind –
PWR: Anastasis (a term borrowed from medicine) is this re-emergence of a persona whose vitality distributed throughout all the organs has been concentrated in the brain, whether driven by an altered state of consciousness or by a consciousness manifested in the objective material world and its natural phenomena. (link)
Here is what anastasis refers to according to the National Institute of Health (NIH) –
“In the context of medicine, anastasis refers to the recovery of cells from the brink of death, even after undergoing apoptosis (programmed cell death), a process also known as “rising to life”.”
Apoptosis is explained this way –
“A type of cell death in which a series of molecular steps in a cell lead to its death. This is one method the body uses to get rid of unneeded or abnormal cells.” (National Cancer Institute)
Nowhere was there any mention of cells either dying or “rising to life” via an ASC or any other type of consciousness. This is your personal invention and on closer inspection nothing but spiritual gobbledygook –
Richard: It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. (Richard, AF List, No. 60a, 23 Jan 2004b).
As such your statement “anastasis, a law of Nature” is false.
Further, according to your spiritual definition this term only applies to a “persona” – [persona (n.; pl. personae): 1. a character in a play, novel, etc.; 2. an assumed identity or character. ~ (Collins English Dictionary).]
As such it may apply to an identity, i.e. a “persona”, but never to an actually free flesh-and-blood body –
Richard: I as this flesh and blood body can only be here now. Inside this body there is no ‘being’ … nothing psychological or psychic left for ‘I’ am extinct. Time is a blessing, not a curse. I can never be out of time, nor anywhere but here, for I have actualised my destiny … here on earth and now in time. (Richard, List A, No. 15, #No. 09).
Richard: “I am this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware.” (Richard’s Journal, page 293)
Now, as you use words like “vitality”, “organs” and “brain” indicating that by “persona” you may be referring to an actually free flesh-and-blood body. Nevertheless, despite the fact that medicine talks about material cells “rising to life”, you specify anastasis as being “driven by an altered state of consciousness” or by “consciousness manifested in the objective material world”. Again, neither description about this process based on a spiritual concept applies to an actually free person. Later you make this muddled definition more clear –
PWR: …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. (link)
In actuality there is no distinction between the flesh-and-blood body (including “internal organs”) and consciousness, i.e. the flesh and blood body being conscious –
Richard: What one is, as a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto), is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being … as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. (Richard, AF List, No. 101, 2 Sep 2005).
Richard: When this body dies, its apperceptive awareness – which is what one refers to by the first person pronoun – dies right along with it, of course, for they are one and the same thing. There is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ lurking around inside this body creating its mischief and dreaming dreams of a glorious – or hideous – immortality in some specious After-Life. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 23, 29 Mar 1998).
In actuality, matter gives rise to consciousness – contrary to spiritualism which believes that “consciousness [is] manifested in the objective material world” –
Richard: It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter.
Richard: It is the PCE which informs that matter gives rise to consciousness. (Richard, AF List, No. 60a, 23 Jan 2004b).
So you see, Chaz, despite your claim of “liberation” and your “suprarational methodology” (link) you are still living and thinking according to the spiritual paradigm (hence being deadly afraid of anastasis according to your personal definition of it). You actually have no clue at all what an actual freedom from the human condition entails. And because you have no clue about the basic difference between and ASC and a PCE, your “path without resistance” method leads nowhere, certainly not to an actual freedom from the human condition.
This spiritual paradigm also is apparent in your first example for the supposedly dangerous effects of anastasis –
PWR: U.G., unable to nullify the anastasis, ended up opting for suicide by starvation (Prayopavesa). (link)
What anastasis? What resurrection? U. G. Krishnamurti was still a feeling being, residing in the outer regions of Spiritual Enlightenment. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, UG).
As most of what you say this example only has an inkling of fact: U.G. Krishnamurti died after voluntary fasting, called “Santhara”, a Jain religious ritual of voluntary death by fasting, at the age of 90+ yrs –
“Seven weeks before [he died], UG had a fall and injured himself. This was the second such occurrence in two years. He did not want such an incident to occur once again which would make him further dependent on his friends for his daily maintenance. So he refused medical or other external intervention. He decided to let his body take its own natural course.” (Death of U.G. Krishnamurti)
Your reference to Richard is entirely uncalled for because none of the actual definition of anastasis nor your own definition of it apply to Richard –
PWR: I did not have time to warn Richard about this side effect, and the anastasis caused him to ignore signs of a rapid deterioration in his health that even occasional check-ups do not usually diagnose accurately. (link)
Besides, you blatantly make up a narrative of Richard’s death, which is not in accord with the facts. Here is everything that was ever been published about Richard’s death (link) – the rest is your own self-serving addition. That Richard “ignore[d] signs of a rapid deterioration in his health” is your assumption and incorrect. Here is what Richard said about dying –
Richard: Perennial happiness is only possible because of death as extinction. This universe is perfect to the nth degree and I would not presume to change one little bit of it. To live with the fact is to live completely. Nothing is missing; nothing has ever been missing, nor ever will be missing. Life is already complete. …
I regard death with equanimity; when it happens I will welcome it as I do the oblivion of deep sleep each night. Like sleep, it is an agreeable actual occurrence.
I am completely happy to be here now, securely inside eternal time. (Richard’s Journal, Article 16)
Either you are really muddle-headed, not being able to know the difference between spiritualism and actualism, as well as not knowing the difference between medical facts/ definitions and your own fantasy … or the purpose of your appearance here and your warning (of both actually free people and practicing actualists) is neither benevolent nor benign but intended to stop peace-on-earth in its tracks.
I leave it to you to sort that one out.
(Continued).