Introductory Post - Melbourne Australia

[claudiu]

Hi Damian,

@Damian

My interest is mokshah / awakening / self realization

Thanks for the answer.

Actualism does not lead to either mokshah or awakening or self realization.

Actual freedom is a way of being conscious that is neither mokshah nor awakening nor self realization.

In other words, you won’t find what you’re looking for by pursuing the actualist path.

Actualism is about undoing both the small self/ego and the big Self/soul, whereas ‘awakening’ is about undoing just the small self/ego and becoming only a big Self/soul. The two goals are incompatible.

You might find the following of interest which distinguishes actual freedom from the Buddhist flavor of awakening in particular:

RICHARD: In view of the fact there are, nowadays, millions of words on The Actual Freedom Trust website and, literally, trillions of words extant world-wide about Buddhism, per favour the many and various sects formed over more than two millennia, the most simplest way of illustrating the fundamental difference betwixt Actualism and Buddhism is with the following quotes.

Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘… as I am this flesh and blood body only, and as this flesh and blood body being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, being sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is what consciousness is (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition), I am most assuredly not disenchanted with the body/ disenchanted with consciousness … let alone fully released from same (and thus) discerning there is nothing further for this world’. [emphasis added].
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf78.htm#06Nov04).

That quote is but one example of the many reports/ descriptions/ explanations wherein Richard unmistakably states that he is the flesh and blood body/that the flesh and blood body is what he is.

Whereas, for instance, in the Anuradha Sutta (SN III.116; PTS: SN iv.381), in the Pāli Canon, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes it abundantly clear that he is not the flesh and blood body/ that the flesh and blood body is not what he is. […]

In the Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18; PTS: M i 108) , for instance, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes it abundantly clear that not only is he dhammaṃ (the Pāli dhammabhūto, in that sutta, translates as ‘has become dhamma’) but is also the eye of wisdom/ gnosis [cakkhubhūto], is knowledge/ gnosis itself [ñāṇabhūto], is brahman [brahmabhūto] and is the bringer, the giver of the deathless [ninnetā amatassa dātā], or immortality, as well. […]

The point being, of course, that Richard unmistakably reports that he is the flesh and blood body only. […] [source]

Again the two goals are incompatible – actual freedom is when one is the flesh and blood body only, whilst when the Buddhist goal is reached one is not the flesh and blood body only.

In other words if what you want is these spiritual goals then you’ll save yourself a lot of time not pursuing actualism – not only will it not further your progress towards the spiritual goals but actually it will hinder it and turn you away from it.

Cheers,
Claudiu