I want to start by saying that I like some of Richard’s work and I have learnt many things from him. But it’s not just fact like he claims. If you look carefully, you can see it for yourself.
For example, he said this:
“Becoming free of the human condition is a physiological occurrence, centred at the nape of the neck (the top of the brain-stem/ base of the brain), wherein the ‘lizard-brain’ mutates out of its primeval state … but if this mutation is not allowed its completion one becomes enlightened”
Then later when it happened to his associates he said this:
“More importantly, however, is the manner in which this irrevocable event occurs: it is all over in a matter of seconds, involving a seamless transition with no drama whatsoever – there is no fear at all let alone dread [nor anything weird happening in the nape of the neck] – and so remarkably simple/ easy that it is outstanding in its implications and ramifications in regards to global peace and harmony in our lifetimes.”
So that was not a fact, it was a belief. First he said with no sign of doubt that it “is a physiological occurrence, centred at the nape of the neck” but later they reported “nor anything weird happening in the nape of the neck”.
Another example is the visualisation story. Unfortunately, I can’t find the precise quotes, but you might be able to find them or have someone confirm. Richard had said that he is unable to visualise because of the dissolution of the rudimentary self. Turns out that was another belief, because Dona reported later that Peter was still able to visualise even after achieving the same condition as Richard. Also, the story is a bit worse because it’s revealed somewhere that Richard lost his visualisation ability during his enlightened period, not later, so he either forgot about it or lied to reinforce his beliefs.
These beliefs are based on his experience. I like it that he tries to understand things by himself and does not rely on blind belief, like most people. But he still
believes in Science, not everything they say, but he takes whatever he agrees with or suits him to prove his belief, or to disprove beliefs of other people.
One thing I learned over the years, is that a lot of people believe in Science, but many of those people will claim they have no beliefs. Originally, many years ago when I found Richard’s work, I took it at face value when he said he had no beliefs. He said to not merely believe him and I thought that was very reasonable. But I learned much later that that’s a very common thing to say. Lots of people say “I have no beliefs”, for example Jiddu Krishnamurti said it. This is especially common with scientific believers. For many people, it’s enough to say “Science says so” and they have proven what they believe is true/fact.
The irony is that when Richard says he has no beliefs, automatically some people will believe whatever he says, because supposedly he’s just describing facts/actuality.
I am not dismissing everything he says. What I am saying is that since he does not make a distinction between facts and his beliefs, everything he says becomes questionable. There’s basically two possibilities: he is aware that he has beliefs and is lying about it, or, he is not aware that he has beliefs so he believes he has no beliefs, which means he is not entirely free from delusion. I have not been able to find a single human who has no beliefs whatsoever.
I am not claiming to have the truth or the facts. Richard is, and I am questioning it. I don’t subscribe to a particular faith. I read different things from different sources and try to make sense of things by reason and experience. I do not simply accept or dismiss things on the basis of “scientific fact” or “religious belief”. I have come to understand that the supposed distinctions between science and religion are not so clear cut as most people believe. In fact, the concepts of religion and science as people understand them today are quite new. The terms actually originated in Christianity, where they were originally treated as virtues, and later they were reified into these two supposedly very different systems we have today. I learned about this from historians. If you examine their research, a lot of it makes sense. I thought that the lecture “Prof. Peter Harrison - The Territories of Science and Religion” was particularly helpful.
And there is no such thing as “the scientific method” either. You can look it up. What they have is basically various principles and different methods which they have bundled together under that misleading label that sounds so objective. And I also think it’s pretty silly that Richard says the actualism method fits the scientific method, because one of the things scientists like to claim is that Science is objective, and the actualism method is entirely subjective.
