Heather MacDonald:
This line I found curious... "the spiritual aspirant who wishes to further their search into the area that lies beyond enlightenment (and any other form of an altered state of consciousness)".
Can there be "an area beyond enlightenment" or does he just mean after enlightenment?
...
From what I gather enlightenment is actually the transcending of the limitations of all forms of consciousness; whether physical, psychological or spiritual. Maybe I've just been talking to the wrong guy

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Well, there are enlightened folk here and at KFD (Kenneth Folk Dharma) that seem to still be meditating and looking for stuff to do, so it seems there is... as well as enlightened folk who went on to attain an Actual Freedom, so it seems something different than or superseding what people consider enlightenment nowadays (which may or may not be what it was considered to be in, for example, the Buddha's time).
Enlightenment appears to be a very subjective claim to fame so to speak, there seems to an enlightened guru on every street corner selling his/her wares. So many say this, so many say that. It’s all maybe this, maybe that or maybe the other. The simple way out of that conundrum is to dip your toes into the water and fully submerge. We’ve got to know directly, otherwise its just blind acceptance and/or total self delusional belief. When words/actions fail to indicate any advanced state of being, it is easy enough to see through the pretentious or delusional claims of guru’s.
I cannot see why enlightenment would change though, for surely Truth is Truth. It would seem logical that if one attained enlightenment, one would no longer have to use the tools which led to that state of being. Therefore, why continue with meditation, or take up another form of practice? Surely an enlightened person would know whether a technique would work or not.
Heather MacDonald:
So we can't be too superficial about an essential problem which humanity has ignored for so long. If we face it, we'll understand it - totally.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
and that's what the actualist method is designed to get one to do.. understand your human nature so thoroughly that it disappears.
You’re not asking me to accept that human nature simply disappears are you? I mean, I read the sample chapters of Richard’s Journal, wherein he talks of his great delight in the wonders of travel, drinking coffee in cafes, shopping, exploring his and his lover’s sexuality. Are these not examples of the human condition in action…attraction, appreciation, indulgence, etc. Is sexuality not an instinctive aspect of being human? So if he’s totally transcended human nature, why would he be interested in the indulgence of such. Do you actually understand the vast difference between human nature and the human condition?
Heather MacDonald:
How "intrinsic" and/or "inherent" is all the bad stuff to the human condition. I'd say it isn't intrinsic or inherent at all, that gets us off on the wrong foot. I'd say, look at the conditions which give rise to the madness. Which came first? Can we know? Yep, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, however we can solve this one.
When people are born into violence, hate, etc, obviously they are going to think it normal, and that is the essence, they think it. Thinking can change, there is no set pattern. Nothing intrinsic.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
it's not the social conditioning that is the issue, it's human nature itself.
Okay, you’re saying human nature, however Richard either forgot to mention that, and used the term “the human condition”- with apparent deliberation, or you are using the wrong term to interpret what he means.
A condition relates directly to a state, not to the fundamental nature. If I was sick with a tummy bug, I would not assume that my fundamental human nature is sick, or that Human Nature itself is sick, just that there is a condition of sickness affecting a particular aspect of my being.
So if he means human nature, why can’t Richard make this clear from the outset? Intrinsic can apply to human nature, but does not necessarily apply to the human condition. Intrinsic means integral, essential, something we cannot do without. I’d suggest that there is absolutely no requirement for anger, jealousy, etc, but that these are a condition of misidentification. In other words, all emotions are conditional to a certain way of perception and identification, not actually an intrinsic aspect of human nature.
Richard makes no explanation as to why he believes that “human condition” is inherently at fault. He simply makes a general sweeping statement which he assumes all will take at face value. It’s like a Christian saying, “Well, god made us this way”. So, if god made us good and bad (in whatever combination), what’s the problem? Why distrust the wisdom of god? Why try to hide the bad? The simple answer being; there is no good or bad, just an interpretation of what applies directly to ourselves in a particular circumstance according to our particular point of view.
Richard:
The instinctual passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this.
That this process is aided and abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born – which is conditioning and programming and is part and parcel of the socialising process – is but the tip of the iceberg and not the main issue at all. All the different types of conditioning are well-meant endeavours by countless peoples over countless aeons to seek to curb the instinctual passions. Now, while most people paddle around on the surface and re-arrange the conditioning to ease their lot somewhat, some people – seeking to be free of all human conditioning – fondly imagine that by putting on a face-mask and snorkel that they have gone deep-sea diving with a scuba outfit ... deep into the human condition. [
link]
Yes, “the human condition”, I read that phrase in the first paragraph. Sorry, but the above quote does not help, if anything, it muddies the waters even more.
It is sheer speculation to insert terms which are not actually known to be true… “reptile brain”, “animal self”. I mean, take “the human animal”. That is a meaningless additive which assumes too much concerning humans and animals – a loaded term.
If we are genuinely enquiring into what it is we are, we cannot begin with any set idea, for we have no basis for any idea. An idea is just an idea, a thought, a fiction. Ideas such as “instinctual passions” “animal self”, etc, come not from Richard’s objective observation, but from sources external and prior to Richard – from the very problem itself.
It’s like where he states as fact; “The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this”. That is just so much nonsense on so many levels.
I could present a case as to why animals are aware of their death and their own sense of self (which I’m sure to most pet owners would be obvious fact). I can also present a case whereby the mind itself transforms feeling into identification thus overlapping thought as a ‘thinker’ as an ‘I’. If I were writing an introduction I would elucidate the complete process, something Richard fails to do with the above quote.
It is typical of Richard of course, for he simply drops terms in, assuming either the reader will know what he’s talking about or maybe he just lacks the wherewithal to understand that few will understand what a “pure conscious experience” is. This is why I suspect Richard isn’t so enlightened after all, there are too many schoolboy errors in that introduction. Communication is only communication when there is clarity.
Heather MacDonald:
But then isn't Richard saying this too when he ends with... "I, for one, am not taking the back seat ... because it is indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition". Maybe he just doesn't understand what intrinsic implies or thought it would add a little drama. But words have to be use correctly, otherwise they mislead and then where are we?
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
all the bad stuff (and the good stuff[1]) is intrinsic to the human condition. you can't have the human condition without the bad stuff. so he advocates being totally free from the human condition - removing it completely. the bad stuff is still intrinsic to the human condition.. it's just that you can exist as a human being without being subject to the human condition. in other words, having human nature is not intrinsic to being consciously aware as a flesh&blood body.
[1] EDIT: see below for clarification.
There is nothing intrinsic concerning the human condition for the human condition can be anything depending upon the input – the conditioning factors – physical and psychological. A friend of mine put it perfectly… “Human nature is the hardware, conditioning - the software. When you reach basic nature, there’s nothing to change, there is no problem”.
If human nature is not intrinsic to being aware how can we be aware?
It would be more accurate to say that if pleasure is our central focus then we’ll experience pain due to events not going our way - or if we are so self centred as not to realize our place in the scheme of things, we’ll suffer - not due to the nature of Nature, but due to our own orientation, expectation, demands, etc.
But really you are not helping Richards case, for as I stated above he thinks shopping is so wonderful. He actually sounds like a kid in a sweetshop, which would be fair enough, but Richard claims to be “enlightened beyond enlightenment”. So why overlook the point of origin of the “abundant” supply, the conditions of the farming methods, the effect of such upon the planet, the conditions of the workers, etc. Only an ignoramus can elevate a shopping experience into a religious one.
He bemoans of “vehemently unappreciative peoples”. Ask yourself why Richard. These people have to struggle by, obviously most of it is due to their own ambition, their own pursuit of some silly unsustainable ideal lifestyle to which they willingly conform, but for those who do not want to conform to the consumerist standard, they still need money to survive – they have no option as this is a consumerist society and its laws will be imposed. Again Richard cannot quite comprehend the “belittling” of such. He also has a dig at the “developing nations” depending on the great white hope, maybe he’s a rep for Monsanto? The serious point being, that the “developing nations” are in actual fact “recovering nations” from the aftermath of English or European invasion and rule.
There really is so much wrong with Richard that if that is what it is like to be “beyond enlightenment”, then no thanks. It simply smacks of a stupid self indulgence. He has the blinkers on, and readily admits so… “I am immensely appreciative of being alive now and not at some other age in which I would have had to struggle for my “daily bread”... those dreadful times one reads about in the history books and literary works”. Well for most life is a struggle, but it’s a question of why, again there is nothing intrinsic, nothing that cannot be made right with a little adjustment.