Message Boards Message Boards

Toggle
Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/12/15 8:11 PM
I saw a comment over on Hamilton Project with a comparison between Bhante Henepola Gunaratana and Richard quotes and the wording was close, so I ran it through a document comparison. Did a search here and saw that it's old news, but the only link I saw with ostensible evidence was to a Yahoo Actualist board which isn't visible to non-members.

Even though it's old news and arguably irrelevant to the practice, there are new people coming to this board all the time who deserve informed consent about all this. I would say the same about most of the AF baggage.

So, fwiw,
(the images are huge, even split in three. If you have a slow computer you probably shouldn't click)
Comparison Image 1
Comparison Image 2
Comparison Image 3

It seems he basically took the chapter as a template, filled in his changes, and grabbed a thesaurus. This explains his agonizing style.

It seems likely to me a lot of his work is similarly plagiarized. If I find more I'll add to this thread.

edit:
For clarity and more context,
BCDEFG's thread about it
Another thread mentioning it

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/12/15 4:45 PM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Interesting.  I wasn't around when this discussion first came out and this is my first time hearing about it, so I lack context.  I would say that one arguement against the notion that "a lot of his work is similarly plagiarized" is that he does some a lot of adapting to different people's comments at different times when he responds to the actualism mailing list.  For instance, the buddhavaccana/origins of noting article that Claudiu linked to a dho thread recently, was in response to me, and involved a lot of unique responses that were tailored to my various things that I had said.  It would have been difficult to plagiarize such a variagated and customized set of thoughts on different subjects.  

One thing about any percieved repetition in Richard's writing: he purposely responds with a 'template' of sorts if people are asking him the same questions whose answers are available elsewhere on the actualism website.  In these cases, he is repeating his own, previous material, not that of other's outside of the actual freedom trust.

I will admit that those imgur pages did present some impressive correspondence, but I don't really know what that means, as of now, because I find the content of actualism to be useful, regardless of the form of its presentation (which I think you touched on when you said "irrelevant to practice")..

I'm not trying to be a spokesman for actualism or Richard, btw, but I do find his knowledge and thinking impressive, and that his approach to freedom rings true inside.

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/12/15 5:45 PM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Droll Dedekind:
I saw a comment over on Hamilton Project with a comparison between Bhante and Richard quotes and the wording was close, so I ran it through a document comparison. Did a search here and saw that it's old news, but the only link I saw with ostensible evidence was to a Yahoo Actualist board which isn't visible to non-members.


Whom does "bhante" refer to here?

(Richard I take to be that AF author.)

'Bhante' is a generic term of address or reference -- see some discussion at:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/correct-usage-of-the-word-bhante/1883

It's like "Mr", "Sir", "Herr",...  I've heard that it's used by a monk to refer to or address a senior  (longer time since ordination) monk.

Not recognizing this is like people categorizing the books of "Nyanaponika Thera" under the name "Thera".  ("Thera" is a title, means 'elder', duh, as in 'Theravada').

It would be helpful also to have some link / URL to relevant place(s) at Hamilton Project.

Thanks

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/12/15 6:37 PM as a reply to CJMacie.
You're right, thanks. Changed.

Nikolai's first comment here prompted me to make the comparison. "squandering attention"

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/12/15 7:40 PM as a reply to Noah.
At some point claudiu wrote out a long response to this very point. He pointed out all the places where Richard changed the original article to give it a completely different meaning. He wasn't using a thesaraus, very often he was indicating that the very opposite from the original was true.

For just one example, at the beginning of the article notice how when Bhante talks about "feeling fingers pointing at the moon" Richard says that the words are "NOT feeling fingers pointing to the moon" and then explains this distinction. He goes through bhante's article and deliberately changes the meaning as a critique of the original content...

He is plagiarising bhante's style but critiquing the content... which actually makes the critique of the content clearer as there is a very clear way of comparing between the two articles.

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/12/15 7:47 PM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Droll Dedekind:
I saw a comment over on Hamilton Project with a comparison between Bhante Henepola Gunaratana and Richard quotes and the wording was close, so I ran it through a document comparison. Did a search here and saw that it's old news, but the only link I saw with ostensible evidence was to a Yahoo Actualist board which isn't visible to non-members.

Even though it's old news and arguably irrelevant to the practice, there are new people coming to this board all the time who deserve informed consent about all this. I would say the same about most of the AF baggage.

So, fwiw,
(the images are huge, even split in three. If you have a slow computer you probably shouldn't click)
Comparison Image 1
Comparison Image 2
Comparison Image 3

It seems he basically took the chapter as a template, filled in his changes, and grabbed a thesaurus. This explains his agonizing style.

It seems likely to me a lot of his work is similarly plagiarized. If I find more I'll add to this thread.

Good job Droll !  And no wonder PCE and Mindfulness sounded the same, as alot of us have been saying all along.  

The descriptions match , because the descriptions match, LOL !!!  What a joke! Yet, so sad...

But, the good news is that those practicing PCE have been practicing Mindfulness, and as long as it was Right Mindfulness, then good enough.

Psi

P.S.  I clicked your links, then went to left hand side of page and clicked a little magnifying glass cursor thingy and the pages read just fine, FYI for anyone.

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/12/15 8:23 PM as a reply to Adam . ..
Yes, I saw his post.

Yes, it appears he used G's chapter as a starting point and made his changes. Still, he doesn't indicate anywhere (that I see) that he's doing this. That's commonly considered plagiarism.

I posted the thread because I think this deserves to be seen by people interested in AF. I also haven't seen a comprehensive empirical comparison.

I consider it likely that he's plagiarized elsewhere because it seems to me to explain his obtuse abstruse emoticon style.

Added links to older threads.

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/12/15 8:41 PM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Many thanks for carrying that out research.

Apropos, I've been laboring through the huge posting from "Richard" referenced at:
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5764932
("Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNoting")

Reading it through it all (and footnotes) twice so far; parsing the massive Germanic syntactic structures down to their basic semantics to see what's actually (so to speak) being said.

And deliberating if / how to enter that thread with results of that analysis, as Mr. Richard's claims don't hold up that well to critical scrutiny and examination of the source material -- 

BUT
1) in DhO there's a lot of history on the topic of AF and associated themes that I'm not that familiar with,
2) even in the 1 short year I've been watching here, lots of hot, even bad blood has been spilled relating to AF; and
3) I'd rather find ways of contributing to clarity rather than stirring up a hornet's nest.

We'll see...

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/12/15 9:12 PM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Droll Dedekind:
.

...That's commonly considered plagiarism.
...
I consider it likely that he's plagiarized elsewhere because it seems to me to explain his obtuse abstruse emoticon style.


Plagiarism -- complex, interesting topic

For instance, back across music history, it was common, even considered complimentary to copy, reuse and elaborate on others' music -- even to parody or otherwise distort it. This isn't stealing ("kidnapping" as per the etymology), but rather a basic feature of tradition -- standing on the shoulders of one's forebearers. Perhaps too "freely given [dana]" in Buddhist traditions.

At another extreme, in a modern sense of intellectual honesty, and where ideas and formulations are considered personal property, over the past couple of years a couple of cabinet-level ministers in the German goverenment have been exposed (and lost their jobs) as having copied material in their PhD dissertations without properly citing the sources. (Might seem strange in the USA, but in Germany intellectuals are highly respected; someone with a PhD is considered a kind of dignitary, even among less educated people.)

One aspect of "Richard's" writing style is a sort of infatuation with style, vocabulary, linguistic structures in and for themselves. Having delved s/w deeply into some of it (the famous "Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 48"), there's s/t the sense that this is primary, and underlying content, or semantics, are more an excuse. Or, alternatively, that the linguistic complexity and flourish is a means of camoflaging a dubious underlying logical flow.

Disclosure: I speak with some 'authority' here as lots of my writings go off in a similar direction, at least in terms of lingistic focus and complexity ...

One of Allan Watt's memorable quotations:
"When two Zen masters meet on the road [as strangers], they need no introduction --
One thief recognizes another thief instantly!"
emoticon

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/13/15 12:21 AM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Yeah, old news is old.  As far as I know, the only article this applies to is the Attentiveness...etc one.  Actually, it's kind of funny, but that seems to be the only article that people read on here and then base all their ideas about actualism on it.  It's actually the odd man out from what I've seen.  99% of what I've read from Richard has very little in common with Buddhism or mindfulness.  Of couse, a bunch of people have said this a bunch of times on here but no one seems to believe it, haha.

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/13/15 11:44 AM as a reply to Dada Kind.
The last two correspondences at this link may be of interest, with regards to plagiarism. They are essentially about the same thing that must have happened with the Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness article, except that time with Alan Watts' words. Once they get to discussing the actual content of the words, Richard goes through much the same exercise that I did at this DhO post, demonstrating how what he wrote describes something entirely different than what Alan Watts' wrote even though the structure is similar. For example, here's one instance:
Richard:
Respondent:
[Let’s compare]:
Alan Watts:
[I was the sensations], so much so that there was nothing left of me, the observing ego, except the series of sensations which happened – not to me, but just happened – moment by moment, one after another
Richard:
There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not happening to an ‘I’ or a ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another
And yet again here is my full version (with the section you selected highlighted for convenience):
Richard:
The entire affective faculty vanishes ... blind nature’s software package of instinctual passions is deleted. *There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not happening to an ‘I’ or a ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another*. [emphasis added].
And yet again the reason why I provide the full version is because of the remarkable difference betwixt a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty (and thus identity in toto) and an identity, replete with the full suite of emotions/ passions/ calentures it is comprised of, having identified with and/or having arrogated bodily sensations.

And to conclude the saying-the-same-thing-as-Alan-Watts aspect:
Richard:
Respondent:
Putting aside for a moment the logistics of how those words found their way into your writings ... let me see if understand your bottom line aright ... When Alan Watts says ‘To become the sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release’ he is having an entirely different experience from the one that you describe thus: ‘To live life as these sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release’. Yes?
Yes, only an identity could *become* the sensations it was previously having (this flesh and blood body is already living/ always has lived life *as* these sensations)
Respondent:
No?
Put simply: where there is no identity whatsoever there is no-one to have been separated (aka dualistic) such as to become unified (aka non-dualistic) ... here in this actual world neither duality nor non-duality have any existence.

With regards to plagiarism, here is the most relevant part from this correspondence:
Richard:
Respondent:
I [...] wonder whether you were aware of having virtually duplicated (word for word in parts) what Watts wrote all those years ago, or whether you did it without being aware of it.
The quote of mine you provided is from an on-line version of what I wrote in ‘Richard’s Journal’ circa 1995-97 ... and, by way of explanation, I will first draw your attention to the following:
Richard:
[‘Richard’s Journal’ is] pieced together from recollection and undated jotted notes and scraps of writings from over the years so as to add some measure of sequence to the story ...’. [link]
What would have happened is that somewhen prior to stringing-together the ad hoc collection of undated jotted notes and scraps of writings into becoming some of the miscellaneous articles eventually published under the title ‘Richard’s Journal’ I must have come across the text in question and made an (un-referenced/ un-attributed) note of it in the midst of myriads of other notes of mine ... because not having a photographic memory there is no way it could have been cryptomnesia and/or unconscious plagiarism.

Then another correspondence follows in more detail, going from this first correspondence ("Respondent" from first is "Co-Respondent" in this one), emphasis mine:
Richard:
Respondent:
Richard:
Co-Respondent:
... I wonder whether you were aware of having virtually duplicated (word for word in parts) what Watts wrote all those years ago, or whether you did it without being aware of it.
The quote of mine you provided is from an on-line version of what I wrote in ‘Richard’s Journal’ circa 1995-97 ... and, by way of explanation, I will first draw your attention to the following:
Richard:
... [‘Richard’s Journal’ is] pieced together from recollection and undated jotted notes and scraps of writings from over the years so as to add some measure of sequence to the story ...
What would have happened is that somewhen prior to stringing-together the ad hoc collection of undated jotted notes and scraps of writings ...
I presume you were collecting your own writings.
Yes, on many an occasion I would jot done various things on bits of paper.
*
Respondent:
Richard:
... into becoming some of the miscellaneous articles eventually published under the title ‘Richard’s Journal’ I must have come across the text in question ...
I presume you are referring to Alan Watts’ words.
Yes, although I cannot remember the particular instance as I mainly read books and articles, and so on, by spiritual enlightened/ mystical awakened peoples (for obvious reasons).
*
Respondent:
Richard:
... and made an (un-referenced/ un-attributed) note of it in the midst of myriads of other notes of mine ...
*That is called plagiarism*. Were you collecting others’ words as well?
What would have happened (as I cannot remember that particular instance I can only assume) is that it must have been an occasion where *I was demonstrating to my companion at the time just what, specifically, the difference was between spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment* and that which lay beyond *by highlighting the relevant wording itself and substituting what words I would use instead* ... and I say this because I can clearly recall doing the same with some text in a book by Mr. Nisargadatta Maharaj, in a book by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, and in at least two books by Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain (all of which I burned, in 1992, along with the four copies of an 80,000 word manuscript I had typed out on an old-fashioned typewriter, as I had crossed-out and written-into the pages of those books themselves).

In case that is not clear enough: my companion at the time would, on occasion, come to me with a book and ask me to explain just how a particular passage was not what I was talking about *so I would cross-out certain key-words, in a paragraph or two, and write in my own* ... just as I do to this very day with my ‘example only’/ ‘end example’ way of demonstrating something via a rearrangement and substitution of certain words and/or phrases.

I can recall a verbal instance (for example) of doing just that, whilst sitting on a balcony one fine afternoon circa 1997, when Vineeto handed me a book by Ms. Bernadette Roberts and *asked how it was that what I was saying was any different to some passages she had bookmarked* ... to which I responded by saying that, *were I to have put it that way, I would say this, instead of that, and that rather than this, and so forth and so on*.
*
Respondent:
Richard:
... because not having a photographic memory there is no way it could have been cryptomnesia and/or unconscious plagiarism.
I fail to understand your logic here.
That could very well be because it has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with what would have actually happened: *I freely acknowledge that I must have consciously used that paragraph, which Mr. Alan Watts wrote*, somewhen prior to stringing-together the ad hoc collection of undated jotted notes and scraps of writings of mine into becoming some of the miscellaneous articles eventually published under the title ‘Richard’s Journal’, *to demonstrate just what, specifically, the difference was between a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and an altered state of consciousness (ASC) by highlighting the wording itself and substituting what words I would have used had I written about it in that way*.

The allusion to a photographic memory is my understanding of the phenomenon of cryptomnesia (and/or unconscious plagiarism).

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/13/15 1:54 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Hi BCDEFG,

I personally don't consider his explanation plausible. Regardless, I hope people interested in AF will see this thread and come to their own conclusions. I personally am not claiming that he necessarily rebranded any other spirituality, so comparisons of the content or intended meaning isn't relevant to me.

If he knew that he had done this in his notes, why would he not indicate it anywhere? Why not label the notes that it was copied and changed from spiritual classics? How could you forget (particularly for these important articles, see below)?

It appears this particular Attentiveness and Sensuous article is important to AF. Why structurally base a foundational article on a spiritual classic? The Watts plagiarism is on this article. It also seems foundational to AF.

More, why hasn't he acknowledged on the Précis page itself that he copied phrasing/structure from Watts? I presume someone's pointed ou the Bhante G plagiarism to him before. Why hasn't he acknowledged on the Sensuous article that he copied phrasing/structure from Bhante G? If no one has pointed this out to him, then why not do it, BCDEFG, and ask him to give credit?

Tangential disclaimer:
I've found value in the AF teachings filtered through Daniel, Nikolai, and sometimes Tarin.

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/13/15 5:18 PM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Hi Droll,

Droll Dedekind:
Regardless, I hope people interested in AF will see this thread and come to their own conclusions.
Indeed, that is why I wrote the post that I did.

Droll Dedekind:
I personally don't consider his explanation plausible. [...] If he knew that he had done this in his notes, why would he not indicate it anywhere? Why not label the notes that it was copied and changed from spiritual classics? How could you forget (particularly for these important articles, see below)?
Hmm... I don't see any reason to doubt that it happened the way he said it happened. It is certainly plausible (as in, something that could well have happened that way).

Droll Dedekind:
It appears this particular Attentiveness and Sensuous article is important to AF. Why structurally base a foundational article on a spiritual classic?
I disagree that it's a foundational article. It's a foundational article to *affism* (what Daniel, Tarin, Trent, Nikolai, etc., practiced at some point (if not still now)), but not to actualism. As Not Tao said "that seems to be the only article that people read on here and then base all their ideas about actualism on it. It's actually the odd man out from what I've seen".

It is indeed the odd man out. Actually in an email to Vineeto on May 30, 2012, I wrote: "Actually, that article ("Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness") seems to be the most potentially confusing/misleading one on the AFT." If I recall correctly, Vineeto also stated, in my most recent to trip to Australia, that she didn't like the article or that it was confusing. I personally find Richard's other writings to be much better and clearer.

Droll Dedekind:
The Watts plagiarism is on this article. It also seems foundational to AF.
That precis is a good one. I especially like this sentence: "Thus the search for meaning amidst the debris of the much-vaunted human hopes and dreams and schemes has come to its timely end."

What may be of interest is that the "Watts plagiarism" actually originated in Article Seventeen (it's the first selected writing on that page). As such, when Richard wrote the precis, he didn't write that passage but rather copied what he had previously written and put it in as the tail end of the precis. Also, it's only that last bit of the precis, not the entire precis itself. So even if this article were foundational, it's not that it was structurally based on a "spiritual classic" (Alan Watts describing an LSD experience in his book, "This Is It: and Other Essays on Zen and Spiritual Experience").

Droll Dedekind:
More, why hasn't he acknowledged on the Précis page itself that he copied phrasing/structure from Watts? I presume someone's pointed ou the Bhante G plagiarism to him before. Why hasn't he acknowledged on the Sensuous article that he copied phrasing/structure from Bhante G?
Truly, I don't know.

Droll Dedekind:
If no one has pointed this out to him, then why not do it, BCDEFG, and ask him to give credit?
It's definitely been pointed out to him and if I recall correctly he acknowledged it (we discussed the article briefly on one of the afternoons on my latest trip to Australia). Someone (I think it was Jon) even said that it would be helpful to indicate that on the Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness article. I considered saying something too but to be honest, at that point, it just really didn't seem that important. I myself don't actually care that a few of Richard's writings were derived as he described, by taking an existing spiritual work and modifying it to what it may look like if it were an actualist work. It doesn't matter - what matters is what the words actually say, which is indeed 180 degrees opposite to the source material, no matter how often people may repeat that it isn't.

And I realized I also didn't really care that the attribution isn't listed before/after the article or that the provenance isn't described there or linked to. The only time it really comes up is when people otherwise critical of actualism (e.g. "I've found value in the AF teachings filtered through Daniel, Nikolai, and sometimes Tarin" - that is to say, not actualism) bring it up. So the only reason for me to ask Richard to include the attribution would be to appease not only other people, which would already be silly (other people's concerns are their concerns, not mine), but other people who are critical of actualism and thus wouldn't really gain anything from the disclaimer being there in the first place, which would be doubly silly. 

That being said, if I were him, I'd probably put a note in.

Cheers,
Claudiu

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/13/15 5:26 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
And I realized I also didn't really care that the attribution isn't listed before/after the article or that the provenance isn't described there or linked to. The only time it really comes up is when people otherwise critical of actualism (e.g. "I've found value in the AF teachings filtered through Daniel, Nikolai, and sometimes Tarin" - that is to say, not actualism) bring it up. So the only reason for me to ask Richard to include the attribution would be to appease not only other people, which would already be silly (other people's concerns are their concerns, not mine), but other people who are critical of actualism and thus wouldn't really gain anything from the disclaimer being there in the first place, which would be doubly silly. 

That being said, if I were him, I'd probably put a note in.


Haha I love this reasoning.  How sensible (usage?) of you. :p

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/13/15 6:05 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
As I don't find any of Richard's writing clear, I probably don't have a clear overview of Actual Freedom Richard Edition. So, true, my evaluation of that article as foundational is based partially on my filtered idea.

Though,
http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/

Putting it in the same root directory as the Précis, his resume, the catalogue, the glossary, a list of selected writings (why not just in the selected writings), testimonials, etc seems like a logical way to indicate it as important. The whole AF site appears like such a tasteless mess to me I can't really say certainly.

I was referring to Mindfulness in Plain English as a classic. Though, certainly Watts is a popular spirirtual expositor.

Yes, that the Précis is structurally based on Watts is an overstatement. It rather contains a nontrivial amount of rephrasing, to be more exact

I can think of a few good reasons to include a note. I see Richard sells digital content. I assume some of that content currently contains what's considered plagiarized material. It's obviously unlikely legal action will be taken, but it's reasonably advisable for him to give credit. And, leaving readers to discover his (intentional or unintentional) plagiarism damages his credibility.

The obvious counter is that his Ultimate Peace and Lack of Suffering, Malice, Desire etc etc makes maintaining his credibility seem unnecessary. The obvious counter is that if he's as dedicated to spread his teachings to humanity as he claims he'd do well to follow convention that wouldn't damage his reputation, like giving due credit.

... or de-uglying the website. God I hate that website.

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/14/15 10:50 AM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Droll Dedekind:
I was referring to Mindfulness in Plain English as a classic. Though, certainly Watts is a popular spirirtual expositor.
Ah yes, got it.
*
Droll Dedekind:
Yes, that the Précis is structurally based on Watts is an overstatement. It rather contains a nontrivial amount of rephrasing, to be more exact
To be clear, what I was pointing out is that only one paragraph of the Précis of the twelve, or 262 words out of the 1099, consist of that nontrivially-rephrased (to the point where the meaning is not only completely different but also original) Watts passage. The other eleven have nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell.
*
Droll Dedekind:
I can think of a few good reasons to include a note. I see Richard sells digital content. I assume some of that content currently contains what's considered plagiarized material. It's obviously unlikely legal action will be taken, but it's reasonably advisable for him to give credit. And, leaving readers to discover his (intentional or unintentional) plagiarism damages his credibility.

The obvious counter is that his Ultimate Peace and Lack of Suffering, Malice, Desire etc etc makes maintaining his credibility seem unnecessary.
Indeed. I remember at some point on my latest trip to Australia, somehow the topic of consistency came up, and Richard said something to the effect that he had no need at all to be consistent. The way I understood it is that he had no drive to be consistent or no face to save by being consistent, such that if some inconsistency was pointed out to him it wouldn't affect him at all, like there'd be no need to try to cover it up in order to save face or appear consistent to everyone else. And indeed he has no responsibilities at all (for example "As for ‘serious’ ... the utter reliability of being always happy and harmless replaces the galling burden of being serious ... actuality’s blithe sincerity dispenses with the onerous responsibility that epitomises adulthood." [link]) 

But then I asked him, well it is beneficial to be consistent though, isn't it? As in, to the degree that others can rely on his words more if he's consistent? To which he agreed.
*
Droll Dedekind:
The obvious counter is that if he's as dedicated to spread his teachings to humanity as he claims [...]
Where does he claim that? If anything he claims the opposite:
Richard:
For eleven years I lived in an Altered State Of Consciousness, so I had plenty of time to examine all its nooks and crannies ... and I found much that was murky and dirty lurking around in the outer darkness. [...] my native intelligence would not let me get away with anything false and I soon found enough to make me start suspecting something very serious was wrong with Spiritual Enlightenment. To start off with was the inescapable fact that I had a ‘Sense Of Mission’ to bring ‘Peace and Love’ to a suffering humanity – I was driven to spread ‘The Word’ and to disseminate ‘The Truth’ – *and this imposition did not sit well with me*. [link]
That is, when he was Enlightened and indeed driven to spread 'The Word' (which would be synonymous in this context to "his teachings"), that drive did not sit well with him - it was highly suspect. It's part of what got him to go beyond Enlightenment in the first place. Thus, now that he is actually free, he is no longer driven to spread 'The Word'.

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/14/15 10:59 AM as a reply to CJMacie.
Hi Chris,

Chris J Macie:
[...] I've been laboring through the huge posting from "Richard" referenced at:
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5764932
("Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNoting") [...] And deliberating if / how to enter that thread with results of that analysis, as Mr. Richard's claims don't hold up that well to critical scrutiny and examination of the source material -- 

BUT
1) in DhO there's a lot of history on the topic of AF and associated themes that I'm not that familiar with,
2) even in the 1 short year I've been watching here, lots of hot, even bad blood has been spilled relating to AF; and
3) I'd rather find ways of contributing to clarity rather than stirring up a hornet's nest.
Something that may be helpful here in terms of #2 and #3. A while back now I decided never to write an email to the yahoo mailing list, or to post a message here, unless I was feeling good and feeling harmless. That is, if, while writing a message, I notice that I'm no longer feeling good, or that I've started feeling malicious, like I'm out to 'get' someone, I stop writing the message, I don't post it, and indeed I delete the parts that I wrote while I was under the influence of those emotions. Only once I'm back to feeling good and harmless do I sit down and re-write it.

I've found this has made it much easier to navigate the psychic currents of online interaction. Knowing that I meant no harm, any jabs from the other are far less effective. They usually don't affect me, and even if they do, I know that I did nothing from my part to trigger it - that is, their reaction will be to the words that I wrote, not to any "bad blood" from my side, so I know it's their problem and that I had no part in it.

It also helps from a clarity point of view. Under the influence of sorrowful or defensive feelings, my clarity is compromised because I then try to tailor what I write so as not to offend or stir up the other person, and then I no longer get the message across. Under the influence of malicious feelings, that's basically an attack mode where I no longer care about explaining things properly but instead about jabbing at the other person, which is of course silly but entirely natural. Instead of beating myself up about it, I notice it, delete whatever I wrote, and come back to it later. Sometimes I won't even end up posting anything, which indicates that the only reason to write it in the first place was from some malicious urge.

Cheers,
Claudiu

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/14/15 6:14 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ23a.htm

RE: Richard Plagiarism
Answer
8/16/15 1:12 AM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Thank you for this information, it was quite educational.