Please note that Vineeto’s correspondence below was written by the actually free Vineeto

Vineeto’s Correspondence

with Alan on Chat-forums Slack and Zulip

(List D refers to Richard’s List D and his Respondent Numbers)

29 April 2018

ALAN: Yes, I again have the intent which was missing in Australia – hurrah! It fluctuates but is constantly there now to a greater or lesser extent. I came across a belief a couple of days ago, which ties in with what you wrote about ‘me’ wanting to remain in existence to enjoy the fruits of ‘my’ labours lol :

I was contemplating on the necessity for altruism when I happened on a belief – ‘I’ believe that humanity might succeed in bringing about peace on Earth. Which translates as – ‘I’ believe ‘I’ do not need to self-immolate to bring to an end all the mayhem and malice.

I know (intellectually) that this is not going to happen and that, prior to Richard, no one has ever succeeded despite thousands of years of well intentioned attempts. I also know (intellectually) that ‘I’ know – at the depth of ‘my’ being – that this is correct which gives rise to ‘my’ resentment at being alive. I also know (intellectually) that there is one solution and one solution only – and that ‘I’ (and only ‘I’) have the ability to manifest that solution. ‘I’ have yet to accept this as a fact. To do so would mean there is no choice – hence the ‘irrevocability’.

Which is where rememorating that experience of evil being inherent to the human condition (‘me’) - and which it is impossible to eliminate from within the human condition (it is intrinsic to it), as you said - is so, so valuable.


Getting closer indeed – and hence the utter importance of scrupulous honesty with yourself.

ALAN: There has been an interesting discussion on slack which I have copied to a word file you can access here

And, yes, I know you are not going to become involved in any more slack discussions. I thought you and Richard might be interested and I would appreciate your clarification on two things - as a little bit of back pressure and confirmation for me:

Does seriousness end upon self-immolation? I was certainly under the impression that it does. Similarly, is apperception an ongoing experience after becoming actually free? I do not see how it can be otherwise – as I posted on slack. In both questions I mean before becoming fully free.

VINEETO: As for the discussion on Slack you sent me – I can fully relate to No. 15’s statement that –

• [Respondent No. 15]: “I had the impression when I first became newly free that apperception was occurring all the time.”

This was exactly my experience just after becoming actually free (and not merely an impression), and it was so startling and so exactly as Richard had described it that I was just amazed, and revelled in this 360 degree awareness. The experience of apperception also included that everything (regarding knowledge and memory of experience) is at your fingertips but only activated when needed. There was an incredible clarity of mind, wonder and amazement, just as I described it in the first reports of the direct-route-mail-out.

However, as Richard reported on List D quoted below, as I interacted more and more with people and everyday affairs, I started to become aware of certain behaviour patterns continuing and a diminution of the startling clarity of the first few days after becoming free. In other words, the guardian, “the shadowy remnants of the social identity” established itself and influenced how I was behaving and experiencing myself

This is not only understandable, given the radical change that an actual freedom from the instinctual passions is, but possibly also necessary to ensure a non-disruptive transition from feeling being to being fully actually free.

However, by the time Richard returned from India, I was ready and eager to put the ‘guardian’ to rest, and move towards a full actual freedom, and Richard and I had many intensive conversations to bring this about sooner rather than later.

About 6 weeks after Richard’s return a day came when, sitting at the dining table of his houseboat, I briefly experienced myself as two – the (shadow) identity of the guardian and the actual Vineeto. I experienced the relief of the guardian to be finally able to confidently lay down the burden of guarding over the newly-free Vineeto and then it faded with a sense of having a job well-done to the end and gladly being finally redundant. Suddenly there was only one me, the actual me, fresh and innocent, a bit like a kid alone in this wonderful playground of the actual world.

I was still not fully free then, and many more things had to happen, but a decisive event had occurred to bring me closer to a full actual freedom.

Here is Richard’s report about the guardian (shadow) identity on mailing list D in which Richard also explains why he never talked about a distinction between newly free and fully free before more than one person became actually free –

• [Richard]: He [Justine] does seem to be unaware that, by choosing to not communicate further, he cuts himself off from access to the wealth of information personally gleaned from the other daring pioneers referred to in my emailed response to his request. [Footnote in tool tip]:


• [Richard to Justine]: ‘(...). Please note that, as I am speaking not only from my own direct experience – from 11 years of genuine, full-blown enlightenment/ awakenment plus 20+ years of an actual freedom – but also from an on-going personal interaction, on a daily/ weekly/ monthly/ yearly basis, with those peoples here in Australia who are unmistakably either newly free (actually free from the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof) or nowadays fully free (actually free of identity in toto/the entire affective faculty) via having completed the transitional process, this is not merely a matter of opinion. (...)’. (Re: RICHARD’S PLACE!; Sent: Sat 30/03/2013 1:34 PM).

For example, due to this wealth of hands-on experiencing, there is now sufficient data to have established a trait common to the first wave of pioneers ... to wit: the persistence of a (pseudo) identity – the shadowy remnants of the social identity (which, being a societal construct and not instinctual in nature, lingers on as a ‘guardian’ until the transitional process is complete) – which can arrogate bodily control and dictate how an actual freedom *should* be acted out.

(As this has only applied to that first handful of daring pioneers – those becoming (newly) free prior to the personification of pure intent in both its masculine and feminine aspects – there was not only no reason for me to write publicly about it but, because of its irrelevance being unnecessarily confusional, there was also good reason for me not to).

For another example: a person living the full actual freedom from the human condition, such as Vineeto unmistakably is, not only experientially knows they are living in the ‘magic wonderland’ (what Justine calls ‘RICHARD’S PLACE’) but thereby also knows, experientially, that Richard cannot possibly confirm it unless he is physically present.

In other words, the fact Justine wrote and requested confirmation from a Nine-Thousand-Kilometres-Away-Richard informed me he was not living in that magic wonderland.

(And all he has written, especially recently, merely verifies it).

‘Tis marvellous how cleanly everything operates here in this actual world (where nothing ‘dirty’, so to speak, can gain a foothold)! (Richard, List D, No. 40, 20 May 2013)

Cheers Vineeto

10 June 2019

Hi Alan, 

Here is my comment to the recent Slack discussions you have sent to me –

For some clarification – what happens upon a basic actual freedom is that the instinctual passions and the identity formed thereof magically disappear.

What does not happen at that point is the meaning of life becoming apparent (a full actual freedom).

Naturally, after some time of getting used to the benefits of the disappearance of the instinctual passions and the identity formed thereof one experiences that something is incomplete. A basic freedom is a freedom *from* [the instinctual passions and the identity formed thereof] while the freedom *into* [the meaning-of-life-freedom] is still afoot.

Now consider if someone was inclined to block the way forward, for instance, by dismissing the reports/ descriptions/ explanations of pure intent personified as mere dogma, following the common practice of a certain ‘Pragmatic Dharma’ conditioning – such a person, *lacking the pure intent they rejected as being dogma*, can only reach back for the missing meaning of life into the realm they just left behind, the human condition.

Hence you find them talk about

  • Conscience in lieu of pure intent
  • Loving-kindness of Buddhistic tradition in lieu of actual intimacy
  • Karma and responsibility in lieu of actual caring
  • Togetherness in spirit in lieu of actual intimacy and actual caring for the actual people
  • Reincarnation in lieu of experiencing that the very stuff we are made of is as old as the universe
  • A sacred dimension to existence in lieu of the magnificence and purity of the infinitude of this physical universe

… and possibly many more variations, all the while declaring that social identity and all shadowy identity are gone

I have seen it happen before and curiously this self-centric hubris that always finds Richard and actual freedom at fault but never oneself is not something that disappears with the instinctual passions or the identity formed thereof – it has to be recognized and rooted out after becoming newly free.

But I see that many Slack participants don’t let themselves be fooled by these spiritually watered down substitutes of the meaning-of-life-freedom that is still to be discovered and explored by basically-free people.

Cheers Vineeto



[1] [Respondent 21(AF)]: I mention it to point out that to be actually free means to freely explore whatever makes the most sense, with no concern for towing a party line, or adhering to any form of dogma. […] I am presently not aiming towards what Richard terms ‘meaning of life actual freedom’ as an endgame. (Slack, 2019-05-21 22:48:07 UTC)

[2]Richard: There really is no substitute for taking notice of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

And, speaking of which, the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust hereby recommend, publicly, that Tarin taps into that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself, because to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent ... as in, to be that benevolence and benignity *as a flesh-and-blood body only*.

Put succinctly: there is no other way, than to be that, because there is no other actual freedom from the human condition (than being that).

[3]Dogma, Dictionary definitions:

• dogma (n.; pl. dogmas, dogmata): 1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church; 2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively put forth, as by a church; 3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.; 4. an established belief or principle. [1590-1600; from Latin from Greek, =dok(eîn), ‘to seem’, ‘think’, ‘seem good’ + -ma, noun suffix]. ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary).

• dogma (n.; pl. dogmas or dogmata): 1. a settled opinion; a principle, maxim, or tenet held as being firmly established; 2. a principle or doctrine propounded or received on authority, as opposed to one based on experience or demonstration; specifically, an authoritative religious doctrine; 3. authoritative teaching or doctrine; a system of established principles or tenets, especially religious ones; specifically, the whole body or system of Christian doctrine, as accepted either by the church at large or by any branch of it; 4. in the Kantian philosophy, a directly synthetical proposition based on concepts of the understanding; it is distinguished (1). from an analytical judgment; (2). from a fact of experience; (3). from a mathematical proposition; and (4). from an indirectly synthetical apodeictic {=necessarily true} proposition, such as the law of sufficient reason. [French dogme, from Latin dogma, from Greek δόγμα(τ-), ‘that which seems good’, ‘an opinion’, ‘view’, ‘a public decree, edict, or ordinance’, from δόκειν, ‘think’, ‘seem’, ‘appear’, ‘seem good’]. ~ (Century Dictionary and Cyclopaedia).

Now think – the reports/ descriptions/ explanations of who discovered an actual freedom in 1992 and completed a full actual freedom 30+ months later and thus became pure intent personified, is considered as dogma, whilst the age-old beliefs from Buddhistic and Christian doctrines are considered not dogma ?

[4][Respondent 21(AF) to Co-Respondent]: It's nice to think that we are all together in spirit.

I feel absolutely as free, easy and friendly as before. And now I am even freer to express loving-kindness, as the Buddhists call it. […]

I still have a conscience. […]

When you are experiencing your karma as fully as possible now, you are taking responsibility to the best of your abilities. […] (Slack, Avant-garde, 190523)

[5][Respondent 21(AF)]: Prior to coming across actualism I firmly believed in reincarnation. On Richard's advice that death was the end, finish, I set that belief aside. At the time I felt it was agnosticism, which is not what Richard advocates. He claims to know.

I now see my having set my belief aside as nothing other than the taking up of another belief in its stead, one of not knowing, of knowing only materialism and actualism, and believing in Richard.

I have recently taken back on board the vast probability (to my thinking and especially in light of NDE reports) that reincarnation is genuine. (Slack, 2019-05-22 06:34:10 UTC)

[6][Respondent 21(AF)]: If there is a sacred dimension to existence that pervades everything because perhaps all of this is spiritual first and physical second, perhaps the physical is simply a dream of spirit. A bit like The Matrix. Except not intended to fuel batteries presumably, but as a school for souls. (Slack, 2019-05-23 03:59:40 UTC)

[7][Respondent 21(AF)]: social identity and all shadowy identity is gone (Slack, 2019-05-21 23:43:24 UTC)

[8] [Respondent 21(AF)]: When I contemplate the sacred reality and focus on knowing God all around me, I feel a completeness that was not there before. Ipso facto, the vision of actual freedom, ‘Richard’s place’ which omits that sacred reality, is incomplete by comparison. (Slack, Avant-garde, 190523, 11.48)

16 November 2019

VINEETO: Hi Alan, 


Thank you for the word file regarding [No. 16(AF)] on Slack. This is indeed interesting. 

Here are my comments – 

  • [Respondent 15(D)]: My connection to the psychic network appears to be alive and well.
  • [Andrew]: Actual network maybe? It actually happened after all.
  • [Respondent 15(D)]: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... :psyduck:

By [Respondent 15(D)]’s own report his "connection to the psychic network appears to be alive and well".

As one needs a psyche for a psychic network to operate and as a psyche is a function of the instinctual passions and the feeling being formed thereof, [No. 9(AF)]’s own words indicate that he is a feeling being, albeit somewhat dissociated. There is no psychic network in any form whatsoever operating here in the actual world. As for [No. 9(AF)]’s assertion that "it would be quite difficult to fool oneself for 3.5 years about it" – it is not difficult at all. Tarin and Trent managed to do it for an extended period. I can refer you to Richard’s report that a ‘self’ is a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity.

  • [Richard]: "I further saw that ‘I’ was a lost, lonely, frightened – and a very, very cunning – entity." (List B, No 26a, 19 Nov 1998)

The quickening that Andrew refers to is only activated when a feeling being comes close to the actual world. Further, Andrew’s memory of Richard saying that "there are experiences he hasn't written about so as to not confuse people" is false. Richard only said that he did not go public for 5 year after becoming free so as to first make sense of this entirely new experience to human history before going public. Richard was very meticulous in reporting everything that is important to know about an actual freedom from the human condition. 

It is all too easy to attempt muddying the waters so as to impute all sorts of narratives into a feelings being’s ideas of the actual world, to the point where even a psychic network can be imagined to be part of the actual world. 

As for [Respondent S(Slack)]’s comment – "Also, remember Richard felt the death of his ex-wife before he got the call about it" – Richard did not *feel* the death of his ex-wife before he got a call about it. Viz:

RESPONDENT: Was it mere coincide that you were impressing upon Vineeto the importance if being out-from-control within the hour of her death, even though you were not notified of her death until the next day? 

RICHARD: No, it was no coincidence that I impressed upon Vineeto the necessity of being out-from-control/in a different-way-of being (which was most unusual of me to do so) but it was only with the benefit of hindsight, of course, that it was specifically because of Devika’s/ Irene’s death that all what thereafter ensued came about. ‘Tis amazing how quick its effect was ... within the very hour. 

RESPONDENT: Or what mechanism prompted you?

RICHARD: No mechanism prompted me; it was my select associates at the time – feeling-beings all of them – who all-of-a-sudden no longer had an impenetrable psychic force-field barring their access or blocking them from getting (existentially) close to me. 

Thus the impetus for me being as if lifted forward by a cresting wave (to utilise surfing terminology) came from them; after all, setting into motion plans for intensifying their actualism practice is what we had all gathered together there for, in that remote river wilderness area on that weekend in November, 2009 (in what became known as ‘The First Convivium Gathering’), and it was Vineeto’s existential proximity in particular which was the keenest impetus. 

(Hence me impressing upon her, and not another, the necessity of being out-from-control/in a different-way-of being). (Richard/List D, No. 25, 6 Feb 2012)

As a final summary I would point out that I find it interesting that everyone is making an effort to support [Respondent 15(D)] in his assumption that there can be an actual freedom from the human condition whilst keeping one’s psyche intact. The essential factor that is missing in this snippet of conversation is pure intent. 

Again, I appreciate that you are keeping us informed. 

Cheers Vineeto

3 November 2020

Hi Alan,

Here is my comment on the Zulip thread, started by Srid, from 30th October 2020 –

Rick asked No. 15(D) some very clarifying questions –

▪ [Rick]: 2) Richard has stated that his spirit died right along with his feeling-being. [...elided...]. 4) Do you even consider it possible for the spirit to completely immolate, as Richard claims his did? (30-10-20 00.56)

▪ [No. 15(D)]: 4) No.

(30-10-20 2.49) {full context below*}.

Here are some quotes from Richard on this very topic –

August 18 1998:

▪ [Richard]: In order to become enlightened, the ‘I’ as ego dies. In order to become actually free, the other half of the identity – ‘me’ as soul – must similarly die. (Richard, List B, No. 22a, 18 Aug 1998).

April 02 2000:

▪ [Richard]: To become enlightened is to stop half-way: to go all the way not only does the ego have to die (spiritual freedom), so too does the soul (actual freedom). Richard, List B, No. 19d, 2 April 2000)

Richard’s Homepage:

▪ [Richard]: To become spiritually free the ego-self (‘I’ as ego) must die/ dissolve; all genuinely enlightened beings point to a single edifying moment of awakening (with a variety of descriptions), wherein the personal self (or ‘being’) transmogrifies into the impersonal self or ‘being’ (or non-self), and which ‘being’ (often capitalised as ‘Being’) exists timelessly, spacelessly and formlessly. To become actually free the soul-self (‘me’ as soul) must also die/ dissolve ... the total elimination of ‘being’ (and thus ‘Being’) itself.

Peace-On-Earth In This Life Time:

▪ [Richard]: Just like the ego has to dissolve to become enlightened, so too does the soul need to be extirpated. To live in a condition of complete emancipation and utter autonomy – a condition which is both permanent and actual – one needs to eschew not only the embedded ‘self’ but the bodiless ‘Self’ who transcends Time and Space and Form. To forgo not only the feeling of ‘being’ but the mystical state of ‘Being’ itself calls for an audacity unparalleled in the annals of history ... or one’s personal history, at least. (Richard, Articles, Peace on Earth in this Lifetime)

May 22 2015:

▪ [Richard]: At this stage it could very well be helpful – as an aide-mémoire in any similar instances– to draw attention to the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust homepage (immediately below the ‘Actual Freedom’ logo). Viz.:

• A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom.

From that very succinct heading (which is not placed in such a key position merely for rhetorical effect) three fundamental aspects of the freedom referred to can be readily ascertained ... and without inference:

1. It is new.

2. It is non-spiritual.

3. It is down-to-earth.

And not to forget, of course, from the logo itself:

4. It is actual.

Now, this is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘spiritual’:

• ‘spiritual (adj.): relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things’. (Oxford English Dictionary).

The term ‘non-spiritual’, then, means *not* relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things; thus the freedom being referred to is *not* the freedom spiritualism has to offer.

Here is what that dictionary has to say about the word ‘spirit’:

• ‘spirit (n.): the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul’. (Oxford English Dictionary).

Also, and given that ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ are synonymous, this is what that dictionary has to say about the word ‘soul’:

• ‘soul (n.): the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature’. (Oxford English Dictionary).

Thus, when it comes to ‘the seat of emotions’ the words ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ are interchangeable and, as each refers to the innermost affective-psychic entity of both those of either a secular or spiritual persuasion (the essential difference being the materialists maintain this emotional/ passional/ intuitive spirit or soul – aka ‘self’– dies with the body whereas the spiritualists maintain it does not), then my presentation of actualism as the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism speaks to the self-same ‘being’, at root, with differentiation only a connotative matter dependent upon each particular ‘being’s (occasionally changeable) partiality, leaning or worldview in that regard.

Therefore, if (note ‘if’) the new and non-spiritual down-to-earth actual freedom was none other than the same freedom which spiritualism has to offer, only differently-worded for modern-times, then it would not be:

1. New.

2. Non-Spiritual.

3. Down-To-Earth (a colloquialism for: temporal, spatial, phenomenal).

4. Actual (i.e., physical).

Instead it would be:

1. Old.

2. Spiritual.

3. Away-With-The-Fairies (a colloquialism for: atemporal, aspatial, aphenomenal).

4. Non-Actual (i.e., metaphysical).  

(Richard, List D, Andrew, 22 May 2015)


N.B.: This seat-of-the-emotions ‘soul-self’ or ‘spirit-self’– an instinctual ‘self’ born of an amorphous affective ‘presence’ in vivo, an inchoate intuitive ‘being’ in utero, which the genetically endowed instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) instinctively form themselves into just as, analogously, an eddy or a vortex forming itself as swirling water or whirling air does – is not the ego-self (an affective-cum-cognitive entity).

The ego-self arises out of the ‘soul-self’ or ‘spirit-self’, somewhere around age two, as the doer of all affective-psychic eventful experience (a.k.a. the ‘thinker’), as opposed to the beer of all affective-psychic experiencing (a.k.a. the ‘feeler’), and is, typically, experienceable as situated in the head, rather than in the heart region from whence it arose, immediately behind the forehead at a midpoint just above the eyes.

Furthermore, the ego-self is not the social identity-cum-cultural conscience/ inwit⁽*⁾ as, by and large, it is not until approximately seven years of age that a child knows the basic difference between what each particular society and culture regards as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, or ‘good’ and ‘bad’, or ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’, and the parents’ attitude reflects this (as is evidenced in a parent taking the child to task with an oft-repeated "you ought to know better by now").

*⁾inwit (n.): the sense of right and wrong that governs a person’s thoughts and actions; understanding or reason. ~ (Collins English Dictionary).


Thus the socio-cultural identity is overlaid, via socialisation and culturalisation, over both the ego-self and the soul-self – as an incorporeal cultural conscience or social guardian – and is currently in the process of being sexualised (by those gullible enough to fall for it) by the "gender-identity" advocates regardless of the biological/ chromosomal sex of the flesh-and-blood body.


As this should be self-explanatory in that No. 15(D) considers something impossible that is the very prerequisite to becoming actually free, i.e. "for the spirit to completely immolate", I’ll just add some brief comments –

[Respondent 15(D)]: Richard does not know the spiritual / sacred dimension of experience.

Vineeto: Here No. 15(D) clearly shows that he has not read The Actual Freedom Trust website.

Richard reported many times and in great detail about his experience of "the spiritual /sacred dimension" during his enlightenment years – he lived that, was that, day and night, 24/7, for eleven years and thus knows it intimately, every nook and cranny. Moreover, he did not just know God but *was* God, as that is the experience of every genuinely enlightened being … and he found it wanting.

No. 15(D) is way, way out of his depth with this assertion.

Furthermore, No. 15(D) considers himself to be superior to Richard  *and everyone else* who is actually free. This attitude is not merely a belief structure of a remnant guardian – this is hubris, also known as ego, and it is alive and well in No. 15(D).

Additionally, I noticed in the chat that No. 15(D) did not want to answer in public when Zulip Respondent C asked him: "And what is it then that Richard then is not experiencing in your opinion?" but rather wanted to meet in private to discuss such a possibly controversial topic. {full context below*}.

I am reminded of Richard’s description –

▪ Richard: "In 1980 I had a peak experience wherein I saw that everything was already perfect as-it-is and that ‘I’, the psychological entity, was standing in the way ... and no-one else was preventing me from achieving the ultimate goal of being a human. In that peak experience I saw ‘myself’. ‘I’ was the end product of society and nothing more. ‘I’ was an emotional construct of all of the beliefs, values, morals, ethics, mores, customs, traditions, doctrines, ideologies and so on. ‘I’ was nothing but an emotional-mental fabrication ... a sense of identity with its conscience.

I also saw that ‘I’ was a lost, lonely, frightened – and a very, very cunning – entity." (Richard, Articles, A Brief Personal History, Appendix One)

No. 15(D)’s avoidance of public scrutiny and his blindness to his own cunning throws further doubt on him ever having had a genuine PCE, which would have informed him of the nature of ‘me’, the pristine purity of the actual world and would have fostered pure intent, in the way such PCEs informed Richard and others.

To summarize –

In connection with No. 15(D)’s statement from November 2019 – [Respondent 15(D)]: "My connection to the psychic network appears to be alive and well" – and his present statement that he considers it impossible "for the spirit to completely immolate", he has clearly demonstrated by his own words that he lives well and truly within the human condition.

Given No. 15(D)’s past intense training and practice on DharmaOverground I see no difference between his present condition and the one reported by Tarin, Trent, Stefanie and other Affers. I am also reminded that Tarin reported, not being an identity, not experiencing pure intent. Vis:

• [Tarin]: (...) by the way, not being an identity, i don’t experience pure intent (it has been fulfilled/ *been extinguished*). [emphasis added] ( (Latest public announcement)

This announcement is well worth reading again in full context, especially from the above quote onwards. It finishes with a recommendation from the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust –

… the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust hereby recommend, publicly, that Tarin taps into that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself, because to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent ... as in, to be that benevolence and benignity *as a flesh-and-blood body only*.

Put succinctly: there is no other way, than to be that, because there is no other actual freedom from the human condition (than being that). (Latest public announcement)

Cheers Vineeto


*)Quotes from Zulip chat-list in context –

▪ [Rick]: No. 15(D), I for one appreciate your willingness to be candid about your convictions. I continue to find your reports of your spiritual nature astonishing and intriguing. I ask that you please pardon my prior and present eagerness to scrutinise and discuss the nature of your reports. The following questions occurred while reading your latest statements.

1) Do you consider it likely that the difference in the convictions held by you and Richard regarding the existence of a spiritual world is due to a difference of direct experience as opposed to a difference of mere opinion?

▪ [No. 15(D)]: Rick no problem,

1) I think it’s wholly due to a difference in direct experience. The twin revelations I received in 2009 are as valid today as when they occurred. Richard does not know the spiritual / sacred dimension of experience. The reason he does not know is that he has closed himself off. It requires an active relationship with God / spirituality to allow us to experience that dimension of existence. "God knows none but those who know Him".

▪ [Rick]: 2) Richard has stated that his spirit died right along with his feeling-being. It follows that with no spirit in existence, there’s no possible connection to the spiritual world. Would you agree this?

▪ [No. 15(D)]: 2) I believed Richard after I became free and felt I had eliminated my soul. I had no connection to spirit, to God, to whatever you want to call it. I received no guidance. I was cut off. But then I was able to re-activate that connection little by little. It was a bit of a process. Now I am receiving guidance that is timely and astute, as well as rather amazing. At times I have an active sense of connection to spirit. Since then it occurs to me that there’s no reason why eliminating animalistic survival instinctual passions should have anything to do with eliminating our soul. It presupposes that the soul never existed in the first place, and only appeared to exist due to the part of the brain that generates animalistic survival instinctual passions. But that does not seem to be the case for me.

▪ [Rick]: 3) Is it possible that in your case the feeling-being immolated but that the spirit-being remained, thus your connection to the spiritual world remains intact?

▪ [No. 15(D)]: 3) If we accept the existence of an immortal soul (and not simply saying it is "real" but not "actual", which I interpret to mean it doesn’t genuinely exist), I’m not sure what benefit there could be to cause that to immolate as well.

▪ [Rick]: 4) Do you even consider it possible for the spirit to completely immolate, as Richard claims his did?

▪ [No. 15(D)]: 4) No. 

I apologise for repeating myself but I have found that one can simply close oneself off to that dimension of existence, and that part of experience, and from that position of certainty it looks very convincingly like it no longer exists. From what I understand of free will, we are allowed to hang ourselves out to dry if we insist on it.

▪ [Rick]: Thank you, No. 15(D). That clarifies things quite a bit. One more question for the time being: Do you experience the demonic/ malevolent side of the spiritual world? If so, could you go into some detail of your experience with it?

▪ [No. 15(D)]: I do not presently experience anything demonic or malevolent outside of witnessing the human behaviour of others. I do not invite such experiences though.

▪ [Rick]: Thank you, No. 15(D).


2)▪ [Zulip Respondent C]: Hey No. 15(D), I’d be interested to hear more specifically what you are experiencing when you say you are accessing the spiritual dimension? And what is it then that Richard then is not experiencing in your opinion?

▪ [No. 15(D)]: C, if you’re free for lunch any time soon perhaps we could discuss it in person. Are you back in Brisbane now?

▪ [Zulip Respondent C]: No. 15(D), I am indeed and sure I’d enjoy that.


▪ [Geoffrey]: The second way one can see this, is Vineeto’s email to Alan of November 16 2019 in which, after having read that No. 15(D), further than just stating spiritual beliefs, claimed that he had a connection to the ‘psychic network’, she concluded that he is not actually free after all – which appears to be her (and Richard’s) opinion to this day.




Vineeto’s Latest Correspondence

Actualism Homepage

Actual Freedom Homepage

Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity