Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

with Correspondent No. 60


September 04 2005

(...)

RICHARD: It is not my version of the hymnic ‘peace on earth/ good will to all mankind’ which is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site at all: it is, rather, the already always existing peace-on-earth of this actual world – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – where it is startling obvious that it be something which no amount of behavioural pattern alteration will ever bring about.

RESPONDENT: No kidding?

RICHARD: I am not kidding when I report how startling obvious it is in a PCE that to be superficially altering behavioural patterns – such as being a vegetarian, a vegan, a fruitarian, or a pacifist (aka practicing non-violence/ahimsa) – will ever bring about that already always existing peace-on-earth.

September 10 2005

RESPONDENT: I am not sure I understand the actualist attitude toward vegetarianism.

RICHARD: As one can eat meat, or not eat meat, and still classify themself as an actualist there is no [quote] ‘actualist attitude’ [endquote] to either understand or not understand ... as clearly expressed in the explanation of mine which that vegetarians versus omnivores diatribe you are buying into was cooked-up out of. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘I am not trying to persuade you to eat meat or not eat meat ... I leave it entirely up to the individual as to what they do regarding what they eat’.

I even give examples of what such a choice might be based upon:

• [Richard]: ‘It is an act of freedom, based upon purely practical considerations such as the taste bud’s predilection, or the body’s ability to digest the food eaten, or meeting the standards of hygiene necessary for the preservation of decaying flesh, or the availability of sufficient resources on this planet to provide the acreage necessary to support the conversion of vegetation into animal protein’.

And that ‘act of freedom’ I speak about there refers back to the second paragraph in that explanation:

• [Richard]: ‘... the very fact that one is alive means consuming nutrients ... and staying alive means that something, somewhere, must die in order to supply these nutrients. This is a fact of life ... and the marvellous thing about a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny a fact – pretend that it is not there – but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and decision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom – having the freedom to choose – but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvious, and in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising over the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ judgment. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only action’.

RESPONDENT: Once the predator within is no longer extant ...

RICHARD: That explanation of mine is all about malice being no longer extant. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Neither is eating a hamburger [harmless]. Just ask the cattle.
• [Richard]: ‘Actually, I was talking about having eliminated malice – what is commonly called evil – from oneself in its entirety. That is, the ‘dark side’ of human nature which requires the maintenance of a ‘good side’ to eternally combat it. By doing the ‘impossible’ – everybody tells me that you can’t change human nature – then one is automatically harmless ... which does not mean abstaining from killing. It means that no act is malicious, spiteful, hateful, revengeful and so on. It is a most estimable condition to be in’.

Has it not occurred to you that in order for an act to be classified as [quote] ‘a malicious act’ [endquote] it must, perforce, contain malice? For example:

• ‘malicious: given to, arising from, or characterised by malice [active ill will or hatred]’. (Oxford Dictionary).

And here are some synonyms:

• ‘malice: malevolence, maliciousness, malignity, malignance, evil intentions, ill will, ill feeling, animosity, animus, hostility, enmity, bad blood, hatred, hate, spite, spitefulness, vindictiveness, rancour, bitterness, grudge, venom, spleen ...’. (Oxford Thesaurus).

RESPONDENT: ... I would have thought the main reasons we cause unnecessary suffering to our fellow sentient beings would go with them.

RICHARD: No domesticated animal need ever suffer (let alone unnecessarily) – and I speak from first-hand knowledge here as I was born and raised on a farm – nor any animal hunted in the wild, either, for that matter (and again I speak from personal experience).

RESPONDENT: Are feeling/belief the only reasons to want to spare a fellow mammal the experience of an abattoir? I don’t get this.

RICHARD: There is nothing to get ... that entire vegetarians versus omnivores diatribe you are buying into is/was a beat-up from the very start.

September 21 2005

(...)

CO-RESPONDENT: I don’t at all think that the P/V/R are unfriendly – the contrary actually ... most the correspondents resort to all kinds of things sooner or later once the initial sugar coated responses don’t work. Whereas R/P/V are consistent from the beginning to the end – they don’t play favourites mostly. Why should I demand friendliness from them? Can’t I take the bare facts? I think I can. If I clearly see that what they are saying is not factual, would it produce so much bitterness in me? etc.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I see no reason why not. Example only: while you clearly see that what they are saying is not factual, you are utterly unable to point this out in a way that makes a difference, and your inability to do so makes further meaningful dialogue impossible. And all the while it is portrayed as/regarded as your problem and your problem only. (See No. 89’s fruitless conversations with the actualists re the nature of matter, for example.

RICHARD: Those conversations regarding the nature of matter were only fruitless because they were stymied right from the start with the assertion, in an e-mail entitled [quote] ‘Matter does not mean anything at all’ [endquote], that matter does not appear anywhere in phenomenal space and has no phenomenal meaning. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Now, ‘matter’ is a metalanguage term denoting for simplicity’s sake SINGULARITY AREAS of the gravity field. It does not appear anywhere in PS (phenomenal space), nor in MS (model space), i.e. it has no phenomenal, nor abstract meaning. Scientifically speaking it does not mean anything at all’. (Saturday 2/04/2005 8:11 AM AEST).

If I may ask? How is that an example of you clearly seeing that what they [Peter, Vineeto, Richard] are saying is not factual; that you are utterly unable to point this out in a way that makes a difference; that your inability to do so makes further meaningful dialogue impossible; that all the while it is portrayed as/regarded as your problem and your problem only?

RESPONDENT: See No. 90’s frustrated and futile attempts to get straight answers about how Richard can know he was the first to be actually free from the HC, for another example.

RICHARD: Here is what I was actually asked :

 • [Co-Respondent] ‘How do you KNOW that a tribesman of Papua New Guinea twelve thousand years ago didn’t become actually free?’ (Tuesday 12/07/2005 at 6:47 PM AEST).

As it is blatantly obvious, given that no historical records exist, that a person designated as being a male (and not a female) living in a tribe (and not living alone) on the eastern half (and not the western half) of the land-mass nowadays known as New Guinea (the western half is currently called Irian Jaya) in the year 10005 BCE (and not some other date) is but an invention, a hypothetical person, an intellectual creation, an abstract entity, a theoretical personage, an imaginative figure, then it is remarkably easy to know how ... to wit: only flesh and blood bodies can be actually free from the human condition.

If I might again ask? How is that an example of you clearly seeing that what they [Peter, Vineeto, Richard] are saying is not factual; that you are utterly unable to point this out in a way that makes a difference; that your inability to do so makes further meaningful dialogue impossible; that all the while it is portrayed as/regarded as your problem and your problem only?

RESPONDENT: Those kind of interactions can produce frustration, and the frustration is not necessarily a result of the actualists being in possession of the ‘bare facts’.

RICHARD: As the ‘bare fact’ in your first example is that matter does indeed exist in space and time, and as the ‘bare fact’ in your second example is that invented peoples, hypothetical persons, intellectual creations, abstract entities, theoretical personages, imaginative figures, cannot ever actually be anything (let alone actually free from the human condition), then it would appear that looking elsewhere for the source of your frustration may very well be a more beneficial line of enquiry to pursue.

So as to forestall the obvious rejoinder: yes, that is indeed me portraying it as/regarding it as your problem and your problem only.

September 21 2005

CO-RESPONDENT: I don’t at all think that the P/V/R are unfriendly – the contrary actually ... most the correspondents resort to all kinds of things sooner or later once the initial sugar coated responses don’t work. Whereas R/P/V are consistent from the beginning to the end – they don’t play favourites mostly. Why should I demand friendliness from them? Can’t I take the bare facts? I think I can. If I clearly see that what they are saying is not factual, would it produce so much bitterness in me? etc.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I see no reason why not. Example only: while you clearly see that what they are saying is not factual, you are utterly unable to point this out in a way that makes a difference, and your inability to do so makes further meaningful dialogue impossible. And all the while it is portrayed as/regarded as your problem and your problem only. (See No. 89’s fruitless conversations with the actualists re the nature of matter, for example.

RICHARD: Those conversations regarding the nature of matter were only fruitless because they were stymied right from the start with the assertion, in an e-mail entitled [quote] ‘Matter does not mean anything at all’ [endquote], that matter does not appear anywhere in phenomenal space and has no phenomenal meaning.

RESPONDENT: No, that is not what stymied them right from the start; it began long before that ...

RICHARD: If I might interject? In that case, and as generalisations without substance are pointless, which conversations long before that, regarding the nature of matter, are you now proposing as an example of you clearly seeing that what Peter, Vineeto, and Richard are saying is not factual?

*

RICHARD: Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Now, ‘matter’ is a metalanguage term denoting for simplicity’s sake SINGULARITY AREAS of the gravity field. It does not appear anywhere in PS (phenomenal space), nor in MS (model space), i.e. it has no phenomenal, nor abstract meaning. Scientifically speaking it does not mean anything at all’. (Saturday 2/04/2005 8:11 AM AEST).

If I may ask? How is that an example of you clearly seeing that what they [Peter, Vineeto, Richard] are saying is not factual; that you are utterly unable to point this out in a way that makes a difference; that your inability to do so makes further meaningful dialogue impossible; that all the while it is portrayed as/regarded as your problem and your problem only?

RESPONDENT: Heh, if you think I’m going to even *try* to succeed where No. 89 has failed, no way ...

RICHARD: Am I to take it that you, too, assert that matter does not appear anywhere in phenomenal space and has no phenomenal meaning?

RESPONDENT: ... I’ll not bloody my forehead against that wall.

RICHARD: Then why make the claim, that you clearly see what Peter, Vineeto, and Richard are saying is not factual, in the first place if you are not prepared to follow through with it?

*

RESPONDENT: See No. 90’s frustrated and futile attempts to get straight answers about how Richard can know he was the first to be actually free from the HC, for another example.

RICHARD: Here is what I was actually asked :

 • [Co-Respondent] ‘How do you KNOW that a tribesman of Papua New Guinea twelve thousand years ago didn’t become actually free?’ (Tuesday 12/07/2005 at 6:47 PM AEST).

As it is blatantly obvious, given that no historical records exist, that a person designated as being a male (and not a female) living in a tribe (and not living alone) on the eastern half (and not the western half) of the land-mass nowadays known as New Guinea (the western half is currently called Irian Jaya) in the year 10005 BCE (and not some other date) is but an invention, a hypothetical person, an intellectual creation, an abstract entity, a theoretical personage, an imaginative figure, then it is remarkably easy to know how ... to wit: only flesh and blood bodies can be actually free from the human condition.

If I might again ask? How is that an example of you clearly seeing that what they [Peter, Vineeto, Richard] are saying is not factual; that you are utterly unable to point this out in a way that makes a difference; that your inability to do so makes further meaningful dialogue impossible; that all the while it is portrayed as/regarded as your problem and your problem only?

RESPONDENT: Those kind of interactions can produce frustration, and the frustration is not necessarily a result of the actualists being in possession of the ‘bare facts’.

RICHARD: As the ‘bare fact’ in your first example is that matter does indeed exist in space and time, and as the ‘bare fact’ in your second example is that invented peoples, hypothetical persons, intellectual creations, abstract entities, theoretical personages, imaginative figures, cannot ever actually be anything (let alone actually free from the human condition), then it would appear that looking elsewhere for the source of your frustration may very well be a more beneficial line of enquiry to pursue. So as to forestall the obvious rejoinder: yes, that is indeed me portraying it as/regarding it as your problem and your problem only.

RESPONDENT: Yes, of course ...

RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that, if nothing else, that is clear, then.

RESPONDENT: ... even if there were hundreds of people with the same problem, it’d still be their problem ‘only’. Oh, and theirs. And theirs. And theirs. Each one uniquely the same.

RICHARD: Not uniquely, no ... only each one with the same frustration in common.

RESPONDENT: ‘Woof! Woof!’

RICHARD: Whilst a commonly experienced frustration, when faced with a new paradigm, could indeed be a conditioned response there are other possible reasons for such an occurrence.

Just plain old sour-grapes, for instance, as in the ‘tall-poppy’ syndrome ... otherwise known as invidia.

September 21 2005

CO-RESPONDENT: Can’t I take the bare facts? I think I can. If I clearly see that what [people] are saying is not factual, would it produce so much bitterness in me? etc.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I see no reason why not. <specific example snipped, will revisit if necessary>

Richard, would you say that if Fred feels bitter about what Joan is saying, it must be because Joan is speaking the truth, and Fred doesn’t like it? Yes? No?

RICHARD: No (simply because a fact just sits there, as it were, effectively rendering any feelings about it null and void): a quite plausible reason why there is dislike could very well be because of much-repeated instances of same ... nothing quite galls the way being virtually forever offside does (especially when it is somehow known that it is the indefensible which is being defended anyway).

That particular insight, by the way, into one of the more wackier workings of ‘me’ comes per favour my previous companion.

September 22 2005

RESPONDENT: Does translation/ interpretation stop with ‘me’?

RICHARD: Yes.

RESPONDENT: Aren’t all other contents of consciousness, including sensation, similarly constrained by the impossibility of stepping outside the perceiving apparatus?

RICHARD: There is no constraint: as a flesh and blood body only one is the perceiving apparatus (to use your phrasing) and, as flesh and blood bodies are not separate from that which they form themself with, one is the infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.

And this is truly wonderful.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me the crux of the disagreement/ misunderstanding between No. 89 and actualists. (Or maybe it’s mine alone) ;-)

RICHARD: Oh, there is no misunderstanding here.

September 29 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, before I hit the road again, I have a question that seems pretty important. Re-reading some of your selected writings, I rediscovered this:

[Richard]: ‘The ‘process’ was both prosaic and extraordinary: on the one hand I began undoing all the social conditioning that I had been subject to since birth and on the other hand I generated love for all and sundry. I examined all the social traditions and customs etc., one by one, and released myself from their iron grip. I diminished hate and anger and sadness and loneliness by surrendering to and living in love and oneness ... which is the best that a normal human could do by virtue of the socialisation process. I moved in and out of Sacred States of Heavenly Bliss and Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and immersed myself in the entire ‘process’ with dedication and resolution. I adopted the principle of pacifism (‘turn the other cheek’) and developed Goodness of the highest order. I cleansed and purified myself of all impure thoughts and deeds and worked both hard and industriously in my daily work. I practised honesty and humility in all my interactions with other people and pondered the significance and ramifications of the Divine Order’. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedwriting/sw-asc.htm).

If the activation of love, compassion, humility, goodness, moral purity, and a passionate faith in the Divine Order etc is not 180 degrees opposite from what you now recommend, it’s pretty damn close, no?

RICHARD: What I now recommend is essentially no different to what I have recommended ever since first becoming apparent on the thirtieth of October 1992 and which is basically the same as what the identity in residence recommended, to anyone prepared to listen at the time, when ‘he’ set about imitating the actual – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) in late July 1980 – on and after the first of January 1981 ... to wit: being relentlessly attentive to, each moment again, and scrupulously honest about, how that only moment of ever being alive was experienced so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as was humanly possible inasmuch any deviation from such felicity/innocuity was attended to with the utmost dispatch in order to live as peacefully and as harmoniously as ‘he’ could with ‘his’ then wife and children, in particular, and with anyone and everyone who came into ‘his’ presence.

And all that came about – albeit nowhere nearly spelled-out so clearly and concisely – more or less spontaneously on that day as during the PCE, where identity in toto was in abeyance, the affections played no part at all and, moreover, there was such an utter intimacy as to render any trace of a separation needing to be affectively bridged simply risible.

Furthermore, that way of living was so successful, for the first three months or so of that year, that ‘he’ was wont to exclaim, to all and sundry, that ‘he’ had discovered the secret to life (for that is how far beyond normal human expectations the felicitous/innocuous state which has nowadays become known as being virtually free truly is) and ‘he’ was perplexed as to why, it being such a simple thing to do, no-one had ever done it before.

Then an event occurred of such impact as to be the turning-point, in regards no longer going directly to what numerous PCE’s evidenced (namely that what is now known as an actual freedom from the human condition was possible here on earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body), and relates back to the initial PCE which set in motion the whole process wherein, unbeknownst to the experiencing due to a total lack of any precedent, it had devolved into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) when a new identity had all-of-a-sudden come into existence ... a grand ‘Me’, a glorious ‘Me’, a fulfilled ‘Me’ who was none other than the long-awaited Saviour Of Humankind!

That impactive event took place whilst keenly watching the sunrise casting its brilliant rays earthward, one otherwise-experienced-as-perfect morning in mid-autumn, upon seeing an ornamental bush thus lit, in the garden alongside the ex-farmhouse, luminously aglow, fiercely afire from within as it were, wherefrom it was revealed to ‘Me’ that there was to be a death and a rebirth and, consequently, a catatonic state ensued that resulted in ‘Me’ being carted off to hospital, and kept under intensive care for four hours, until coming out of it in a state of Radiant Bliss (which quite overwhelmed the duty-nurse by the way). ‘He’ was never to be the same again, as Divinity had been working on ‘him’ whilst catatonic, and from that date forward ‘he’ was permanently in a state of human bliss and love ... ‘he’ could do no wrong.

As ‘he’ had surrendered to, and thus lived in, love and oneness ‘he’ moved in and out of sacred states of Heavenly Bliss, Love Agapé and Divine Compassion; ‘he’ immersed ‘himself’ in the entire process with dedication and resolution; ‘he’ adopted the principle of pacifism (‘turn the other cheek’) and developed a goodness of the highest order; ‘he’ cleansed and purified ‘himself’ of all impure thoughts and deeds; ‘he’ worked both hard and industriously in ‘his’ daily work; ‘he’ practised honesty and humility in all ‘his’ interactions; ‘he’ pondered the significance and ramifications of the Divine Order; ‘he’ totally believed in and had supreme faith in The Absolute – ‘he’ never doubted the ability of That to bring about the Peace On Earth so long promised – and that ‘he’ was to play the central role in that Divine Plan no longer came as a surprise to ‘him’ as ‘he’ realised that ‘he’ had long yearned to be part of the Salvation Process.

The following more or less sums it up:

• [Richard]: ‘... back in 1981 I had umpteen number of peak experiences – sometimes two-three times a day varying from minutes to hours – and they were wild and woolly times. Somewhere along the line I had lost sight of the four hour pure consciousness experience [PCE] that had triggered my whole incursion into becoming free of the human condition and there was certainly a ‘difference in degree’ of the affective element in each experience ... ranging from virtually non-existent to full-blown grandiosity for the ‘me’ that was inhabiting this body. The PCE stayed pristine in its own domain, however, and stood me in good stead some eleven years later ... as I have recorded in ‘A Brief Personal History’:

• ‘It troubled me deeply that I was in such a situation because I seem to be driven by some force to ‘Spread the Word’ and that was never my intention all those years ago when I first had what is known as a ‘Peak Experience’ which initiated my incursion into all matters Spiritual, culminating in the ‘death’ of my ego and catapulting me into this Absolute State. My intent back then had been to cleanse myself of all that is detrimental to personal happiness and interpersonal harmony ... in other words: peace on earth in my life-time. Instead of that rather simple ambition, I found that I was impelled on an odyssey to be the latest Saviour of Humankind in a long list of Enlightened Beings ... and this imposition did not sit well with me’.

RESPONDENT: The method you now recommend (minimising ‘good’/’bad’ feelings, activating felicity/ sensuousness) is what you used only after the ego had already dissolved.

RICHARD: The method I now recommend is essentially no different to the course of action I have recommended ever since first becoming apparent and which is basically the same as the way the identity in residence recommended a normal life be lived, when ‘he’ first devised and put into practice what has now become known as the actualism method, on and after the first of January 1981.

Incidentally, that way of living/that course of action did not ... um ... officially become a method until early 1998. And it only came about because of being told to either send more information or draw a clearer map to paradise, on a mailing list set-up under the auspices of the teachings Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti brought into the world, for no other reason than (despite the fact that they are rife throughout most, if not all, of those teachings) any and all methods, ways, paths, and so on, were anathema to his readers/listeners. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You’re going to have to send more information or draw a clearer map to paradise.
• [Richard]: ‘(...) What ‘I’ did, eighteen years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective method of ridding this body of ‘me’. (Now I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). ‘I’ asked myself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ (...)’.

RESPONDENT: It worked, but *only when you were in an Altered State Of Being*, having permanently dissolved your sense of personal identity in an oceanic feeling of oneness with all creation.

RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding: what really worked, when the identity was that ‘Altered State Of Being’, was

(1) a continuation of the totally dedicated and/or devoted pure intent to evince what the PCE’s evidenced ... and

(2) a furtherance of the irreversible momentum, or inevitability, already set in place on day one as the process is, essentially, that of escaping from one’s fate and attaining to one’s destiny ... and

(3) a prolongation of the attentiveness as to how the only moment of being alive was experienced ... and

(4) an utter lack of dignity in being so far up oneself (narcissistic) as to render the term ‘egotistical’ a mere bagatelle in comparison ... and

(5) a sense of humour which, if nothing else, made possible (6) a delightful resurgence of the earlier felicity/innocuity which again brought about, in combination with sensuousness, an outstandingly ingenuous sense of amazement, marvel and wonder.

And it was that last-named – the wide-eyed wonder of naiveté – which resulted in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception).

RESPONDENT: To put it mildly, that [an altered state of being] is not my starting point ...

RICHARD: Neither was it ‘my’ starting point ... for instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘… but I have a lot of taxes to pay to the society, family, etc., which give me no time to sit and watch the rising sun ...
• [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, the ‘I’ that was made freedom the number one priority in ‘his’ life. ‘He’ was a married man, with four children, running ‘his’ own business, with a house mortgage to pay off and a car on hire purchase ... working twelve-fourteen hour days, six-seven days a week.
In other words: normal.
And all the while the enabling of freedom took absolute precedence over all other matters and dominated ‘his’ every moment’.

And for another instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I find myself in a situation where I am raising two children and I am married.
• [Richard]: ‘So? I found myself in a situation where I was married and raising four children.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I am doing my best to raise the kids – but how could I possibly be pleased with raising them only to be in ‘abysmal’ situation – only to live in a ‘grim and glum’ reality where the best they can do is live on the better side of misery?
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed ... being married and raising four children was one of the many incentives for the ‘me’ who was to get off ‘his’ backside and do something about the whole sorry mess.
And now, as a direct result of that altruistic action, the possibility exists for those five fellow human beings to also live fully (as is anybody else) if they so choose’.

RESPONDENT: ... and neither is it the starting point of anyone else around here.

RICHARD: I have had on-line discussions with quite a few self-realised beings (albeit mostly of the just-add-water-and-stir-thoroughly variety) ... plus several face-to-face discussions over the years.

Quite simply: one starts wherever one is at.

RESPONDENT: I well understand that you reject enlightenment as a tried and failed solution to the ills of humankind, and I understand why. BUT, my question concerns the method, not the goal. In one of our early conversations, you said to me that when your ego ‘died’ you were only seconds away from an actual freedom, if only you had known at the time that such a thing was possible:

• [Richard]: ‘... if I had known, back in 1981 at the moment of ego-dissolution, what I now know I would not have let the process stop halfway through its happening (...) by my reckoning it would have all been over in a matter of maybe 6-10 seconds (rather than 6 seconds plus eleven years)’.
• [Respondent]: ‘So electro-chemical ‘self-immolation’ is not just metaphorical, eh?’
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed not: it is all very, very real ... more real than anything has ever been’.
• [Respondent]: ‘You were really that close?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... I have written before about how I unwittingly discovered yet another way to become enlightened ...’.

So ... you activated the process of self-immolation by activating powerful passions.

RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this body activated the process of *partial* ‘self’-immolation – the ego-dissolution, or death of the ego, referred to in the above exchange – by activating love and compassion (and rapture and euphoria and ecstasy and bliss and so on) ... whereas the process of ‘self’-immolation *in toto* involved the deactivation of those antidotal pacifiers for malice and sorrow (and all those others).

RESPONDENT: Not innocuous felicitous feelings but powerful, red-hot passions.

RICHARD: The felicitous/ innocuous feelings are in no way docile, lack-lustre affections ... in conjunction with sensuosity they make for an extremely forceful/ potent combination as, with all of the affective energy channelled into being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible (and no longer being frittered away on love and compassion/ malice and sorrow), the full effect of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – is dynamically enabled for one purpose and one purpose alone.

RESPONDENT: No wonder you were able to engage the whole of your being in this process.

RICHARD: So as to inject a modicum of commonsense into your train of thought: the identity inhabiting this body was able to engage the whole of ‘his’ being in the process which led to ‘self’-immolation in toto, via first undergoing an ego-death/ ego-dissolution, primarily and ultimately because of pure intent.

And the key to unlocking such naiveté is sincerity, pure and simple.

RESPONDENT: And from where I stand, there’s little wonder that no-one else has.

RICHARD: Where one stands does, of course, determine what one sees.

RESPONDENT: (9 months of intense ‘self’-immolation vs. 10 years of mere reconditioning is what it comes down to as I see it).

RICHARD: Ha ... there is much more to an entirely-new model than just ripping the engine of the ole hog apart and giving it a reco so that it will be good for another few hundred thou or so.

Much, much more ... do you realise that what you are saying, in effect, is that all what is required for any realised/ enlightened/ awakened being, to become actually free from the human condition, is but a re-working what remains of identity (the deeper and most fundament part) after partial ‘self’-immolation?

RESPONDENT: So why, if you were mere seconds away from ‘self’-immolation using the original method, do you now recommend an altogether different one (almost 180 degrees opposite) that only worked after your ego had dissolved?

RICHARD: Hmm ... if what you really want is to become realised/ enlightened/ awakened then it is not all that difficult. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘There is a sure-fire way to become enlightened ... if that is what one really wants. It is important to realise, deeply, that not only can ‘you’ not find Love Agapé ... Love Agapé does not come to ‘you’, either. The way it works is that when ‘you’ become ‘love’ then Love becomes You ... Love Agapé is You As You Really Are.
Here is how to be Love Agapé:
1. First, get out of your head and feel deep within yourself, past the emotions, into the deeper feelings – the core of your ‘being’ – for there you will feel intense human love (the nurturing/desiring instinctual passion).
2. Identify totally with this love as pure feeling – live it as being it fully every moment of your day – and surrender your will to existence itself.
3. Your identity as ‘me’ as soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘being’) will transmogrify itself into the Absolute in an edifying moment of awakening as ‘The Truth’.
4. You will then realise that this is your ‘True Self’ ... the ‘Me’ that exists Timelessly and Spacelessly and Formlessly.
5. You will then be Love Agapé ... You will have come to bring Your message of ‘Truth and Love’ to a suffering humanity.
6. You will be utterly convinced that You will succeed because all the others who came before You were not as Enlightened As You Are.
7. The whole world has been waiting for You.
It is quite easy, really’.

And if that intense human love cannot immediately be felt (as in step No. 1 above) then the quickest way to activate it is to go deeply into personal sorrow (which can readily be done just by feeling sad about the whole sorry mess which is the human condition and empathy will take over) until it becomes universal sorrow – the essential pathos of all sentient creatures – whereupon it flips over and turns into compassion ... which passion, upon fully flowering in all its goodness and charity, becomes a radiant love for all suffering beings.

Then move on to step No. 2.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that using the first method would be *heaps* more potent than second because it engages the passions instead of (trying to) systematically undermine them – which, in my personal experience, only takes the wind out of one’s sails.

RICHARD: The actualism method is not about undermining the passions ... on the contrary, it is about directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself) in order to effect a deliberate imitation of the actual, as evidenced in a PCE, so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’.

Such imitative felicity/ innocuity, in conjunction with sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvel, and delight – a state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence whilst being a ‘self’) – and which allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, to operate more and more freely. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest.

All that was required was ‘my’ cheerful, and thus willing, concurrence.

October 08 2005

CO-RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done?

RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness.

(...)

CO-RESPONDENT: I would like to ask, lastly, if we have also reached agreement in our example that an observer, looking comparatively at you and a person still equipped with an identity put in the same situation, would not be able to see any difference between the two reactions to the approaching car.

RICHARD: The illustrative example provided in my initial response was just that (an illustrative example) ... as I neither drive nor own such a vehicle as you mention – I do not even have a driver’s licence – I am unable to answer your query.

CO-RESPONDENT: Let the illustrative example be that you’re not driving, but standing on the road, and that a car is suddenly coming at you with high speed.

RICHARD: As I am not wont to be standing on those black ribbons of death and destruction (whereon a cross between Russian roulette and Vatican roulette gets played out around the clock) – will it suffice to substitute one of those occasions of being about to step onto a pedestrian crossing only to have a pedestrian-expurgator (a pedestrian who has amnesia about having been just that the moment they get behind the wheel) suddenly appear, as if out of nowhere and with both feet firmly planted on the gas-pedal, for your example?

RESPONDENT: A tangential question if I may? Do you avoid those black ribbons of death mainly/entirely as a personal choice (practical reasons, risk assessment, cost, pollution, etc) ...

RICHARD: Yes ... and here is a query which will bring your tangential question back on topic (how things are seen sans the imaginative/intuitive facility) in a trice: as it is far, far safer (in terms of risk to life and limb) to be in the ocean – swimming, diving, surfing, and so on – than on the roads then why would those peoples terrified of sharks not be mega-terrified of motor vehicles?

The same, of course, applies to walking through long grass (venomous reptiles), poking around in odd areas (poisonous arthropods), being in exposed places in a storm (lightning strikes), living in densely foliated/forested areas (wildfires), and so forth.

What price rationality, eh?

October 08 2005

CO-RESPONDENT: Reported saying of the Buddha, in Bahiya Sutta: ‘Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress’. ‘Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound’. Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed: Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed’. [endquote]. I like Buddha, because (some of) what he says has just the right mix of matter-of-fact-ness an poetry. As it all has been said so often, as I think I have found the form of life that makes the problem of life disappear, as I can only thank all the people on this list – and so many other, in fact, the whole universe – there’s nothing left to say. What a lovely holiday.

RESPONDENT: Yeah, me too. When all’s said and done, it really is very simple. It’s about finding out, from experience, whatever it is one needs to know. Then it’s only a matter of being it, doing it, living it. Nice to have ‘met’ you, No 103; you sure livened things up around here!

RICHARD: Somehow I am reminded of the following perspicacious words (deliberately left un-attributed for reasons which may become apparent):

• ‘The pattern is so obvious: get lost and confused, and tired of searching for meaning; give up; find someone who says there’s nothing to find and nothing you can do; believe him; propagate this belief for all you’re worth; pose as Mr Ordinary with no agenda to push – and push that agenda like all get out; anyone who shows any sign of intelligence or independence of mind, latch onto them and thrust them forward as your leader; stand behind them making pathetic taunts at the opposition, and wave the those pompoms and streamers. Go fanboys, go!

Hey [name deleted] and [name deleted], for all the balls you show around here, you might as well start decking yourselves out in short skirts and frilly knickers, and start waving pompoms around. What has happened to you fairies? If Richard said ‘war is a phenomenon as such it is not real’, you guys would fucking flip. *When someone else says it ... not a murmur*.

I can’t help wondering, for all the swagger, do you guys swing any balls at all? For all the balls and integrity you show here you might as well be swinging an empty sack and a patch of fluffy down’. [emphasis added]. (Wednesday 4/05/2005 1:28 PM AEST).


CORRESPONDENT No. 60 (Part Eight)

RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity