Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 11


Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 49

May 13 2009

Re: Hello Richard

RESPONDENT: I want to say greetings. How has life been treating you? Are you well as ever? Of course you are. I can only imagine, which is itself impossible. Alas, there are the two PCEs I have had.

RICHARD: G’day No. 11, And greetings to you.

I have been treating life perfectly, thanks.

If you mean physically well ... as well as to be expected, I guess, for a sexagenarian.

If you mean mentally well ... as excellent as ever.

If you mean emotionally well ... n/a.

Now that you have had those two PCE’s, alas, what are you going to do about them?

Keep them right to the forefront of memory? (As in the number one priority in life).

File them away for safe-keeping? (As in not really a priority right now).

If it is the first option ... there is no need to ask how to have more happen.

If it is the latter option ... there is no point in asking how to have any happen.

Regards, Richard.

May 16 2009

Re: Hello Richard

RESPONDENT: I want to say greetings. How has life been treating you?

Are you well as ever? Of course you are. I can only imagine, which is itself impossible. Alas, there are the two PCEs.

RICHARD: I have had G’day No 11, And greetings to you. I have been treating life perfectly, thanks. If you mean physically well ... as well as to be expected, I guess, for a sexagenarian. If you mean mentally well ... as excellent as ever. If you mean emotionally well ... n/a.

Now that you have had those two PCE’s, alas, what are you going to do about them? Keep them right to the forefront of memory? (As in the number one priority in life). File them away for safe-keeping? (As in not really a priority right now). If it is the first option ... there is no need to ask how to have more happen. If it is the latter option ... there is no point in asking how to have any happen.

RESPONDENT: I mean mentally and physically. It’s good to know that you are. I have been trying to be for myself. But have not been as successful as I would like to be due to physical limitations.

Does actual freedom make you respond as though you were in complete freedom from social graces too?

RICHARD: I must acknowledge I am somewhat nonplussed regarding the nature of that (loaded) question of yours. To explain:

1. I responded first with a salutation. Vis.:

‘salutation: (...) an utterance, form of words, or gesture by which one person greets another on meeting, at the beginning of a letter, etc.’ (Oxford Dictionary).

Here it is again (to save you scrolling upwards):

• [Richard]: ‘G’day No. 11’ [endquote].

2. I then returned your greetings in kind. Vis.:

‘greet: receive or meet with demonstrations of welcome’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Here it is again:

• [Respondent]: ‘I want to say greetings.

• [Richard]: ‘And greetings to you’. [endquote].

3. I did not overlook your very first query (although, not having a victim mentality, my response is not strictly in kind). Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘How has life been treating you?

• [Richard]: ‘I have been treating life perfectly, thanks’. [endquote]

4. I answered your second (albeit a self-answered and codicillary) query with the detail such a contradictory codicil required. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Are you well as ever? Of course you are. I can only imagine, which is itself impossible.

• [Richard]: ‘If you mean physically well ... as well as to be expected, I guess, for a sexagenarian. If you mean mentally well ... as excellent as ever. If you mean emotionally well ... n/a. [endquote].

5. As that second question was the last of your queries I responded succinctly to the unhappiness and/or grief and/or pity and/or concern you expressed regarding the two pure consciousness experiences you referred to. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Alas, there are the two PCEs I have had.

• [Richard]: ‘Now that you have had those two PCE’s, alas, what are you going to do about them? Keep them right to the forefront of memory? (As in the number one priority in life).

File them away for safe-keeping? (As in not really a priority right now). If it is the first option ... there is no need to ask how to have more happen. If it is the latter option ... there is no point in asking how to have any happen’. [endquote].

In doing so I was able to incorporate your eight previous queries since I subscribed (and subscribed solely for one purpose only at that). Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘How do ‘I’ step aside to allow the PCE as you have done? Is there a method that you put into place? (message 5147).

• [Respondent]: ‘What do ‘I’ do as has Richard done to bring about peace on earth to all and sundry? How can I pretend as is recommended in the following example: [snip quote]. What is this garbage? Is he telling us to put on a show of delectation, enjoyment, and all that other drizzle? (message 5167).

• [Respondent]: ‘Don’t you want to be happy and harmless? How can I go from sadness to happiness on my own as if I had control? (message 5168).

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, what do ‘I’ do as you have done to bring peace on earth to all and sundry? (message 5351).

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, is there a method to epitomize the ‘I’? To shrink it if you will? (message 5454).

• [Respondent]: ‘How do I evoke a PCE? Can one know a PCE? (message 5509).

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, can you tell me how I can reach the state otherwise known as the PCE? (message 5511).

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, can you tell me how I can reach the state otherwise known as the PCE? (message 5525).

Put tersely: when (or if) those two PCE’s are the number one priority in your life there is no need to ask how to have more happen.

6. I then expressed benevolence (from ‘bene velle’ meaning ‘wish well’) or good will. Vis.:

‘regards: an expression of goodwill in a letter etc’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Here it is again (to save you scrolling upwards):

• [Richard]: ‘Regards’ [endquote].

7. I then authenticated/ confirmed my post with a familiar (digital) signature. Vis.:

‘signature: ... authenticate or confirm by one’s signature.

Here it is again:

• [Richard]: ‘Richard’ [endquote].

Yet your (presumably) considered response to all the above is to ask me a (loaded) question about me responding as though I were in complete freedom from social graces (per favour an actual freedom from the human condition). Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Does actual freedom make you respond as though you were in complete freedom from social graces too? [endquote].

As a loaded question (such as in ‘have you stopped beating you spouse yet’, for example, or in ‘have you stopped growing horns’, for instance) cannot be easily answered as-is (in a yes/ no manner) you would be well-advised to re-ask your query in way which pre-empts the need for your co-respondent to first un-pack it in order to reply in a simple way.

In the meanwhile here is a query for you: have you heard of the expression ‘frittering away a vital opportunity’?

Regards, Richard.

November 16 2009

Re: Richard I have a question

RESPONDENT: G’day Richard, How do I learn and discover the essence of who ‘I’ am? Thank you.

RICHARD: G’day No. 11, In a word: intuitively (aka feeling yourself out subjectively).

Also, much use can be made of what is known as hypnagogic (pre-dormient) and hypnopompic (post-dormient) states which occur, respectively, in the drowsiness stage of intermediate consciousness preceding sleep or in the semiconscious state of transitional consciousness preceding waking ... of the two the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago found the pre-dormient state the easier to manifest.

However, as it was the hypnopompic state which revealed the essence of who ‘I’ am – the precise nature of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – an anecdote from that period may throw some light on the matter.

I was on a coastal sea voyage, making a northerly passage under sail in a trimaran I then owned, off the north-eastern seaboard of Australia when a storm came up from the south late in the day.

Rather than make a run for the port I was heading for under a storm jib alone (with all that entails) I chose to anchor overnight in the lee of a nearby island until the storm blew itself out. A perusal of the appropriate chart showed a narrow bay, between two jagged coral reefs, with a tiny beach at its head and the notation ‘fair-weather anchorage’. I figured, were the worst to come about, I could beach my yacht (an advantage multihull yachts have over monohull yachts) and weather the storm out thataway.

I negotiated the two jagged coral reefs, dropped anchor several boat-lengths short of what was actually a miniscule beach, and retired below for the evening. I slept soundly, despite the storm howling all about and the yacht pitching and tossing at anchor, only to emerge from deep sleep into a crystal-clear fully-lucid hypnopompic state just after midnight.

(Please note that it was, of course, the ‘I’ who was hypnopompic).

In that crystal-clear fully-lucid hypnopompic state ‘I’ was able to penetrate deeply into ‘myself’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – or, rather, the penetration took place via ‘my’ full acquiescence – and there, in the centre of all the feelings swirling around, the essence of who ‘I’ am lay gorgeously exposed ... not all that unlike a beautiful rosy pearl, nestled coyly amidst the delicate fleshy tissue of its host, in its shimmering nacreous shell.

Except that the essence of who ‘I’ am was a void (and not a ‘thing’ like a pearl is) so the analogy of the void at the centre of whirlpool of water – which is the whirling water in motion – is more apt (albeit not conveying the ethereal radiant beauty of the rosy pearl analogy). Or, in other words, the essence of who ‘I’ am is akin to the calm, still centre of a swirling cyclone/ hurricane/ typhoon.

The swirling air/ whirling water is, of course, all the feelings – all of the emotions/ passions – which ‘I’ am comprised of (as in ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).

*

At that point, as the storm howled even louder and the yacht lurched sluggishly at anchor, I was fully awake in an instant; sitting up and swinging my legs to the edge of the bunk I stood up ... knee-deep in seawater!

Now, when something like that happens in a house one can quickly discern that one’s home is being flooded; on a ship at sea, however, it can mean only one thing ... to wit: one’s home is sinking.

But, all the while I was starting the auxiliary engine (mostly underwater) and hauling in the anchor (getting thoroughly soaked) and somehow driving the water-logged trimaran up onto the miniscule beach (unseeable in the pitch black night) without dashing to pieces on the enclosing jagged reefs, that penetration into the essence of who ‘I’ am became indelibly etched into the memory banks.

And, as ‘I’ knew exactly who ‘I’ was, that very knowledge was in itself empowering (to use the jargon) and thus contributed enormously to ‘my’ eventual demise.

Ain’t life grand!

Regards, Richard.

November 19 2009

Re: It is impossible to locate and destroy ‘I’

RESPONDENT: Is the method more along the lines of locating and walking away from ‘I’s pleasures and needs?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: To reject the ‘I’ as opposed to encouraging it as opposed to making it unwanted?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Is it not absolutely essential to have a PCE and to record its experience before turning back to normal and losing the memory of it in order to measure your normality against the perfection of the PCE experience?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: I would also like Richard to comment on here so that I may pose more questions.

RICHARD: Now here is an idea: how about putting the method into practice (as per the way offered totally free of charge on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) instead of posing yet more questions?

It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): you felt good previously; you are not feeling good now; something happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; you find out what happened; you see how silly that is (no matter what it was); you are once more feeling good.

Regards, Richard.

P.S.: The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless (free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that you have inadvertently wandered off the way. You are thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events.

November 21 2009

Re: It is impossible to locate and destroy ‘I’

RESPONDENT: Is the method more along the lines of locating and walking away from ‘I’s pleasures and needs?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: That doesn’t seem right.

RICHARD: The actual way of becoming free (nowadays known as the actualism method) has nowt to do with [quote] ‘walking away from ‘I’s pleasures and needs’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: I thought the point of actual freedom was to locate and destroy ‘I’.

RICHARD: You did not ask if the method was more along the lines of locating and destroying ‘I’ (you asked about locating and walking away from ‘I’s pleasures and needs).

RESPONDENT: To find ‘I’ in order to get rid of it.

RICHARD: You did not ask if the method was more along the lines finding ‘I’ in order to get rid of it (you asked about locating and walking away from ‘I’s pleasures and needs).

*

RESPONDENT: To reject the ‘I’ as opposed to encouraging it as opposed to making it unwanted?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Then how are we supposed to get rid of the ‘I’?

RICHARD: Who is this [quote] ‘we’ [endquote] which you refer to? I will rearrange your query so as to better fit the reality:

• [example only]: ‘Then how am ‘I’ supposed to get rid of the ‘I’? [end example].

Or, even more to the point, I will rearrange it thisaway:

• [example only]: ‘Then how am ‘I’ supposed to get rid of ‘myself’? [end example].

Simple answer: as no ‘me’ can get rid of ‘itself’ then ‘you’ cannot.

Nor can ‘you’ walk away from ‘your’ pleasures and needs.

Neither can ‘you’ destroy ‘yourself’.

And ‘you’ cannot reject ‘yourself’ either.

However, what ‘you’ can do is become exquisitely aware, each moment again, of the way in which ‘you’ experience ‘yourself’ in regards to ‘your’ situation and circumstances.

To explain: the human animal has not only the capacity to be sentient (aka conscious) but the remarkable ability of simultaneously being aware of being sentient (aka aware of being conscious).

Along with this self-awareness comes agency and thus intelligence (the process of observation, remembrance, comparison/ consideration and the thoughtful implementation of beneficial action).

Hence it is dead easy to feel good each moment again, upon becoming aware ‘you’ are not feeling good right now, by recalling when ‘you’ previously felt good and (knowing that something happened to ‘you’ to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling) finding out what happened; ‘you’ see how silly that is (no matter what it was) and ‘you’ are once more feeling good.

*

RESPONDENT: Is it not absolutely essential to have a PCE and to record its experience before turning back to normal and losing the memory of it in order to measure your normality against the perfection of the PCE experience?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: I thought you said that the memory of a PCE is absolutely essential to achieving actual freedom.

RICHARD: You did not ask if the memory of a PCE is absolutely essential to achieving actual freedom (you asked about measuring your normality against the perfection of the PCE experience).

*

RESPONDENT: I would also like Richard to comment on here so that I may pose more questions.

RICHARD: Now here is an idea: how about putting the method into practice (as per the way offered totally free of charge on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) instead of posing yet more questions?

It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): you felt good previously; you are not feeling good now; something happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; you find out what happened; you see how silly that is (no matter what it was); you are once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: Is it even possible to decide on a whim how we want to feel?

RICHARD: As I never said to decide on a whim – ‘a sudden fancy; a freakish idea; a caprice’ (Oxford Dictionary) – it makes no sense to ask me if such a thing be possible.

RESPONDENT: What if we feel empty inside?

RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): you felt good previously; you are feeling empty inside now; something happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; you find out what happened; you see how silly that is (no matter what it was); you are once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: Also, there is nothing ‘I’ can do to make ‘me’ happy.

RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): ‘you’ felt happy previously; ‘you’ are not feeling happy now; something happened to ‘you’ to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; ‘you’ find out what happened; ‘you’ see how silly that is (no matter what it was); ‘you’ are once more feeling happy.

RESPONDENT: I heard one must push the ‘self-destruct’ button. How do I achieve actual freedom?

RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): you felt good previously; you are not feeling good now; something happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; you find out what happened; you see how silly that is (no matter what it was); you are once more feeling good.

*

RICHARD: P.S.: The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless (free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that you have inadvertently wandered off the way. You are thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events.

RESPONDENT: So are you saying that our feelings are not controlled by us but by everyday events?

RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless (free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that ‘you’ have inadvertently wandered off the way. ‘You’ are thus soon back on track – and all because of everyday events – as the actual way of becoming free (nowadays known as the actualism method) is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): you felt good previously; you are not feeling good now; something happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; you find out what happened; you see how silly that is (no matter what it was); you are once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: That would make a whole lot more sense in my experience.

RICHARD: Now here is an idea: how about putting the method into practice (as per the way offered totally free of charge on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) instead of reading things into my responses which are simply not there and then asking yet more questions?

It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): ‘you’ felt good previously; ‘you’ are not feeling good now; something happened to ‘you’ to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; ‘you’ find out what happened; ‘you’ see how silly that is (no matter what it was); ‘you’ are once more feeling good.

Regards, Richard.

November 21 2009

Re: It is impossible to locate and destroy ‘I’

RESPONDENT: [...] I find your copy pasting the same answer repeatedly to be rather insulting.

RICHARD: As I am incapable of feeling insulted I cannot answer in kind; what I can do, however, is say that I find you reading things into my responses which are simply not there to be quite typical.

RESPONDENT: So I’m not superior in intellect and I can no longer achieve genius (as in profundity and insight) temporarily. I ain’t never seen such insulting behaviour coming from one person.

RICHARD: As I am incapable of feeling insulted I cannot answer in kind; what I can do, however, is say that it is not all that uncommon to see such rudeness (and crudeness further below) coming from another person.

RESPONDENT: What if we feel empty inside?

It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): you felt good previously; you are feeling empty inside now; something happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; you find out what happened; you see how silly that is (no matter what it was); you are once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: What if nothing happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling ...

RICHARD: Speaking for the identity in residence all those years ago: there never was an occasion where nothing happened to ‘him’ to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling – there always was a trigger for the loss and this has been amply corroborated by everyone I have ever spoken with who has put the actualism method into practice.

RESPONDENT: ... but that something must happen in order to trigger that feeling?

RICHARD: The only thing which must happen to trigger that felicitous/ innocuous feeling is to find out what happened to occasion its loss; upon seeing how silly that is (no matter what it was) feeling good is once more the way in which this moment of being alive is experienced.

*

RESPONDENT: [...] So are you saying that our feelings are not controlled by us but by everyday events?

RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless (free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that ‘you’ have inadvertently wandered off the way. ‘You’ are thus soon back on track – and all because of everyday events – as the actual way of becoming free (nowadays known as the actualism method) is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): you felt good previously; you are not feeling good now; something happened to you to end that felicitous/innocuous feeling; you find out what happened; you see how silly that is (no matter what it was); you are once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: Okay I get that you have to be an asshole in order for me to properly get what you’re saying.

RICHARD: As what is important is you properly getting what I am saying then whatever epithets you may or may not feel to be warranted are altogether beside the point. (What you do after having properly got what I am saying is, of course, entirely your business).

*

RESPONDENT: That would make a whole lot more sense in my experience.

RICHARD: Now here is an idea: how about putting the method into practice (as per the way offered totally free of charge on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) instead of reading things into my responses which are simply not there and then asking yet more questions? It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): ‘you’ felt good previously; ‘you’ are not feeling good now; something happened to ‘you’ to end that felicitous/innocuous feeling; ‘you’ find out what happened; ‘you’ see how silly that is (no matter what it was); ‘you’ are once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: Fuckin bitch. Your arrogant stupidity of words is fuckin annoying.

RICHARD: As I am not a copulating female dog – and neither are my words either arrogant or stupid – then whatever it is you are reading into them (which is simply not there) is what has caused your intensified annoyance. ‘Tis a self-inflicted wound, in other words, which you have seen fit to publicly inform me of.

RESPONDENT: Why the fuck do you have to repeat yourself like that?

RICHARD: I could equally ask why you chose to ignore my succinct précis of the actualism method the first time around and, via reading things into my response which are simply not there, continue to ask yet more questions.

What I will do, instead, is point out that you first wrote to me on another forum in September 2003; as you have thus had at least 6 years exposure to the actualism method then any protestations about not being superior in intellect/ no longer achieving genius (as in profundity and insight) simply fall to the wayside for a quite prosaic reason. Vis.:

ignoration: the action of ignoring or disregarding someone or something; the fact of being ignored. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: It’s so pathetic to seek power over the lesser intellect.

RICHARD: As that conclusion of yours is based upon a false premise it is, ipso facto, just as equally false.

Regards Richard.

November 24 2009

Re: It is impossible to locate and destroy ‘I’

RESPONDENT: What if we feel empty inside?

RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): you felt good previously; you are feeling empty inside now; something happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; you find out what happened; you see how silly that is (no matter what it was); you are once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: What if nothing happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling ...

RICHARD: Speaking for the identity in residence all those years ago: there never was an occasion where nothing happened to ‘him’ to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling – there always was a trigger for the loss – and this has been amply corroborated by everyone I have ever spoken with who has put the actualism method into practice.

RESPONDENT: Suppose I feel bad for some reason. Isn’t the traditional way to fix the situation as opposed to seeing how silly it is?

RICHARD: The traditional way may take many forms (such as philosophising, psychologising, analysing, for instance) but never something so simple as seeing how silly it is, as opposed to sensible, to spend the only moment of ever actually being alive – this moment – feeling miserable or malicious (or antidotally loving and compassionate) when it is so easy to be happy and harmless.

The past, although it was actual whilst it was happening, is not actual now; the future, although it will be actual when it is happening, is not actual now; only this moment is actual.

The exquisite attention engendered, by the exclusive focus upon how this moment is being experienced, will reveal via felicitous/ innocuous and thus naïve sensuosity that this moment has no duration in actuality – it is never not this moment – which means that time, being thus eternal, does not move.

There is a vast stillness here in this actual world (the sensate world).

RESPONDENT: How does the mere seeing how silly it is make us happy once again?

RICHARD: Because nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth getting malicious or miserable about (let alone compensatingly loving and compassionate) when the realisation that this moment is the only one there ever is becomes the actuality it already always is.

To explain: just as space is an arena for objects to exist in so too is time an arena (so to speak) for events to occur; just as the arena called space does not move neither does the arena (so too speak) called time move, either.

A clock (originally a primitive sundial) measures the rate of rotation of planet earth on its axis; a calendar measures the rate of its orbit around its star (the sun); neither is a measure of time as time eternally stands still.

Is it not silly to be malicious/ miserable (or counteractively loving/ compassionate) where felicity/ innocuity is eternally available?

Is it not sensible to be felicitous/ innocuous instead?

RESPONDENT: ... but that something must happen in order to trigger that feeling?

RICHARD: The only thing which must happen to trigger that felicitous/ innocuous feeling is to find out what happened to occasion its loss; upon seeing how silly that is (no matter what it was) feeling good is once more the way in which this moment of being alive is experienced.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that thought must be applied in order to feel good again?

RICHARD: No, or at least not necessarily, as the very awareness that the only moment of ever being alive is being frittered away in a malicious and/ or miserable way (or in a remedially loving and/or compassionate way) will usually, and soon does, do the trick.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t the usual path to fix it by taking action then be gone our merry way?

RICHARD: If you are really capable of being gone your [quote] ‘merry way’ [endquote], each moment again, by fixing it through taking action as per the usual path then why on earth are you writing to me, asking question after question, instead of just going away and doing that?

RESPONDENT: If we don’t have the proper tools to fix the situation by taking action then no amount of thought can be applied to remedy the feeling.

RICHARD: Whereas the very seeing of how silly it is (no matter what it may be) can absent the feeling in the very instant of that seeing.

RESPONDENT: Aren’t feelings determined by the circumstances and not the thoughts?

RICHARD: All feelings are determined by the identity (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).

Put simply: your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands ... and in your hands alone.

Regards, Richard.

November 25 2009

Re: It is impossible to locate and destroy ‘I’

RESPONDENT: What if we feel empty inside?

RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): you felt good previously; you are feeling empty inside now; something happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; you find out what happened; you see how silly that is (no matter what it was); you are once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: What if nothing happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling ...

RICHARD: Speaking for the identity in residence all those years ago: there never was an occasion where nothing happened to ‘him’ to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling – there always was a trigger for the loss and this has been amply corroborated by everyone I have ever spoken with who has put the actualism method into practice.

RESPONDENT: Suppose I feel bad for some reason. Isn’t the traditional way to fix the situation as opposed to seeing how silly it is?

RICHARD: The traditional way may take many forms (such as philosophising, psychologising, analysing, for instance) but never something so simple as seeing how silly it is, as opposed to sensible, to spend the only moment of ever actually being alive – this moment – feeling miserable or malicious (or antidotally loving and compassionate) when it is so easy to be happy and harmless.

RESPONDENT: Sometimes the feeling inside persists such that it is rendered undetectable and one is unable to compare and contrast it with any other feeling at any other time.

RICHARD: I need more information before responding to the remainder of your post as it just does not make sense that you could know, on the one hand, how the feeling inside is persisting yet, on the other hand, say that it is undetectable ... so undetectable, in fact, as for you to be unable to compare and contrast it to any other feeling at any other time.

As it is four days, now, since you first wrote about feeling empty inside – that date-stamp is Nov 20, 2009 and this post is stamped as Nov 24, 2009 – I will start from that.

1.Have you been feeling empty inside for these past four days?

2.If not, when did you stop feeling empty inside (was it the first, second, third or fourth day)?

3.What happened just prior to you no longer feeling empty inside?

*

1.If you are still feeling empty inside, after these last four days, for how long before that were you feeling empty inside for (was it hours or days)?

2.Having located when you started feeling empty inside what were you feeling prior to feeling empty inside?

3.What happened to end that feeling (prior to feeling empty inside) so as to bring about feeling empty inside?

Regards, Richard.

November 25 2009

Re: It is impossible to locate and destroy ‘I’

RESPONDENT: What if we feel empty inside?

RICHARD: [...] As it is four days, now, since you first wrote about feeling empty inside – that date-stamp is Nov 20, 2009 and this post is stamped as Nov 24, 2009 – I will start from that.

1. Have you been feeling empty inside for these past four days?

2. If not, when did you stop feeling empty inside (was it the first, second, third or fourth day)?

3. What happened just prior to you no longer feeling empty inside?

*

1. If you are still feeling empty inside, after these last four days, for how long before that were you feeling empty inside for (was it hours or days)?

2. Having located when you started feeling empty inside what were you feeling prior to feeling empty inside?

3. What happened to end that feeling (prior to feeling empty inside) so as to bring about feeling empty inside?

RESPONDENT: When I say feeling empty inside I mean life feels regular, uneventful. And that’s the fact of it to some extent. I have felt regular like this all my life with the occasional episodes of fear, aggression, nurture, and desire. But this current feeling I have is of regularity. There seems to be a majority feeling of majority experience. And it seems so persistent such that I cannot compare and contrast it to another feeling at another time because it is the majority experience. I can’t seem to get rid of the feeling because it is the essence of who ‘I’ am – a regular Joe.

I cannot even detect it as a feeling. We are dealing with non-physical apparitions so it is difficult to put into words. But I have just applied your method of seeing the silliness of sadness and it worked. Now I’m back to feeling regular. What is the difference between this regular feeling and felicity? How do I know when I am at the level of felicity?

RICHARD: Given you experienced the efficacy of how seeing the silliness of sadness absented that feeling you now have the beginnings of at least some degree of influence over how you feel each moment again; instead of being a victim of your own feelings (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) you have the beginnings of eventually having a handle on what makes you tick, each moment again, as you go about your everyday life. (The method works best in your every day life as that is where all the now-habituated emotional/ passional reactions were first set in place; every single event you need to go through to bring those habituated emotional/ passional reactions to the bright light of awareness will happen in everyday life; you do not need to go looking for trouble as sufficient trouble to do the trick occurs in everyday life anyway).

Now, as to the current feeling of regularity/ the majority experience of being a regular person, all you need to do is acknowledge what you have already said ... to wit: the feeling of regularity does have irregularities to it (albeit the really obvious ones of fear, aggression, nurture and desire). Plus, of course, the sadness of recent absentia.

By virtue of the fact you now have the beginnings of at least some degree of influence, over how you feel each moment again, your own interest in how you experience yourself can start to quicken (there being nothing which succeeds like success) and the more your own interest is piqued the more your awareness will increase of its own accord; eventually you can become almost eager to see what else will show up under the bright light of awareness.

So, starting where you are at (always the best place to start from), you can become aware of the less obvious irregularities in your daily feeling of regularity/ the majority experience of being a regular person, such as feeling slightly better than before until you start to recognise and acknowledge each moment of feeling somewhat better; those moments provide a base for you to build upon until you can say to yourself (and anyone who may be listening) that you are feeling good. (Feeling good is a generic term for a general feeling of well-being).

And this is where the fun begins: the aim is to enjoy and appreciate being alive each moment again; when you are feeling good then enjoy and appreciate feeling good; such enjoyment and appreciation is the way in which you consolidate what you have established (feeling good) and sets up an automatic signalling device (a flashing red light as it were) to let you know of the slightest diminishment of feeling good; as it is easier to remain feeling good than having to claw your way back out of feeling bad (a general feeling of ill-being) you have a vested interest in remaining attentive all the while you are feeling good.

The more you feel good the more feeling good happens; the more feeling good happens the better you feel; the better you feel the more feeling better gets ... and so on and so on ... gradually increasing ever-incrementally until one day you can get to the stage the identity in residence all those years ago got to where ‘he’ would say how ‘he’ had to invent a new word (‘bester’) because how on earth could best keep on getting better.

(Be warned: the sky is not the limit).

Regards, Richard.

November 27 2009

Re: It is impossible to locate and destroy ‘I’

RICHARD: [...]

RESPONDENT: What if we feel empty inside?

RICHARD: [...]

RESPONDENT: What if nothing happened to you to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling ...

RICHARD: [...]

RESPONDENT: Suppose I feel bad for some reason. Isn’t the traditional way to fix the situation as opposed to seeing how silly it is?

RICHARD: [...]

RESPONDENT: Sometimes the feeling inside persists such that it is rendered undetectable and one is unable to compare and contrast it with any other feeling at any other time.

RICHARD: [...]

RESPONDENT: When I say feeling empty inside I mean life feels regular, uneventful. And that’s the fact of it to some extent. I have felt regular like this all my life with the occasional episodes of fear, aggression, nurture, and desire. But this current feeling I have is of regularity. There seems to be a majority feeling of majority experience. And it seems so persistent such that I cannot compare and contrast it to another feeling at another time because it is the majority experience.

RICHARD: [...]

RESPONDENT: I can’t seem to get rid of the feeling because it is the essence of who ‘I’ am – a regular Joe. I cannot even detect it as a feeling. We are dealing with non-physical apparitions so it is difficult to put into words. But I have just applied your method of seeing the silliness of sadness and it worked. Now I’m back to feeling regular. What is the difference between this regular feeling and felicity? How do I know when I am at the level of felicity?

RICHARD: [...]

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that I can practice feeling content (a better word than regular) on a daily basis?

RICHARD: I have snipped my above responses as they were getting in the way of all your ‘What if ...’ and ‘Suppose I ...’ questions.

Also, as you say the word ‘content’ is better than the word ‘regular’ then this is what the information you provided above now looks like:

• [example only]: ‘When I say feeling empty inside I mean life feels content, uneventful. And that’s the fact of it to some extent. I have felt content like this all my life with the occasional episodes of fear, aggression, nurture, and desire.

But this current feeling I have is of contentment. There seems to be a majority feeling of majority experience. And it seems so persistent such that I cannot compare and contrast it to another feeling at another time because it is the majority experience. I can’t seem to get rid of the feeling because it is the essence of who ‘I’ am – a content Joe. I cannot even detect it as a feeling. We are dealing with non-physical apparitions so it is difficult to put into words. But I have just applied your method of seeing the silliness of sadness and it worked.

Now I’m back to feeling content. [end example].

I will snip my response to your ‘Are you saying ...’ question in advance (so as to save doing it later on). Vis.:

• [Richard]: [...]

• [Respondent]: Because not much happens to me on a daily basis such that I always feel contentment.

• [Richard]: [...]

• [Respondent]: I cannot seem to find any irregularities on a daily basis.

• [Richard]: [...]

• [Respondent]: Or even a weekly basis for that matter.

• [Richard]: [...]

• [Respondent]: Suppose I’m ...

• [Richard]: [...]

Regards, Richard.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: For what it is worth: only a person having had a frontal leucotome/a transorbital lobotomy could have no irregularities in mood on a daily basis/a weekly basis (and even then that would be questionable).

November 28 2009

Re: Third ‘wife’

RICHARD: [...] despite chemical weapons being available for hundreds of years, biological weapons for more than a hundred years and radioactive weapons for over half a century, human beings have not destroyed every man woman and child on the planet.

RESPONDENT No. 17: [...] To me it’s a matter of risk.

RICHARD: Hmm ... as you were a gambler you would probably still be knowledgeable about odds: what are the odds, then, that something, which has never ever occurred in human history, will all-of-a-sudden happen at some particular date during the remainder of your natural life?

And it is worth thinking about, instead of just saying fifty/ fifty as in coin tosses, as there is no precedent to lay the odds against (as there is with coin tosses) of it already have occurred previously. (In other words, it is as if the coin being tossed, up until this present day, has had ‘heads’ on both sides for all we know).

Also, the risk factor must include that which does have a precedent ... to wit: the historical fact that, despite chemical weapons being available for hundreds of years, biological weapons for more than a hundred years and radioactive weapons for over half a century, human beings have not destroyed every man, woman and child on the planet.

RESPONDENT: [...] I can tell you that the odds of achieving actual freedom, to make the identity disappear completely, is next to impossible.

RICHARD: G’day No. 11, If, as you say, the odds of achieving actual freedom are next to impossible then it implies that the odds of human beings destroying every man, woman and child on the planet are actually impossible as there is a precedent for the former and no precedent whatsoever for the latter.

Be that as it may be ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago had no precedent to assure ‘him’ it was possible yet ‘he’ was entirely confident – with the certainty pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) confer that it be ‘his’ destiny to manumit the body ‘he’ held in bondage.

Thus ‘he’ never had any doubt – ‘he’ was freed of doubt by that very absence of choice – an actual freedom was possible, in ‘his’ lifetime, for this flesh and blood body. (Any doubt comes from choice; for most people choice implies freedom – the freedom to chose – yet as choice means options there is always doubt; an actual freedom comes about by there being no choice whatsoever ... hence the word destiny).

I only mention this as you have made it clear, both in your postings prior to that frontal leucotome/ transorbital lobotomy email and after it, that you want your path to be the short-cut path – not via a virtual freedom – which means you have no other option but to invoke destiny.

However (and here comes the ‘but’ and it is a big one), your destiny cannot be invoked as long as you cling to an attitude such as the following:

• [Richard]: ‘The very fact of the propinquity of death became a pivotal element in taking the first step on the wide and wondrous path, back in 1981, when a neighbouring farmer’s fourteen-year old son was killed in a car crash. A woman from another farm, whilst telling me all about it, bemoaned the fact that his future as a potential concert-pianist was tragically cut short (quite a normal observation).

What struck me rigid for the nonce was the more valid fact that this boy had virtually missed-out on a normal childhood through being forced, by well-meaning parents of course, into endless hours of piano-practice while his siblings and peers were outside playing games (as children are wont to do). And now he was dead – it had all been for naught – and he would never, ever be able to come out and play.

From that moment on death was my constant companion; an ever-present reminder that to die without having ever lived fully as in totally fulfilled, completely satisfied, utterly content – was such a waste of a life.

I would say to people, then, that were I to live that which the PCE’s had made apparent – as in an irrevocable permanency – for only five minutes I would then happily die. That is how precious an actual freedom from the human condition is.

• [Respondent]: No, an actual freedom is not that precious. (message 7660).

Regards, Richard.

November 29 2009

Re: Third ‘wife’

RICHARD: [...] you have made it clear, both in your postings prior to that frontal leucotome/ transorbital lobotomy email and after it, that you want your path to be the short-cut path – not via a virtual freedom – which means you have no other option but to invoke destiny.

RESPONDENT: It’s not so much that I don’t want to do the necessary work it’s just that I cannot detect ‘me’ and thus I don’t have a grasp of this unreal being. It is like dealing with an invisible being. Thus how do I detect ‘me’? Can you give an example of what you did to detect ‘you’ on a regular basis before your ultimate demise?

RESPONDENT No. 37: I had posted earlier that for someone who doesn’t have meditation background, it will be very hard to follow Actualism.

RESPONDENT: I see what you mean.

RICHARD: As to [quote] ‘follow’ [endquote] actualism is to put what is nowadays known as the actualism method into practice – the way to an actual freedom first devised and put into practice in 1981 by the identity then inhabiting this flesh and blood body it is to your advantage to re-read the following exchange:

• [Respondent No. 37]: I approach meditation as a help to shine bright light of awareness/ attention nothing more than that. You had a different approach to it.

• [Richard]: I have never, ever meditated. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any (...)’.

Now, as I am the only person thus far to have obtained the full benefit of the actualism method then how do you equate that with what you replied ‘I see what you mean’ to? Furthermore, do you now comprehend how such discrediting tactics work? More to the point, however, are you aware of just what type of meditation it is which your co-respondent is promoting?

*

RESPONDENT No. 37: [...] I would suggest that you read this book ‘Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life’ by Jon Kabat-Zinn. [...]

RESPONDENT: Thanks for that link to the book. I’ll be sure to check it out.

RICHARD: Not surprisingly, that book fits into the self-help/ personal growth genre (the province of pop-psychology or pop-therapy) and, having been around since 1993, has many online reviews. As one such review begins with ‘I read this book after listening to Jon Kabat-Zinn on Oprah’s radio program ...’ I wonder if you are familiar with the term ‘The Oprahfication of America’ (as in the ‘no-fault moral universe of non-judgmentalism’)?

For instance, an editorial review depicts the book as being about ‘... living fully in the present, observing ourselves, our feeling, others and our surroundings without judging them’. Indeed, on page 88 Mr. Jon Kabat-Zinn writes: ‘Meditation is a Way of being, a Way of living, a Way of listening, a Way of walking along the path of life and being in harmony with things as they are’. (As ‘things as they are’ of course includes wars, murders, rapes, tortures, domestic violence, child abuse, sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide the lie of being non-judgmental is readily exposed for those with the eyes to see).

So, how is one to achieve this sleight-of-hand? Simple: retreat from it all by going within to find your ‘soul path, a path with heart’ (page xvi). Or, even more to the point, on page 96 he says ‘Dwelling inwardly for extended periods, we come to know something of the poverty of always looking outside ourselves for happiness, understanding, and wisdom’.

In regards to the ever-present problem of promoting a buddhistic mindfulness ‘dwelling inwardly for extended periods’ practice in a non-spiritual/ non-mystical way another editorial review says ‘The idea that meditation is ‘spiritual’ is often confusing to people, Kabat-Zinn writes; he prefers to think of it as what you might call a workout for your consciousness’. Regarding this ‘workout for your consciousness’ a customer reviewer writes ‘I read a lot of books on meditation, yoga, and buddhism, and this book doesn’t hold up to any of them’. Another one says ‘... because I have some familiarity with eastern thought I really didn’t connect with much in this book’.

I could go on, and on, but I will leave you with what Mr. Jon Kabat-Zinn has to say on that topic instead: on page 264 he opines that ‘meditation can be a profound path for developing oneself, for refining one’s perceptions, one’s views, one’s consciousness, but, to my mind, the vocabulary of spirituality creates more practical problems than it solves’. And thus do the dilettantes spread the sickness of the east.

Regards, Richard.

November 30 2009

Re: Third ‘wife’

RESPONDENT No. 37: I had posted earlier that for someone who doesn’t have meditation background, it will be very hard to follow Actualism.

RESPONDENT: I see what you mean.

RICHARD: As to [quote] ‘follow’ [endquote] actualism is to put what is nowadays known as the actualism method into practice the way to an actual freedom first devised and put into practice in 1981 by the identity then inhabiting this flesh and blood body – it is to your advantage to re-read the following exchange:

• [Respondent No. 37]: I approach meditation as a help to shine bright light of awareness/ attention nothing more than that. You had a different approach to it.

• [Richard]: I have never, ever meditated. Vis.: [Richard]: ‘I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any (...)’.

Now, as I am the only person thus far to have obtained the full benefit of the actualism method then how do you equate that with what you replied ‘I see what you mean’ to? Furthermore, do you now comprehend how such discrediting tactics work? More to the point, however, are you aware of just what type of meditation it is which your co-respondent is promoting?

RESPONDENT: [...] Richard, I find your criticism of the book to be rather presumptuous.

RICHARD: And I find your avoidance of my question, regarding you being able to see what your co-respondent means (about it being very hard for someone without a meditation back-ground to practice the actualism method), to be rather obvious ... patently obvious, in fact.

Consequently, if you could answer that – the first of my three queries just above – it would be most appreciated as it has got me beat how come (were that discrediting tactic to have been valid that is) I am the only person thus far to have obtained the full benefit of the actualism method ... despite having neither a meditation background nor finding the actualism way hard (let alone very hard).

It was, and still is of course, very simple ... and dead easy.

RESPONDENT: I have yet to get an answer for how to detect ‘I’ ...

RICHARD: As you got an answer for your multiple queries on how can ‘you’ get rid of the ‘I’, how can ‘you’ walk away from ‘your’ pleasures and needs, how can ‘you’ destroy ‘yourself’ and how can ‘you’ reject ‘yourself’ then surely you can figure that one out for yourself?

No? Simple answer: as no ‘I’ can detect ‘itself’ then ‘you’ can not, either.

Nor can ‘you’ get rid of ‘yourself’.

Neither can ‘you’ walk away from ‘your’ pleasures and needs.

And ‘you’ cannot destroy ‘yourself’, either.

Plus, of course, ‘you’ cannot reject ‘yourself’.

Nevertheless, what ‘you’ can do is become exquisitely aware, each moment again, of the way in which ‘you’ experience ‘yourself’ in regards to ‘your’ situation and circumstances.

However, as that requires you actually putting the actualism method into practice – something you are yet to do – rather than asking me all those endless ‘What if ...’, ‘How can I ...’ and ‘Suppose I ...’ type of questions I will be refraining from reposting my most succinct précis of it for the umpteenth time around.

RESPONDENT: ... so I don’t see why you have to attack the book.

RICHARD: I did not attack the book as it is such a watered-down version of misrepresentations about a stripped-of-its-mysticism buddhistic mindfulness practice that there is nothing remotely resembling the jhana (aka meditation) legacy of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan to have a go at.

(Put differently: in order to attack there does have to be something of substance to be targeted).

My critique was based solidly on both the contents and general thrust of the book – with two customer review part-quotes simply for some third-party affirmation – as was demonstrated by the referenced by page-number quotes from the author which I provided as textual evidence.

RESPONDENT: This could just be my own misinterpretation of your words though. I don’t want to sound unsure of myself so I’ll end here.

RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well as to adjudge a researched critique as being an attack is to display a quite remarkable ignorance of both the validity of and necessity for continued freedom of speech. This is, after all, a discussion forum and attempts to stifle discussion – a form of covert censorship – by condemning well-referenced critiques (which are thus easier able to be critiqued in return) as being something ... um ... apparently not-nice in your eyes is a matter to be on the alert for.

Regards, Richard.

December 02 2009

Walking Meditation viv-a-vis The Affections

RICHARD: The main point of this particular email exchange of mine was to explicate how meditative practices do not result in a state sans the affections which can be lived in everyday life (as in living/ breathing, eating/ drinking, urinating/ defecating, walking/talking, typing emails, and so on and so forth) as the affective faculty remains in situ – albeit somewhat rarefied – in nibbana.

RESPONDENT No. 37: Regarding meditative practices not resulting in a state sans the affections which can be lived in everyday life, one is not supposed to be doing sitting meditation only. One does walking meditation also so as to bring the meditation into everyday life (as in living/ breathing, eating/ drinking, urinating/ defecating, walking/ talking, typing emails, and so on and so forth). Though it is not easy to bring that into everyday life easily ...

RICHARD: I have cut your email short at this point as you chose to go on with yet another one of your by-now typical sprays about actualism, actualists and that phantom persona whom you feel, and thus think, must be directing this flesh and blood body to type these words. (Incidentally, none of your cheap shots ever hit me because that phantom you are aiming them at has no existence outside of your psyche; all you do is continue to make an even greater fool of yourself in public by your persistence in doing so).

RESPONDENT No. 37: Your flesh and blood body is made of chicken flesh so as to make every effort to protect your ‘pioneer’ flesh and blood body. In order to save you from future pain, I would say it myself that I am a fool.

RICHARD: The email which you isolated the above paragraph of mine out of, plus the others on that particular theme, clearly explicate not only how the affective faculty remains in situ upon spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment but how the only way it ever becomes inoperative, then, is upon the cessation of consciousness (along with mobility, sensation and thought) itself.

As my co-respondent, in that exchange which you isolated the above paragraph of mine out of, has not only confirmed how the affective faculty remains in situ but that a PCE (in actualism terminology) is not one iota short of that of cessation, you are obviously way, way out of your depth as your [quote] ‘walking meditation’ [endquote] requires consciousness for that mobility to take place. Not to mention for typing emails.

Put graphically: you are out and about playing with the big girls and boys, now, and you do really need to know your stuff in order to meaningfully join in the conversations at the deep end of the pool.

What I would suggest is that you stop thrashing and splashing about – flailing and railing to no effect whatsoever – and head back to the shallow end where you can put your feet down, get something solid to stand on, take a deep breath, and have a good look around before reaching out for your keyboard once more.

‘Tis only a suggestion, of course, as it is entirely your prerogative to continue making a public spectacle of yourself, if you so wish, and impressing no one other than your own self with your futile attempts to single-handedly discredit actualism.

Others before you have tried, and failed, again and again.

Being actual it is here to stay and, simply because it is fact and not fantasy, there is nowt you or anyone else can do to affect that actuality one single bit.

RESPONDENT No. 37: Which phantom identity are you trying to hit when you said above? The donkey?

It is utterly weird, to the point of being totally bizarre, that actual happiness and harmlessness – peace-on-earth in this lifetime – being made public knowledge would attract such an adversarial attitude.

RESPONDENT No. 37: It is your ability to see phantoms which let you conclude my communications as adversarial. You are acting like a donkey and making a fool of yourself. ‘Tis only a suggestion, but you should try to have some guts and come out in real life with your Actualism rather than trying it out through words. I will predict once again that you will never do that, you are too chicken for that.

RESPONDENT: Richard, Is the purpose of life an arbitrary invention?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Or is the purpose of life to get action?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: To explore and to discover if you will.

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: P.S. I think [No. 37] just burned you.

RICHARD: Not being familiar with that expression a quick online search returned these two descriptions:

• burned (slang): an intense non-physical sting, as left by an effective insult; (transitive, slang) to insult or defeat. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/burn).

• burn – slang: to disrespect someone; real life example:

Matt: This hat makes me feel ...

Chelsea: Homosexual?

Jamie: Chelsea just burned you. (neoseeker.com/forums/index.php?fn=alert_mod&m=25127286).

I will itemise all of my co-respondent’s words, which you opine just burned me, simply for the sake of easy referral. Vis.:

01. Your flesh and blood body is made of chicken flesh ...

02. ... so as to make every effort to protect your ‘pioneer’ flesh and blood body.

03. In order to save you from future pain ...

04. ... I would say it myself that I am a fool.

05. Which phantom identity are you trying to hit when you said above?

06. The donkey?

07. It is your ability to see phantoms ...

08. ... which let you conclude my communications as adversarial.

09. You are acting like a donkey ...

10. ... and making a fool of yourself.

11. ‘Tis only a suggestion, but you should try to have some guts ...

12. ... and come out in real life with your Actualism ...

13. ... rather than trying it out through words.

14. I will predict once again that you will never do that ...

15. ... you are too chicken for that.

And that is it, the sum total of his reply to my response to the topic which he introduced, into a discussion with another person, about walking meditation vis-à-vis the affections. Vis:

• [Respondent No. 37]: Regarding meditative practices not resulting in a state sans the affections which can be lived in everyday life, one is not supposed to be doing sitting meditation only. One does walking meditation also [...].

Be that as it may be ... if you could provide an aptly numbered explanation as why you think any or all of those words just burned me (whatever that means) it would be most appreciated because what is patently obvious at first glance is:

01. a petty schoolyard taunt.

02. automorphism.

03. a projection.

04. smart-aleckry.

05. a puerile schoolboy trick.

06. insincere ‘self’-effacement.

07. automorphism again.

08. ignoration.

09. a petty schoolyard taunt.

10. another a puerile schoolboy trick.

11. a puerile schoolboy trick + another a petty schoolyard taunt.

12. ignoration.

13. more ignoration.

14. ‘self’-promotion.

15. a final petty schoolyard taunt.

RESPONDENT: What do you have to come back with?

RICHARD: As there does have to be something of substance, in order to respond meaningfully, perhaps you could also provide an aptly numbered explanation as to where there is something substantial for me to respond meaningfully to?

When doing do please remember that the topic is walking meditation, vis-à-vis the affections, in the context of needing to know one’s stuff when discussing both the 8th jhana and the nirodh (which is ‘higher than the eighth jhana’ according to Mr. Charles Tart and ‘beyond the nirvana’ according to Mr. Alan Hefner and which ‘cannot become a permanent structure’ according to Mr. Ken Wilber, as it is ‘always a temporary state’ according to Mr. Robert Forman, else it would become a type of ‘irreversible nirodh, or permanent formless cessation’).

Over to you.

Regards, Richard.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: It could be advantageous to put some thought into your reply as this may very well be the last email of yours I will be responding to.

December 03 2009

Re: Walking Meditation viv-a-vis The Affections

RICHARD to No. 37: [...] Simply because both an actual and a virtual freedom from the human condition are such a radical departure from anything preceding it the publication of the long-awaited discovery of the meaning-of-life and peace-on-earth means that any and all contemporaneous words – both written and recorded – will be increasingly subject to intense public scrutiny as the years go by. Richard to No. 37, 29 November 2009, Footnote (Tool Tip)

RESPONDENT: [...] Richard, Is the purpose of life an arbitrary invention?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Okay.

*

RESPONDENT: Or is the purpose of life to get action?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Okay.

*

RESPONDENT: To explore and to discover if you will.

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Okay.

*

RESPONDENT: SO then what do you think is the purpose of life?

RICHARD: I must acknowledge how I just sat here, simply looking at your query, as the implications and ramifications of the full extent of your ignoration became obvious.

For what is the point of responding to someone – someone who first wrote to me over six years ago – who has all that while ignored the very raison d’être for The Actual Freedom Trust’s web site?

To explain: the question of the meaning of life has been the greatest quest of all time, for philosophers and metaphysicians alike, and even artists (such as Mr. Paul Gauguin for instance) have pondered that hoary puzzle: D’où venons nous? Que sommes-nous? Où allons-nous? (Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?).

But what it took was a naïve boy from the farm to discover the answer to that most basic question of the millenniums: does life have significance (aka meaning) or is it all just a chance, random event in an empty (meaningless) universe?

The theologians, on the one hand, maintained that their god gave life meaning (purpose) – albeit enigmatically and from behind a veil – and the existentialists, on the other hand, argued that humans had to give life meaning (reason) else the only true option be suicide.

Yet all the while the actual meaning of life is already always out in the open, plain to view for those with the eyes to see, as it has never been hidden and never will be. I have written of this on umpteen occasions, of course, and here is one instance:

• [Richard]: ‘Where there are no affections/ no identity this actual world is experienced directly: what one is, as a flesh and blood body only, is this physical universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude/ absoluteness.

And this is truly wonderful’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 110a, 25 May 2006).

Here is another version:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) life is neither a random, chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe (the materialist experience) nor the deliberate, determined expression of a malicious/ loving and sorrowful/ compassionate divinity (the spiritualist experience). Rather it is due to the inevitable emergence of its intrinsic character that this physical universe is spontaneously personifying itself as a sensate, reflective and apperceptively aware human being: as such the universe is stunningly conscious of its own infinitude’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List at Large, 10 Apr 2001)

Lastly, and relating to the wording of your query (‘the purpose of life’), the following is quite explicatory:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, you have written somewhere that life is neither purposeful nor purposeless. Could you explain that?

• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... that is a spiritualist/ materialist dichotomy which has no existence in actuality.

The very notion of purpose presupposes a purposer – ‘a person who purposes something; esp. a person who has a particular object or intention’ (Oxford Dictionary) and the entire purposeful/ purposeless debate betwixt spiritualists and materialists revolves around spiritualists contending that their god/ goddess (an immaterial creative being, force, or energy, by whatever name) has a purpose for creating/ manifesting the universe and that life without such a timeless and spaceless and formless entity in it means that everything is purposeless ... which, according to the Oxford Dictionary, means ‘done or made without purpose or design; having no purpose, plan, or aim’.

The direct experience of infinitude – ‘a boundless expanse; an unlimited time’ (Oxford Dictionary) – here in this actual world renders both notions null and void ... it is a spiritualist/ materialist dichotomy which has no existence in actuality.

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I can clearly and vividly remember a few PCE’s and I also remember thinking during those PCE’s that this (that) was the only moment I could experience being alive and that there wasn’t any inherent meaning in life.

• [Richard]: ‘What the phrase ‘meaning in life’ more generally refers to – rather than being equated with purposeful/ purposeless – when asking whether there is any is significance ... as in whether life has any significance or whether it of no consequence.

Needless is it to add that life is bursting with significance in actuality?

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Meaning is to be found in experiencing each moment to its fullest and clearly experiencing the perfection inherent to the universe.

• [Richard]: ‘Here in this actual world, where it is never not this moment (time has no duration in actuality), life is intrinsically meaningful due to that very perfection’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No.118, 16 Jun 2006)

*

RESPONDENT: P.S. I think [No. 37] just burned you.

RICHARD: Not being familiar with that expression a quick online search returned these two descriptions:

burned (slang): an intense non-physical sting, as left by an effective insult; (transitive, slang) to insult or defeat.

burn – slang: to disrespect someone; real life example:

Matt: This hat makes me feel ... Chelsea: Homosexual?

Jamie: Chelsea just burned you. [...].

I will itemise all of my co-respondent’s words, which you opine just burned me, simply for the sake of easy referral:

01. ‘Your flesh and blood body is made of chicken flesh ...’.

RESPONDENT: I believe he just called you chicken. Not that that matters much since you’re oblivious to insults.

RICHARD: As that expression means ‘insult’ to you (and not ‘defeat’ or ‘disrespect’) then it would appear that all it takes for somebody to be burned, according to you, is for some miscreant or malcontent to revert to a petty schoolboy taunt (in lieu of a sensible, rational, judicious and practical response), eh?

*

RESPONDENT: What do you have to come back with?

RICHARD: As there does have to be something of substance, in order to respond meaningfully, perhaps you could also provide an aptly numbered explanation as to where there is something substantial for me to respond meaningfully to?

When doing do please remember that the topic is walking meditation, vis-à-vis the affections, in the context of needing to know one’s stuff when discussing both the 8th jhana and the nirodh (which is ‘higher than the eighth jhana’ according to Mr. Charles Tart and ‘beyond the nirvana’ according to Mr. Alan Hefner and which ‘cannot become a permanent structure’ according to Mr. Ken Wilber, as it is ‘always a temporary state’ according to Mr. Robert Forman, else it would become a type of ‘irreversible nirodh, or permanent formless cessation’).

Over to you.

P.S.: It could be advantageous to put some thought into your reply as this may very well be the last email of yours I will be responding to.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I feel that I’m not sober minded enough to give an intelligent response so I’ll have to come back sometime in the future when I’m able to. Hopefully.

RICHARD: I see ... just remember that what you wanted to know was what it is that I have [quote] ‘to come back with’ [endquote] in response to what you have now clarified as being insults ... and, specifically, insults of a puerile schoolyard nature.

As all I am looking for, from you, is where something of substance is to be found amongst my co-respondent’s words – pertaining to the context he introduced of course – so as to respond meaningfully to (what you call ‘come back with’ further above) then what is the prognosis for sobriety returning sooner (such as to facilitate your intelligence) rather than later?

Oh, and here they are again, itemised simply for the sake of easy referral, for your convenience:

01. Your flesh and blood body is made of chicken flesh ...

02. ... so as to make every effort to protect your ‘pioneer’ flesh and blood body.

03. In order to save you from future pain ...

04. ... I would say it myself that I am a fool.

05. Which phantom identity are you trying to hit when you said above?

06. The donkey?

07. It is your ability to see phantoms ...

08. ... which let you conclude my communications as adversarial.

09. You are acting like a donkey ...

10. ... and making a fool of yourself.

11. ‘Tis only a suggestion, but you should try to have some guts ...

12. ... and come out in real life with your Actualism ...

13. ... rather than trying it out through words.

14. I will predict once again that you will never do that ...

15. ... you are too chicken for that.

Regards, Richard.


CORRESPONDENT NO. 11 (Part Two)

RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘D’ 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