Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’
with Correspondent No. 15
Re: Peculiar Information # 5
RESPONDENT No. 14: I find some gaps in your Richards Résumé regard this.
RICHARD: Sure ... ‘tis only a résumé (a summary, an epitome) after all.
I am gradually putting together a personal web-page – a more biographical account (plus many snapshots taken at various stages of my life going back to childhood) in a secular way of presentation – which goes into the personal details of my childhood experiences, my military experience, my marriage experiences, my parental experiences, my artistic experiences, my latter-day lifestyle and so on and so forth.
I have long had the intention of presenting my discovery in that manner – in a secular way – so as to have more emphasis on the philosophical/ psychological features and a marked de-emphasis on the mystical/ metaphysical aspects. (I have, on occasion, verbally presented my story to peoples of a materialist/ humanist persuasion, without recourse to any metaphysicality at all, and they have had no difficulty in their comprehension of it when delivered in that manner).
RESPONDENT: Hi Richard. Thanks for posting this. It is great to see new writing from you. I’m not sure what your plans are to offer new writing ...
RICHARD: G’day No. 15,
It is a sub-domain (third-level) of the (second-level) domain name already registered for exclusive use by The Actual Freedom Trust. As such no additional registration fees are incurred (nor any extra hosting charges).
RESPONDENT: ... but something you may wish to consider is a fairly recent web development called ‘patronage’ or ‘micro patronage’ where readers can support the ongoing contributions to sites they’re interested in via one time or ongoing donations. openenlightenment.org uses PayPal and BuddhistGeeks uses InspirePay.com for this function.
RICHARD: Back in mid-1980, during the four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) which initiated the process resulting in an actual freedom (which indubitably informed such freedom to be entirely new to human experience), it was strikingly clear to me that the words and writings advising of and explicating this freedom would be, as befits its very nature, also actually free.
(Both an actual and virtual freedom from the human condition are priceless discoveries). Consequently, it pleases me immensely that the millions of words on The Actual Freedom Trust web site are available totally free of charge.
RESPONDENT: I would be happy to take part in such an actualist patronage program.
RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate your offer to take part in some actualist patronage programme I would, of course, prefer a more direct engagement in the actualist process itself.
RESPONDENT No. 6: If you will indulge my question: is it possible still to have actual intimacy, even if the partner (man/woman) is evidently inhibited by self and survival instincts?
RICHARD: Actual intimacy – no separation (no separative self whatsoever) cannot wax and wane/ come and go/ switch on and off here in this actual world (the world of the senses). Upon an actual freedom from the human condition an actual intimacy is the norm with every body and every thing regardless of whatever their or its current situation and circumstances might be.
(Some peoples have looked at me blankly upon being informed there is an actual intimacy with, say, an ashtray or a polystyrene cup or a pebble or whatever).
In terms of human sexuality, and due to its utter proximity, sexual congress sans identity/ affections is the exquisite experience of two flesh and blood bodies sensuously delighting in being sensually and sexually aroused.
(As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies; at times this can be quite disconcerting, to say the least, for any identity feeling itself to be other than illusory).
RESPONDENT: Your comment about ‘As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies’ – was extremely useful in detecting some slippery and subtle identification in my interactions with others.
My second wife would oft-times say to others how it was not always easy to live with me as ‘she’ was totally ignored (in ‘her’ view) by me. (Please note it is an impossibility to ignore anything at all which has no existence in actuality and how I do pay lip-service, just as I am now, to the apparent existence of any identity feeling itself to be real). What my second wife was really referring to is the total absence of any supportive identity rapport/ affective connection.
As this was amply corroborated by my third wife, it is a primary consideration when contemplating any potential man-woman type of association which comes into my purview (in my experience the ménage a trois provided what a ménage a deux cannot).
RICHARD to No. 6: Because it can take an incredible amount of willpower for a pulled-back or turned-away or closed-off or shut-down identity to override (psychosomatically) its bodily arousal, its body’s natural sexuality, the body’s sensual delight, that exquisite experience can continue until such over-riding succeeds in its quite perverse anti-intimacy aim and arousal diminishes, sexuality declines and sensual delight falls away to nought.
RESPONDENT: I was wondering about your use of these words ‘Because it can take an incredible amount of willpower for a pulled-back or turned-away or closed-off or shut-down identity ...’. I’m assuming you were referring to yourself?
RESPONDENT: I’m curious about what subtleties these new phrases might mean – are there aspects to your experience that have changed recently ...
RESPONDENT: ... or have you found these new formulations offer a more clear or nuanced description?
RESPONDENT: Also – and this question is a bit out of left field – do you experience any flickering or flashing or shimmering in the visual field while gazing at an otherwise still scene?
RESPONDENT: I’ve only really been noticing this since I started paying attention to impermanence.
RICHARD: As there is no impermanence in actuality then it would be to your advantage to take a second look at whatever it is you are paying attention to.
RESPONDENT: It seems to me that this vibrational aspect of sensations comes and goes in a cyclic fashion. Sometimes I notice that everything is solid and marvellous and clear and the world seems buoyant and peaceful – and wonder if this is what my most solid memory of a PCE is based on.
RICHARD: As a PCE – the direct (unmediated) experience of actuality – is the immediate apprehension of infinitude (infinite space; eternal time; perdurable matter) and, thus, the absolute and utter permanence of the universe then it would also be to your advantage to take a second look at whatever it is your most solid memory is based upon.
RESPONDENT: However, if I pay attention to anything for too long the flashing/ flickering appears. Is that anything you’re familiar with?
RICHARD: Only in the months prior to the eleven years of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (and, on occasion, during that period).
RESPONDENT: In case you’re wondering if there is a medical basis to it, I have explained it to an optometrist, had an eye exam and got the all clear.
RICHARD: Yes ... manifestations of that nature are more a feature of the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility than anything else.
For instance I had flashing lights ‘zapping’ in front of my eyes; electrical bolts of lightning dazzling on the eyeballs; rushes of energy surging up through my diaphragm; pressure-pains in the base of the neck; intense tingling sensations on the surface of my skin; liquid sounds ‘gurgling’ through my brain; convulsive twitching of limbs; surges of power travelling up the spine and up over the back and the top of the head down to the forehead; a vivid blue light, an internal blue of rapturous bliss, behind the eyebrows; singing in my ears; an all-knowing cyclopean eye in the sky watching my every move and many, many other weird things.
They all amount to nothing in the end.
Re: It is impossible to locate and destroy ‘I’
RESPONDENT: [...] Hi Richard I am really enjoying the unique learning opportunity your return to posting provides. Thanks for your earlier reply to me, it was very useful to confirm that impermanence is not part of actual experience.
RICHARD: Good ... it is one of the incongruities of life that the very permanence which peoples of a buddhistic persuasion have been seeking has been right under their noses – indeed closer than they can look – just here in space right now in time as form (matter as mass/ energy) all the while they sought it in a timeless and spaceless and formless realm.
I cannot remember precisely when first becoming cognisant of this but can recall often speaking of it, with many a chuckle, in late 1987/early 1988 at an outdoor table on my large balcony, under a gay umbrella, where I was prone to be holding court in those spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened days.
(The cause for that merriment was the prodigious fact that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s greatest insight, that all existence sucks big-time and being born is the pits, made him blind to what lay under his very nose/ closer than he could look).
RESPONDENT No. 11: [...] I cannot seem to find any irregularities on a daily basis. Or even a weekly basis for that matter.
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).
RESPONDENT: I had not previously considered irregularity of mood as a possibility sans the affective faculty.
RICHARD: A frontal leucotome/a transorbital lobotomy does not remove the affective faculty; it severs the nerve fibres connecting the frontal lobes to the thalamus and has a dulling/ dampening effect on mood; in some the effect of the severance was pronounced enough as to have a new word coined – alexithymia – so as to refer to the fact that, although the person concerned could not feel their affections, the affective faculty was still intact.
(Just like the words depersonalisation, derealisation and anhedonia, the word alexithymia is the only way in which the psychiatric profession can come to terms with what is actually beyond psychiatry; an actual freedom from the human condition, being outside of or beyond human nature, cannot be properly fitted under any classification anywhere along the entire sanity-insanity range as it is the third alternative to either sanity or insanity).
RESPONDENT: I had figured mood was entirely fuelled by the affective faculty.
RICHARD: Oh, it is indeed – a belief, for example, is an emotionally-backed thought/a passionally-held truth – and although faith/ hope, for instance, can provide for a buoyancy of mood a lack thereof can evince the obverse ranging from a flatness of mood (acceptance/ resignation) to the melancholic/ depressive moods (despair/ desolation).
RESPONDENT: I can see that mental energy is a separate thing. Working in a very cognitively demanding role I am accustomed to being mentally drained. Perhaps this is related?
RICHARD: A mental workout taken to an extreme can, just like its muscular counterpart, result in a weariness such as to be commonly called mentally drained.
RESPONDENT: Fluctuation in mood for me evokes an axis of irritable at one end and cheerful at the other.
RICHARD: Another axis can have, as already mentioned, melancholy at one end and buoyancy at the other. Feeling irritable, a mild form of anger, is more likely to be counterpoised by nonchalance – which can, in turn, give rise to the type of insouciance you report – as anger implies engagement (as in involvement/ entanglement).
Generally speaking, mood can be loosely categorised in three broad categories: the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (such as love/ compassion and malice/ sorrow) and the happy/ harmless feelings (felicitous/ innocuous); as to be insouciant is to be carefree (and, thus, cheerful) the happy/ harmless feelings can be viewed, by the serious/ the pious, as being frivolous (and, thus, unconcerned/ uncaring).
It takes great daring to be happy/ harmless, at all times/ in all situations/ in every circumstance, in the face of entrenched societal disapproval.
However, as to dare to care is to care to dare then that great daring is thus fuelled by genuine concern for peace-on-earth as a living actuality.
RESPONDENT: Cheerfulness seems to be natural and spontaneous as long as there is energy.
Now that I am writing about 12 hours after I started this message, in pain with a sore shoulder the result of carrying a bulky Christmas tree home from a bus stop, I can see that my mood is flat without irritation or resentment, suggesting a separate axis for mood after all. Irritation is waiting in the wings but not assured. How does mood fluctuation manifest for you?
RICHARD: As moods, being affective in nature, have no existence in actuality there is nothing to be fluctuating/ have fluctuations.
It is all so simple here.
Re: Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 4
RESPONDENT No. 2: Richard says: I have no ego, self, or Self. I say: Richard has an ego, and a massive one at that. He also exhibits symptoms of PTSD, paranoia, grandiosity, hallucinations, bizarre rationalizations, a wild imagination, sociopathic and trying-to-hoodwink-the-laws behaviour, etc. and denial of all these, which are symptomatic of mental illness. And he exhibits normal symptoms of anger, gratitude, sexual desire, agony and tears, authority, etc. which are symptomatic of a functioning psyche.
RESPONDENT to No. 2: Thanks for openly stating your concerns. As a very interested observer in all this I appreciate all the information I can get at this point. I also think the community needs as much information in the open as possible. The secrecy surrounding actualism since its inception ...
RICHARD: G’day No. 15, As there is no such ‘secrecy surrounding actualism since its inception’ I am stepping in here, mid-sentence, so as to nip this notion of yours in the bud before it, too, becomes a factoid.
I will first draw your attention to a quote I copy-pasted into an email of mine posted several days ago which touches on what actually took place in the years immediately following upon the inception of actualism in late 1992. Vis.:
As you will see, upon a re-read of that quote, that what you characterise as ‘the secrecy surrounding actualism since its inception’ is nothing more and nothing less than my relentless determination to be ‘squeaky-clean’ before going public (in 1997) with my experience.
Put simply: I had no interest whatsoever in leading my fellow human being astray by making public something so radical as actualism is without ensuring it faultlessly stood the ‘test of time’ first.
And, as I say in that quote, five years without a single hitch satisfied me beyond any doubt whatsoever – not just beyond reasonable doubt – that actualism is the answer to all the ills of humankind.
Incidentally, during that 5 years I did not even speak privately about it to anyone – other than to my second wife (Devika), of course, who had been intimately involved all throughout anyway, and my third wife (Grace) but even then only after 3 years had elapsed – for that exact-same reason as not speaking publicly about it.
And even when I did go public (on the world-wide-web in 1997) there was no such secrecy even then about actualism. There was a ‘feed-back facility’ included in that embryonic web-page and I responded to each and every email which came in.
At the same time I also subscribed to an online forum (‘Mailing List A’) as I was wanting to gather material for a second book – the first edition of ‘Richard’s Journal’ was already available when the webpage first went online – and gaining feed-back from an oppositional source, such as on that forum, was the optimum way of having myself write about aspects of actualism which would not otherwise occur to me to write about.
RESPONDENT to No. 2: ... and [the secrecy] now surrounding these accusations feels so much like this whole damned enterprise is a cult.
RICHARD: Given that the only secrecy is that with which those hearsay tales, about a phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination, have been so clandestinely (privately) and unaccountably (pseudonymously) spread around does that feeling – of a ‘damned enterprise’ and of ‘a cult’ – still persist?
If so, then from whence its origin (as it is obviously not coming from actualism itself)?
RESPONDENT to No. 2: Personally I’m weighing 11 years of actualism practice and knowing that it works to a degree, against a slowly dawning realisation of the possibility (based on what I can observe alone) of much of what you say.
RICHARD: Again, from whence the source (of that ‘slowly dawning realisation’)?
And, from whence the source (of that ‘possibility’ of much of what Respondent No. 2 says)?
RESPONDENT to No. 2: So hard to know for sure though. I’ve been agonising over these doubts for days now.
RICHARD: Again, from whence the source (of that ‘agonising’)?
And, from whence the source (of those ‘doubts’)?
RESPONDENT to No. 2: So again, thanks for making this public knowledge so it can be addressed openly and properly.
RICHARD: Here is a question for you: why was it not addressed ‘openly and properly’ in the first place?
Do you realise it would still be clandestine (private) and unaccountable (pseudonymous) to this very day had I not flushed them out into the open?
RESPONDENT to No. 2: Cults are secretive ...
RICHARD: If I may ask? Is that where your notion of ‘the secrecy surrounding actualism since its inception’ came from?
(As in, the feeling you refer to above, about the secrecy ‘surrounding these accusations’, giving rise to that notion).
RESPONDENT to No. 2: ... and accusations are made in hushed whispers behind closed doors, responded to with threats and ostracism. Let’s see what comes of this.
RICHARD: Here is another question for you: what do you reckon would have ‘come of this’ had I not temporarily come out of my retirement from writing and flushed all three of them out into the open?
‘Tis an intriguing thought, non?
Now, as I am not inclined to keep on coming out of my retirement from writing, each and every time someone circulates some made-up stuff, there is a way to examine such stuff for yourself.
The following is an instance out of what you thanked No. 2 for (at the top of this email). Vis.:
Now, as No. 2 has never met me in person his only reliable source of information about me is via my written word – be it either on The Actual Freedom Trust website or in my emails (such as this one) – just as is the situation for you. Therefore, as you read my written words/ remember having read my written words, ask yourself whether you, too, could emphatically state those things about me ... as a known fact.
Here they are, one at a time:
1. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of anger’ via his written word?
2. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of gratitude’ via his written word?
3. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of sexual desire’ via his written word?
4. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of agony’ via his written word?
5. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of tears’ via his written word?
Do you see it for yourself (it is especially obvious in No. 5)?
So, whence the origin of No. 2’s emphatically stated ‘facts’, then?
Could it be those hearsay tales I have referred to on several occasions now?
How do you think a couple of grown men – mature adults – could be duped into (uncritically) passing-on such hearsay tales as being facts they personally *know* about Richard?
And I mean really think about it ... because they have both staked their reputation as critical thinkers upon this.
Lastly, that ‘agonising’ you have been putting yourself through ‘for days now’. Vis.:
Do you feel somewhat foolish now that you know what the source of your ‘agonising’, the source of your ‘doubts’, is (as in, nothing but hearsay tales)?
If so, then from whence their source (those hearsay tales)?
‘Tis such a simple matter, non?
Re: Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 4
G’day No. 15, As you live only a couple of hours drive away from where I am currently residing how about we meet up – you have already met both Vineeto and Grace previously – and share all your concerns in person?
This coming weekend would work fine for me; preferably Saturday (the 18th) as my Sunday afternoon is already booked.
Re: Few humble words from Justine
JUSTINE: Dear All, My respects to you All.
Auspiciousness and Peace to All.
1) This is Justine, whom Mr. Richard announced as actually free. [...snip...]
CO-RESPONDENT: Well done Justine, clearing away illusions is the way forward.
RICHARD: G’day No. 41, Your (unsolicited) congratulatory counsel/ guidance/ advice to Justine, stemming as it evidentially does from your publicly-expressed concern about his well-being in Message No. 13562, caught my eye whilst scrolling through the latest posts. (...)It was your [quote] ‘clearing away illusions’ [endquote] phrasing which particularly gained my attention as the impression conveyed by Justine’s above points numbered 1-to-12 is, rather, of illusions being added.
Starting with Point No. 1 above (‘This is Justine, whom Mr. Richard announced as actually free’): the following three publicly-posted emails from Justine – his first three emails to the Direct Route mail-out list (which he sent at 11:34 AM and 2:54 PM and 6:24 PM on Wednesday the 13th of January 2010) – whereby he announced he became actually free at 3:30 AM on the 4th of January, 2010, will indubitably demonstrate this ‘illusions being added’ observation. [...snip...].
Please note he explicitly equates what had happened for him, nine days prior, with the reports both Vineeto and Peter had recently provided for publication. Quite obviously, then, it was Justine who announced himself as actually free and not Richard. And, just to drive that point home here is a follow-up email, also posted to the Direct Route mail-out list, which he sent the next day:
RESPONDENT: Hi Richard As your email arrived, I was in the process of composing an email to Justine asking if he was recanting that he experienced actual freedom on an ongoing basis, as it had always struck me as rather strange that he was struggling so while repeating time and time again that you had pronounced him actually free.
Thanks for setting the record straight that he pronounced himself actually free. That explains quite a bit. I had noted previously that the books he prepared made liberal use of your own words, so it’s of no surprise that he paraphrased Vineeto’s realisation [‘I have all the time in the world’] as you highlighted. [now snipped]
You mentioned recently that you can only confirm if someone is actually free in person. Having spent time with Justine in person, was it your impression that he was actually free, newly free or otherwise? Or did you perhaps reserve judgement and merely take his word at face value?
RICHARD: G’day No. 15, Unless I am actively involved, at the pivotal event/ the definitive moment of becoming (newly) free, not only can I only confirm somebody when in person, my being physically present also needs to be over an extended period and in as many different everyday settings and day-to-day situations/ circumstances as possible.
Even so, I do indeed take another’s word at face value as what lasting benefit could possibly be gained by fooling me when, in the final analysis, they would really only be befooling themself?
I wrote quite extensively about this in February last year. As that portion comes in the midst of a rather long email the crux of the relevant section is probably worth re-presenting here.
Plus, it would not be possible, surely, to consistently fake a total absence of ego-centricity/ self-centricity/ auto-centricity (i.e.: no ego/no self; no soul/no spirit; no guardian/no social identity) – let alone a total absence of affective feelings (no emotions/ passions/ affections at all), of pathetic temperament (no moods/ humors/ sentiments whatsoever), of hedonic-tone (no hedonistic pleasure or displeasure) and of flattened affect even – and yet also present complete contentment/ absolute fulfilment/ total satisfaction along with an utterly intimate disposition showing a generally cheerful character readily displaying a keen sense of humour, about life itself, twenty-four hours a day, day in and day out, for the remainder of one’s life.
(No need to mention being purity personified, of course, as all of the aforementioned are already of sufficient impossibility for a feeling-being to fake).
As you specifically enquire of my in-person impression of Justine I will direct you to what I wrote at the time (while in India) on the Direct Route mail-out list: (Direct Route, No. 4, 28 March 2010)
(Please bear in mind this is all new to human experience/human history (no precedent to go by) – hence my question(s) to him in Message No. 13623 – and the wealth of information being gleaned from the pioneers who dare adds to human knowledge).
Ha ... ‘tis the dawning of the age of actuality!
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.