Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 17


Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’ 23:

November 27 2009

Re: Third ‘wife’

RICHARD: As chemical warfare existed long before nuclear warfare (the 17th century Strasbourg Agreement banned the use of ‘perfidious and odious’ toxic devices; the 1899 Hague Declaration, and the 1907 Hague Convention, forbade the use of ‘poison or poisonous weapons’ in warfare), as well as biological warfare (the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited the use of ‘Bacteriological Methods of Warfare’), there is adequate historical reason to assume that humankind will continue to show such restraint in regards to both the radioactive fallout (ionising radiation) and the substantial explosive capacity of nuclear weapons.

RESPONDENT: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists The Doomsday Clock is still set at five minutes to midnight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

RICHARD: So? Whatever arbitrary setting it is, which the directors of the ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ choose to put Mr. Hyman Goldsmith’s 1947 ‘Doomsday Clock’ at, it makes no difference to 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.

On the contrary, humankind has shown a truly remarkable restraint despite being reactively driven by blind nature’s instinctual passions.

Even more to the point: the percentage per population killed in wars has been steadily decreasing; the democratisation of nations has been progressively increasing (and democracies rarely, if ever, go to war against each other); that hyped-up catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (which nowadays influences those director’s doom and gloom opinions more than chemical, biological and radio-active weapons) is increasingly being revealed to be more about scientism than the scientific method (and that is putting it politely); and talk of technological threats has been around since the Luddites in the early 1800’s.

Regards, Richard.

November 28 2009

Re: Third ‘wife’

RESPONDENT: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists The Doomsday Clock is still set at five minutes to midnight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

RICHARD: So? Whatever arbitrary setting it is, which the directors of the ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ choose to put Mr. Hyman Goldsmith’s 1947 ‘Doomsday Clock’ at, it makes no difference to 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. On the contrary, humankind has shown a truly remarkable restraint despite being reactively driven by blind nature’s instinctual passions.

Even more to the point: the percentage per population killed in wars has been steadily decreasing; the democratisation of nations has been progressively increasing (and democracies rarely, if ever, go to war against each other); that hyped-up catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (which nowadays influences those director’s doom and gloom opinions more than chemical, biological and radioactive weapons) is increasingly being revealed to be more about scientism than the scientific method (and that is putting it politely); and talk of technological threats has been around since the Luddites in the early 1800’s.

RESPONDENT: 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: It may have never happened ...

RICHARD: Oh, there is no ‘may’ about it: it has never happened (else we would not be here having this conversation).

RESPONDENT: ... but according to these scientists ...

RICHARD: Just what scientists are you referring to?

All the article you directed me to said was that it is according to [quote] ‘the board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago’ [endquote].

Please note it does not say (a) they are scientists, or (b) that some of them are scientists, or (c) that any of them are scientists, or (d) what their qualifications are, or (e) what field of expertise they each have, or (f) whether their qualifications and expertise includes statistical analysis.

*

RICHARD: Shall we start at the top? Before joining the ‘Bulletin’ in 2005 the executive director was responsible for grant-making on issues of international peace and security at the MacArthur Foundation; before going to that foundation, in 1987, she taught at Rutgers University and the University of Illinois; her research and teaching focused on organisational decision making, jury decision making, and on women’s leadership and US politics; prior to her academic career, she served in the Massachusetts State Planning agency on law enforcement and criminal justice; she received her Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University and her AB from Oberlin College (a private liberal arts college).

Do you want me to go on through the other twelve (two are in banking, one is a lawyer, one is in marketing and communication, one works in a department of psychology, one is has a Masters in management, one works in a school of medicine, one is a media executive, one coordinates investment teams, one is a director of architecture, one is president of a corporation involved in the development of proliferation resistant fuel technology and one is a cofounder of a peace museum and a foundation for women)?

RESPONDENT: ... who have more info about it than I do ...

RICHARD: More info about what, exactly?

1. Chemical weapons?

2. Biological weapons?

3. Radioactive weapons?

4. Climate-changing technologies?

5. New developments in the life sciences?

6. Nanotechnology which could inflict irrevocable harm?

7. Environmental and technological threats to humankind in general?

(All but the first two are listed in that article you directed me to).

More to the point, however, is what info pertaining to such a likelihood, as to have that high risk ascribed, could that board of directors have? How can such a high likelihood be quantified? Do they have access to Top Secret government documents from all around the world? Are they privy to Ultra Top Secret decision making in the highest echelons of military Chiefs of Staff from every nation? Have they a spy in every terrorist organisation?

Incidentally, does it not strike you as odd that the board of directors have added four more items (4, 5, 6, and 7) for you to be frightened out of your wits about yet do not have the first two (1, 2) on their list at all?

RESPONDENT: ... the risk remains very high.

RICHARD: What risk exactly? There are 1,440 minutes on a clock face and the board of directors are claiming that 1,335 minutes have already lapsed, right? On what basis can that 99.9% risk factor be verified? Or, put differently, 62 years ago the ‘Doomsday Clock’ was set as having 1,333 minutes already lapsed; on what basis can that 99.8% risk be verified?

Furthermore, what significance is to be placed on it having taken over 60 years to be moved 0.01% by the current board of directors? (Items 4, 5, 6, and 7 should give you a clue).

*

Here is a ‘word of the day’ for you:

arbitrary: dependent on will or pleasure; based on mere opinion or preference as opp. to the real nature of things; capricious, unpredictable, inconsistent; unrestrained in the exercise of will or authority; despotic, tyrannical. (Oxford Dictionary).

And here is a direct quote from that article you directed me to:

[quote] ‘Setting the clock is relatively arbitrary and decided by the directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ...’. [emphasis added].

Regards, Richard.

Continued on Direct Route: No. 5

Continued from Direct Route: No. 5

February 04 2012

Re: Richard writes about two types of Actual Freedom

RICHARD to No. 24: It is this simple: a flesh-and-blood body is perfectly safe in regards flying to Australia on a prearranged agreement to meet in person (apart from the regular hazards associated with flight of course) and it is only ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) who is at risk.

And as the transition from the real-world to this actual world is a seamless transition – all what happens is that an illusion is no more (somewhat analogous to Santa Claus, et al., ceasing to appear real upon the illusion being exposed) – it is thus all much ado about nothing ... literally!

It is quite magical, though.

RESPONDENT: So it is just a matter of seeing clearly that the real-world is an illusion? I see it but perhaps not clearly enough? I see it most clearly when thinking stops and there is just a sensate body sitting/ laying here. That is the time to have a pce and see the vast stillness of the universe. Is the pce necessary?

ps: Is the pce necessary for pure intent to come out of this vast stillness?

RICHARD: G’day No. 17, Prior to 11.25 AM (AEDST) on Saturday, the 14th of November, 2009, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) was indeed necessary for pure intent – that benevolence and benignity of the vast and utter stillness of the universe itself – and the reason why a PCE was essential is reported/ described/ explained both on The Actual Freedom Trust website and in ‘Richard’s Journal’.

However, since then a PCE has no longer been a vital factor in the process of becoming actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof ... indeed, neither of the persons mentioned, as an example, in that first post of mine (Message No. 10532) to this forum in nearly two years could recall a PCE.

Also, what the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago experienced as an ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ was experienced by the feeling-being ‘Peter’, on the 29th of December 2009, as [quote] ‘a sweetness that was palpable’ [endquote] and that ‘he’ was [quote] ‘literally being bathed in this sweetness’ [endquote].

(Those quotes are from Peter’s report on the original ‘A Long-Awaited Public Announcement’ webpage).

*

Other people have reported experiencing that over-arching benevolence and benignity as a palpable sweetness as well.

Pamela, for instance, spoke of it in those terms during the ten minutes or so immediately prior to the pivotal event/the definitive moment when she became actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof on the 27th of January 2010.

(On another occasion, about three weeks later, she reported experiencing it as being an ‘infinite tenderness’ of such a magnitude as to render her incoherent upon endeavouring to describe it to Vineeto).

Vineeto speaks about it thisaway (also on that original ‘A Long-Awaited Public Announcement’ webpage):

• [Vineeto] ‘I had known this sweetness from previous occasions – one such experience happened during the video-shoot of the ‘Out-from-Control’ DVD we present on the website. This sweetness always accompanied an experience of closeness (...)’ [endquote].

She has also reported it as being ‘ambrosial in nature’ and as ‘an ambrosial gentleness’ and has written of it, in a private email, as being ‘an overwhelming sweetness, so overwhelmingly sweet that tears were running down my face. At another time I experienced a tenderness so vast that I was speechless for a good time afterwards’.

*

I mention these reports so as to demonstrate that what the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago experienced as an ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ may not necessarily be exactly the way others experience it.

Regards, Richard.

February 06 2012

Re: Richard writes about two types of Actual Freedom

RICHARD: It is this simple: a flesh-and-blood body is perfectly safe in regards flying to Australia on a prearranged agreement to meet in person (apart from the regular hazards associated with flight of course) and it is only ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) who is at risk. And as the transition from the real-world to this actual world is a seamless transition – all what happens is that an illusion is no more (somewhat analogous to Santa Claus, et al., ceasing to appear real upon the illusion being exposed) – it is thus all much ado about nothing ... literally!

It is quite magical, though.

RESPONDENT: So it is just a matter of seeing clearly that the real-world is an illusion? I see it but perhaps not clearly enough? I see it most clearly when thinking stops and there is just a sensate body sitting/ laying here. That is the time to have a pce and see the vast stillness of the universe. Is the pce necessary? ps: Is the pce necessary for pure intent to come out of this vast stillness?

RICHARD: Prior to 11.25 AM (AEDST) on Saturday, the 14th of November, 2009, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) was indeed necessary for pure intent – that benevolence and benignity of the vast and utter stillness of the universe itself – and the reason why a PCE was essential is reported/ described/ explained both on The Actual Freedom Trust website and in ‘Richard’s Journal’.

However, since then a PCE has no longer been a vital factor in the process of becoming actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof ... indeed, neither of the persons mentioned, as an example, in that first post of mine (Message No. 10532) to this forum in nearly two years could recall a PCE.

Also, what the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago experienced as an ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ was experienced by the feeling-being ‘Peter’, on the 29th of December 2009, as [quote] ‘a sweetness that was palpable’ [endquote] and that ‘he’ was [quote] ‘literally being bathed in this sweetness’ [endquote]. (Those quotes are from Peter’s report on the original ‘A Long-Awaited Public Announcement’ webpage).

RESPONDENT: Does the experiencing of the vastness and stillness of the universe bring on the ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ which then brings on the ‘sweetness’? Iow, does ‘experiencing the vastness and stillness’ of the universe come first?

RICHARD: G’day No. 17, My response (above) was both in the context of your query as to whether a PCE is necessary for pure intent and your follow-up explanation to [No. 24] about the last paragraph of ‘Addendum No. 7’ (that to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent).

Prior to the physical death of my second wife (de jure) Devika/ Irene a PCE was indeed necessary for pure intent; since then it has no longer been a vital factor in the process of becoming actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof as the impenetrable psychic force-field which Devika had established to protect Richard from other people, and which Irene had transmuted into protecting other people from Richard, is no longer in existence (in existence psychically, that is, in the real-world).

Consequentially, that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’, which the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago experienced and named ‘pure intent’, became directly immanently accessible to some select associates during a specific situational setting called ‘The Second Convivium Gathering’, in late 2009/early 2010, and was variously experienced by them as a ‘palpable sweetness’, for instance, and an ‘infinite tenderness’, for example, and has been more generally described as ‘being bathed in intimacy’.

It was also accessible at-a-distance (hence the thirty-day trial at that time), as a rather remarkable man on another continent has amply demonstrated, and has been described by him upon meeting in person as a ‘gentle energy’ and a ‘harmless energy’ which is ‘emanating all around (not directional, like a guru to a devotee, and not at all coarse)’.

Thus to answer your first question: the direct (as in, immediate or unmediated) experiencing of the vast stillness of this physical universe’s infinitude – where the word stillness refers to there being no movement of time whatsoever (as in ‘this moment has no duration’) – is the way in which the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago became consciously aware of pure intent because, back in those days, there had not yet been someone of sufficient naïveté to enable that immaculate perfection to become purity personified.

Which means that, these days, when that ‘palpable sweetness’ (for instance) is experienced it is that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ being experienced, by virtue of that immaculate perfection having become manifest in the everyday world as a flesh-and-blood body only, as they are both one and the same thing in essence.

Thus to answer your second question: it is the experiencing of that ‘palpable sweetness’ (for instance) which comes first.

Regards, Richard.

P.S.: As there is now both a male and a female fully here in this actual world, the completely new consciousness (a totally original way of being conscious) for all humankind to avail themselves of is nowadays entirely equitable.

And this is truly marvellous.

(See the footnote in Message No. 10573 for some details).

And what being ‘entirely equitable’ means is that the various disturbances – as in teething problems – which that handful of daring pioneers thus found themselves subject to, due to it not being equitable back when they availed themselves of it, is no longer likely to happen.

July 2 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

RESPONDENT No. 25: At this point, I do not want to waste anyone’s time, so I will take your suggestion to ‘cut my losses.’

I will not be on the flight out this evening.

RICHARD: A wise decision, No. 25, given that this totally new way of being conscious (a completely original consciousness) can only have a global spread, in our life-times, if it be implemented via happy and harmless (affective) ‘vibes’ and felicitous and innocuous (psychic) ‘currents’, eh?

RESPONDENT: Would it be possible to have this global spread online as we can’t all make it to Australia?

RICHARD: G’day No. 17, You raise two points there which can only be answered by mentioning the third point you left unspoken.

First, even if all 7.0+ billion peoples on this planet could make it to Australia – a mind-boggling thought, true, but bear with me for the nonce – it would take far, far more than this life-time to interact intensively with each and every one such as to bring about global peace-on-earth via 7.0+ billion instances of individual peace-on-earth.

In order to illustrate the magnitude of this scenario I will defer to the scholarly studies of Prof. Rudolph Rummel.

On his website (www.hawaii.edu/powerkills) he graphically demonstrates how democracies are decidedly safer for its peoples by statistically estimating the number of citizens dead at the hands of autocratic governments, in the last 100 years (via genocide, politicide, mass murder, extra-judicial executions, starvation/ privation, and so forth), to be a probable 262,000,000 peoples (and that is a mid-estimate formed from all possible low-range/ high range estimates).

The scale of that mid-range figure (262,000,000) is not only difficult to digest it is not even easy to properly comprehend just how many persons – men, women, and children – this is. For example, if all of those citizens killed by governments, in the twentieth century alone, were to have inhabited a country of their own then it would be the world’s fourth most populous nation. Vis.:

1. China: 1,343,239,923

2. India: 1,205,073,612

3. USA: 313,847,465

4. Indonesia: 248,645,008

5. Brazil: 199,321,413 (www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/most-populous-countries.html)

Put graphically: assuming that the average height of these murdered citizens was little more than five feet, because of the many children killed, their corpses would encircle this planet about ten times.

Whereas the battle-field cadavers (38,000,000) for the same period would barely girdle the earth once.

Or, for another illustration, if one were to sit on a chair in a room and have that amount of people (262,000,000) come in one door, go by at a walking pace without stopping, and exit through another door, for 24 hours a day 365 days a year, it would take about nine years for all to pass by.

So, given it would take 9 years for 1/4 billon then 1 billion would require 35 years, approximately, and as 35 years by 7 billion = 245 years (at 24 hours a day 365 days a year) the sheer magnitude becomes self-evident ... especially so as this example is simply walking in one door and out the other without stopping.

Second, although the internet has (potentially) a global reach there are many billions of peoples who are neither connected nor even have access (an estimated 39% do have access) ... let alone read English either at all or even sufficiently enough to comprehend, for just one instance, the sharp distinction drawn betwixt the word real and the word actual (in actualism terminology).

(Besides, what with the ... um ... The Bragg Bros All-Bling Side-Show ever at the ready to pounce upon each and every would-be list-member – so as to perpetuate the status-quo (all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so forth) – as well as those several and similarly motivated pusillanimous poltroons, recreants, cravens, caitiffs, nidderings, and so on, any such course of action could conceivably drag on for ever and a day).

Third, (the point you left unspoken): there already exists a world-wide network – requiring neither technological wizz-bangs nor competency in the English language – which has a truly global reach (inherently connecting every single man, woman and child alive today no matter what their age) and is instantaneous in its effect.

And, most importantly, it is where the real power-play takes place anyway – given that it by-passes both the cognitive and the affective filters – as it operation has the immediacy of ‘being’ to ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) directivity.

RESPONDENT: What would it take?

RICHARD: Ha ... enjoying *and* appreciating being alive/ being here, each moment again come what may, by being as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible via minimising both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings and maximising both the felicitous *and* the innocuous feelings.

Put simplistically (for maximum effect): the way to bring about global peace and harmony, in our lifetimes, is by having fun.

(I am having such a ball here at the keyboard).

Regards, Richard.

Jul 11 2015

Re: [No. 4]’s Notes 1 – Part Two

RICHARD: Footnote № 4: the pure intent reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site: Viz.:

• [Richard]: “(...). One can bring about a benediction from that perfection and purity which is the essential character of the universe by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naïveté. *Naïveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that is the nearest approximation that one can have of actual innocence – there is no innocence so long as there is a rudimentary self – and constant awareness of naïve intimacy results in a continuing benediction. This blessing allows a connection to be made between oneself and the perfection and purity as is evidenced in a PCE. This connection I call pure intent*. Pure intent endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience. Thus reliably rendered virtually innocent and relatively harmless by the benefaction of the perfection and purity, one can begin to dismantle the now-redundant social identity. The virtual magnanimity endowed by pure intent obviates the necessity for a social identity, born out of society’s values, to be extant and controlling the wayward self with a societal conscience”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 21 July 1998)

RESPONDENT: My understanding of this is that pure intent is the connection to the perfection and purity. Pure intent is not the perfection and purity.

RICHARD: G’day № 17,

(I re-inserted the text you quoted back into its context, above, simply for ease of reference and with your selection highlighted).

As I have previously likened the connection, betwixt naïve intimacy and that benedictive perfection and purity, to a metaphorical ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’ – which I both commented on (parenthetically) and quoted in this very email you are responding to – does it not strike you as a trifle odd, upon considered reflection, that the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago (who coined that term) would call an allegorical ball of yarn and etcetera “pure intent”?

In other words, and keeping with the allegory for the nonce, unless that ‘clew’ be imbued/ suffused with the overarching benevolence and benignity (i.e., pure intent) it will remain but a lowly ball of yarn and etcetera and not attain to the status of ‘golden thread’.

Put simply, it may be as much a function of the way sentences are structured – containing as they do both a grammatical subject and object with various types of joining words betwixt the two – that it apparently can be read by some peoples as if it be the connective (i.e., “a thing that connects” ~ Collins English Dictionary) which is the pure intent.

RESPONDENT: Others here seem to be misinterpreting this and saying that pure intent is perfection and purity. Am I correct about this?

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: to be connected to the perfection and purity, which is the essential character of the universe itself, by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naïveté – as that 1998 online extract in the above Footnote № 4 clearly conveys – is to be experientially connected (as in, “the state of being connected” ~ Webster’s College Dictionary) to that benefactive life-force, that ever-fresh welling of benevolence and benignity, per favour naïve intimacy (and consistent awareness of that naïve intimacy results in a continuing benediction).

And, as that extract goes on to convey, it is that benedictive perfection and purity which endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society, without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience (being thus reliably rendered virtually innocent and relatively harmless by the continuance of that benefactive pure intent), in a way in which intellection/ mentation/ cerebration can never effect ... namely: experientially.

In other words, the living experience, the moment-to-moment experiential ‘tapping-into’ or ‘locking-onto’ the pristine purity of an actual innocence – which the flesh-and-blood body known generically as “[Respondent]” (albeit forever invisible to feeling-being ‘[Respondent (Nickname)]’ and all ‘his’ feeling-being interlocutors) is already living anyway – is to be ‘tapping-into’ or ‘locking-onto’ that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, already personified as flesh-and-blood bodies only (i.e., sans identities in toto/ their entire affective faculties) in actuality.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: “Incidentally, just before/ just as the PCE starts to wear off, if one unravels (metaphorically) a ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’, as one is slipping back into the real-world, an intimate connection is thus established betwixt the pristine-purity of an actual innocence and the near-purity of the sincerity of naïveté.

At least, that is the way it worked for the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, inasmuch ‘his’ recall of PCE’s was a naïve remembrance [i.e., rememoration & presentiation; see Message № 19775 for context], rather than a cognitive memory, and ‘he’ thus experienced a constant pull, each moment again, into the immaculate perfection of the actual world ... and thus away from the contaminated imperfection of the real-world.

Being a ‘fatal attraction’, so to speak, it rendered the entire process virtually effortless”. (Richard, List D, No. 13, 21 May 2009)

*In this context*, then, as the term ‘pure intent’ refers to an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which *is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only* (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty) then the benedictive/ liberative impetus, or agency as such, *stems from and/or flows from that which is totally other than ‘me’/ completely outside of ‘me’* (this factor is very important as it is vital that such impetus, such agency, be not of ‘me’ or ‘my’ doings) *and literally invisible to ‘me’* ... namely: *that flesh-and-blood body only being thus apperceptively conscious (i.e., apperceptively sentient)$*. [emphases added]. (Richard, List D, Martin, 6 July 2015).

The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust expressed it all quite succinctly, in the following manner several years ago, when it became known that a certain closet-spiritualist who, having taken the connective (i.e., the thing that connects) to be pure intent, had publicly declared to all and sundry on the ...um... the Drama Overboard phantasy-phoresy how pure intent was [quote] “now gone - extinguished” [endquote].

Ha ... ‘tis just as well pure intent itself forfends that scenario ever coming to pass, eh?

Viz.:

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

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

Put succinctly: there is no other way, than to be that, because there is no other actual freedom from the human condition (than being that)”. [emphasis in original]. (Announcement page).

Speaking of that flesh-and-blood body known generically as “[Respondent]”, perhaps the following exchanges, from another forum in 2001-2002, might jog some useful memories for you.

Viz.:

Re: Death and dying
From: [Respondent]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:53:25
[www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m4821.html].

[Person ‘A’; quoting Mr. Ventkataraman Aiyer]: “The shock of the fear of death drove my mind inwards and I said to myself mentally, without actually framing the words: ‘Now that death has come; what does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies ... But with the death of the body am I dead? Is the body I? ... The body dies but the Spirit that transcends it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit’. (...)”. ~ Sri Ramana Maharshi.
[Respondent]: When death came to me there was no ‘deathless spirit’. The body died and that was it.

*

Re: Death and dying
From: [Respondent]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:17:38
[www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m4821.html].

[Person ‘A’]: (...). How do you know he did not face actual death, while on the one hand you off handedly , blatantly posted earlier that death came to you and the body died? Is this not a lie, JJ?
[Respondent]: This is not a lie. Death came to me and the body died and then came back to life.

*

Re: Death and dying (Respondent)
From: [Respondent]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:30:35
[www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m4990.html].

[Respondent]: When death came to me there was no ‘deathless spirit’. The body died and that was it.
[Person ‘A’]: What ‘me’ are you referring to? What do you mean by death? You mean you encountered physical death and the body died? But you seem to be still living ...
[Respondent]: Yes, there was physical death and the body died and then came back to life.
[Person ‘A’]: What do you mean by your words, JJ? Your words sound very off handed, but perhaps you may say something more to avoid misunderstanding. Is there any relationship between the ‘me’ and the body? Is the body all that is for you that is devoid of feeling?
[Respondent]: The body is all there is. Have you ever seen a ‘deathless spirit’ and if so can you show it to me?

*

Re: Dealing with contentious people
From: [Respondent]
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:33:53
[www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m12056.html].

[Person ‘B’]: (...). What is the most appropriate thing to do at the moment of dying? If I have but 5 minutes to live, how shall I spend that 5 minutes?
[Respondent]: I would spend that five minutes letting go of everything. Letting go of all my memories, etc. How would you spend your last five minutes?
[Person ‘B’]: How do you let go of your memories? :-)) How do you let go anything by trying? Have you ever tried that?
[Respondent]: I didn’t say try. I died once before and that’s what happened naturally. It seemed like ‘the most appropriate thing to do at the moment of dying’. What do you think would be the most appropriate thing to do?

*

Re: Helplessness
From: [Respondent]
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:09:36
[www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m30776.html].

[Person ‘C’]: For me it was like this: during a ‘bad’ LSD experience, I saw that I was going to die. In fact, was dying. After finding that all the earnest ‘help’ could not fix me, I saw that there was nothing else to do but die. so I let go. Certainly the shot of Thorazine helped;) later I woke up. As [Person ‘D’] says: ‘It is only in the seer dropping away that something else emerges from that darkness’.
[Respondent]: What does it mean for you when something else emerges from that darkness? What is that something else?
[Person ‘C’]: Reoriented to time and place (alive) there seemed to be a fresh construction of identity which quickly assumed the former problems/possibilities but with memory of giving up as a viable option.
[Respondent]: When you say memory of giving up as a viable option What are you referring to? Do you mean giving up former problems or giving up your identity? I had a mushroom trip in which I actually died but the old identity came back as you said and I don’t feel I have a viable option of giving it up.

*

Re: Helplessness
From: [Respondent]
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 06:05:23
[www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m30848.html].

[Person ‘C’]: By ‘giving up’, I mean that I saw that the only way to deal with fear of death was to go ahead and die. I learned that surrender is an option.
[Respondent]: Yes, I remember surrendering right before I died. I can’t really say that I am afraid of physical death now because I saw that it is just the end and nothing more. However, I can’t seem to get a grip on psychological death while I am still alive. Has that changed for you?

*

Simply as a matter of chronologically-related interest: as that 1998 online extract, in the now much further above Footnote № 4, is sourced from the second-last article in ‘The Actualism Journal’ – ‘Societal Values are a Psychological Method of Control’ – then I can vouch for it having been written in late 1996. I started writing the first of those articles in late 1994 – the first twelve were written whilst I was living in a beach-front apartment located in an area of Australia known as the “Gold Coast” in the state of Queensland – and then took an 18-month hiatus before recommencing in mid-1996, after having relocated to Byron Bay in the state of New South Wales, with the last four articles being added-on in early-to-mid-1997.

The reason why I mention these dates is because, on page 38, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 1st. Ed. (page 40, 2nd. Ed.), in Article 4, ‘Pure Intent produces Total Dedication’, the following text appears (written two years earlier in late 1994).
Viz.:

• [Richard]: “My companion and I could not continue to live as before. I was already living in an Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) and my companion had had – when we were still living on opposite sides of this earth – personal experiences of moments of perfection. These pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) which usually occur in a ‘peak experience’, as they are sometimes called, change one’s lives forever. In a PCE everything is seen, with unparalleled clarity, to be already perfect ... that humans are all living in perfection ... if only one would act upon one’s seeing. (...). They leave a lasting impression upon one ... which can take the form of a pure intent. *Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe*. It is no longer a matter of choice ... it is an irresistible pull”. [emphasis added].

Thus up-front and out-in-the-open as soon as the term pure intent is introduced it is defined thataway. Then, shortly afterwards on page 55, 1st. Ed. (page 57, 2nd. Ed.), in Article 7, ‘The Social Identity is a Belief not a Fact’, the following text appears.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: “One knows, from the perfection of freedom from ‘human nature’ as evidenced in the PCE, that it is possible to live the actuality that is already always here. What ‘I’ do is unreservedly allow ‘my’ eventual demise to occur. It is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee ... but *pure intent, born out of the connection between one’s inherent naïveté and the perfection of the infinitude of this physical universe*, will provide one with the necessary intestinal fortitude. And once embarked upon the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom, you are not on your own: *this perfection is with you all the way* ... but if you waver, you are indeed doing it on your own”. [emphases added].

All-up there are eleven reports/ descriptions/ explanations as to what pure intent is, including the above three, of which that 1998 online extract, in the much further above Footnote № 4, is the last.

And, as a related addendum, so as to assist in ‘joining the dots’: around 16 months or so after Devika (my de jure second wife) transmogrified into Irene (since deceased, leaving me a widower; nowadays a widower twice-over) she commenced a brief email exchange with feeling-being ‘Peter’ and feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ and I responded to the sections they either did not know the day-to-day truth of or, at that stage, have the requisite on-going experiential knowledge of (such as what extended and full-blown PCE’s provide).

The following section is particularly apposite in regards the key to success in attaining an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom.

• [Irene to Vineeto]: “To me freedom means to be free from the human conditioning (i.e. the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being human and of nature in general). That what I had called ‘virtual freedom”.
• [Richard to Irene; 11th Oct 1998]: “Except that virtual freedom is derived from what Richard lived from March to September in 1981 [i.e., out-from-control/ different-way-of-being] and was epitomised by being as happy and harmless as was humanly possible for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day. (...) I had experienced the universe’s perfection – *personified in a four-hour peak experience* – and just knew that it was possible to achieve peace-on-earth in this life-time as this body.

To live a virtual freedom one knowingly and deliberately imitates the actual insofar as is possible given that one is still human. It is *the pure intent to ingenuously live the actual* that imbues virtual freedom with its feeling of perfection and subsequent delight and joy. To be without *this connection betwixt naiveté and the perfection of the infinitude of this very material universe [i.e., this actual universe]* then any freedom loses its dynamism, its lustre, its brilliance, its vivacity ... its very here and now aliveness.

If you now wish to put a different slant on what you lived in the latter half of your time with me, then that is your business ... but maybe you could give it a different name so as to not confuse people. Just as a suggestion, perhaps you could use some other term ... like ‘relative freedom’ or something?”. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, Irene, 11 October 1998).

To summarise: perhaps if you were to think of pure intent as being both (simultaneously) the palpable life-force and that (experiential) “state of being connected” it might make more sense, to start off with, as the experience is of them being one-and-the-same-thing ... to wit: an indistinguishable composite; as in, no such grammatically-induced subject-object connective dichotomy).

Regards,
Richard.

Aug 08 2015

Re: Don’t have to do a thing.

RESPONDENT: My partnership with [name deleted] is going fantastic. We met at a cabin in the Ozarks for a week and it couldn’t have been better. We planned to enjoy and appreciate and have fun and if any issues come up to speak them out and investigate them. However, no issues to speak of came up. The sex was great and my ed seems to be cured so we just enjoyed the whole time.
She is coming here this week to spend a week with me here which will also be great and we will take it from there as to what’s next.
However, there is one thing which I still consider. Is it better to live alone? I don’t really know the answer to that so I have decided that I don’t have to do a thing. If she is here do that and if I am alone do that. I can enjoy and appreciate and investigate whatever issues come up either way.
(Message 198xx)

RESPONDENT: I visited her at her home in Florida for a week and it was great. This time I won’t see her again for a month. However, something has been bothering me about it and I have finally realized what it is. Love has reared its ugly head again. I miss her and it is because I love her that I have pain and suffering about it.
The partnership is doomed and I am doomed as long as love is involved. I want to have a partnership without love so that she is free to do what she wants and I am free to do what I want. I don’t know how this will play out but I do know that I will not continue down the love road.
(Message 203xx)

G’day No. 17,

This is quite an apt place to refer you to the last paragraph of my June 21st email to Alan on this very topic.
Viz.:

• [Richard]: “(...) I well recall the period when feeling-being ‘Peter’ first began putting what he was then reading in ‘The Actualism Journal’ into practice with a newly-found female companion – which ‘he’ wrote about in ‘Peter’s Journal’ – as it soon became obvious to both Grace and myself that the first flush of male-female attraction was self-evidently having ‘him’ under the impression that the sublime oneness-intimacy ‘he’ was experiencing (as in an ASC) was an actual intimacy (as in a PCE) and so we bided our time, until that (affectively-induced) ‘chemistry’ began to wear off and ‘he’ came to ‘his’ senses of ‘his’ own accord, as the heightened rush of blind-nature’s mating passions are too powerful a force to be reckoned with. (Richard, List D, Alan, 21 June 2015)

Not only did feeling-being ‘Peter’ write about being in love, in ‘Peter’s Journal’, feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ did as well (in a chapter entitled “A Bit of Vineeto”). At the following URL ‘she’ quotes from both chapters: (Vineeto, Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 23b, 13.3.2004)

The relevant portions of what feeling-being ‘Peter’ wrote, in ‘Peter’s Journal’, are available online in “Peter’s Selected Writing”.
Viz.:

• [Peter]: “(...). Over the next few days something continued to nag me. Why was it that this relationship seemed to be going off the rails? Why, increasingly, were there misunderstandings, petty conflicts and difficulties between us? Why was I becoming more and more obsessed about what Vineeto was doing when we weren’t together, and what she was thinking about when we were together? Over the next days I contemplated on what was wrong and suddenly it dawned on me that, despite our matter-of-fact contract and investigations, we had *fallen in love!* We were both exhibiting the classic symptoms, emotions and feelings associated with *being in love*. I was battling her and trying to force my opinions on her. I realized that I had been *jealous, possessive, pushy, demanding and obsessive* with her. And, most appallingly, I saw how when *the impossible demands of love* are not fulfilled then it can all so quickly turn to *disappointment, resentment, withdrawal, spite and eventually hate*. It had got to the stage where it was obvious to me that, unless something changed, this relationship was heading exactly the same way as all my previous ones – doomed to failure ...”. [emphases added]. (Peter, Selected Writings. Love, #4).

And again:

• [Peter]: “(...).What happened in the ensuing week was quite remarkable. I found that the strength of my intention for peace and harmony made me able to completely drop *this destructive behaviour*. Somehow I knew this was the only course of action I could take to make this relationship work and I knew it was my last chance. The *realizing and facing of the facts, coupled with a clear intent, left ‘me’ with no choice. It wasn’t that ‘I’ made a decision – there was actually no decision to make. Action happened by itself, exactly as it would in swerving to avoid hitting another car while driving*. (...).A week later, we both realized the full extent of the dramatic change that had occurred. *A certain excitement seemed to be missing, a passion and a bond in our lives. It was quite tangible, and a sense of loss overwhelmed us*. It was apparent I had fallen in love about three weeks after we met and had been in love for about six weeks until I had called a halt to the battle. I hadn’t recognized at the time that this behaviour of mine was really *love in operation*; I only saw it in the end as an emotional turmoil that *was destroying my enjoyment of being with Vineeto*. So, what we had seen was love in operation – *a practical demonstration in our lives, not just a theoretical concept*. As we sat down to talk about what had happened *we both had tears in our eyes* ...”. [emphases added]. (Peter, Selected Writings. Love, #4)5

The relevant portions of what feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ wrote, in the chapter entitled “A Bit of Vineeto”, are also available online.

Viz.:

• [Vineeto]: “(...). One thing that I particularly didn’t like about falling in love was the pining. Whenever I was not with Peter I felt *I was tied to him on a long elastic cord and not able to fully enjoy whatever I was doing by myself*. Digging into what could be the reason for my pining, I discovered what I call the ‘Cinderella-syndrome’ – *the romantic dream that most women have* about the perfect and noble man. We are not only looking for someone who takes care of us when our own strength fails us, but also for someone who gives perspective, meaning, definition and identity to our lives, be it as father of our kids, provider of social status, security or a purpose for life. According to this dream Peter should be the answer to the question which I wasn’t willing to face myself: ‘What do I really want to do with my life?’ I remember a Monday evening after a weekend together, and I had been pining the whole day. I had not enjoyed work as I found myself struggling to get out of this exhausting dependency. Here I was, *44 years old and as silly as a teenager!* After work I took a long walk across rolling hills into a spectacular sunset, trying to work out what I wanted to do with my life. (...). That very evening the situation changed. My pining stopped. The fog in the head cleared. *My expectations disappeared. I could again stand on my own feet and equally enjoy the time when I was by myself.* I had *recovered my autonomy* – my autonomy in the sense that I am the only one in my life who is responsible for my happiness”. [emphases added]. (Vineeto, A Bit of Vineeto, Love).

And again:

• [Vineeto]: “(...). Even after dismissing love as a concept or an option of relating, I still had to be watchful of my ‘love-attacks’, as I called them. They would *come through the backdoor, seduce me with a rose-colored mood and appear so nice and cosy* – such a temptation to surrender back into loving Peter instead of meeting him directly. However, I had understood and experienced often enough that any feeling for the other, howsoever sweet and soothing, would only make him *a projected imaginary figure on my own screen of emotions, which can so easily change at the slightest whim. It had nothing to do with the actual person* or situation. Being vigilant and persistently nibbling away at my habit of falling back into love proved to be a long process. After all, love and empathy are praised as woman’s greatest virtues! Later, *love changed into the subtler version* of feeling ‘connected’ to Peter, of having, through him, some kind of identity in my life. I caught myself wanting to use him as an outline for my own existence, as an anchor to define me as ‘person-in-relation’, a ‘self’. Examining it closer I discovered that this need for an anchor derives from the female instinct for protection. (...). I remember in the past whenever I had talked with girlfriends about the qualities of the future ‘perfect’ man, the worst and most terrible vision was to live with a man who was without feelings and emotions! The only option I could think of then was that he would repress his emotions and eventually explode, or that he would be a robot, a walking computer! At that time it was simply unimaginable that I would be able to relate to, let alone delight in living with such a man. And because *my only identity and power had been to feel and express emotions, it was also inconceivable for me to be without them myself*. Now living together is so simple, each of us minding our own business, down to details like money, car, sewing on a button or taking care of one’s health. And each of us is free to do it the way each prefers. Of course I enjoy making Peter a cup of coffee or he delights in cooking a meal for us. (...).
Applying Richard’s method has forced me to examine and eliminate the very issues and beliefs that are triggering those emotions. It revealed to me that *emotions are the crucial part of the ‘self’ – the very cause of my being unhappy and malicious*. It has enabled me to question the beliefs that *both defined and confined me as a woman*. Chiselling away my psychological and psychic entity has *made emotions and feelings redundant* and has left me increasingly free to enjoy every person I meet, every situation that happens and everything that this abundant universe offers. In my ‘role-play’ I am neither a ‘woman’ nor a ‘man’, but simply a human being ... a female, of course! [emphases added]. (Vineeto, A Bit of Vineeto, Love2).

It is, of course, advisable to re-read the above sections in their context at those online URLs.

*

‘Tis unfortunate the wealth of experience obtained by Someone Uniquely Recognisable By Her Inglish is not available for the elucidation of all feeling-beings – I am reluctant to make public knowledge of the details of an experiment unique in human experience/ human history, wherein a rather daring feeling-being deliberately and with knowledge aforethought fell deeply in love with a resident of the actual world (a process she publicly declared to be “a viable course” in becoming actually free via the ‘fusion’ aspect of love), due to the entire five-month experience having afterwards left her hurt, hurting and hurtful; e.g.: vindictive and vengeful – as considerable light was thrown, for instance, on the fundamental necessity of possessiveness (a non-negotiable insistence on exclusivity) being an integral part of love’s maintenance.

Howsoever, despite this unfortunate lack of detail the outcome of that rather daring experiment has already been made public in the most melodramatic manner possible (i.e., via that seditious attempt to stop the global spread of peace-on-earth dead in its tracks – via the dissemination of all manner of made-up stuff about “Richard & Associates” until the outright ridiculousness those salacious fabulations brought about its ignominious melt-down – recently referred to in Message № 20220).

Nevertheless, back in 1997 when Devika was in the process of transmogrifying into being Irene, where she would flip back-and-forth betwixt the two personae, I recorded a conversation we had about love’s possessive nature one delightful morning in early winter (the weather at this latitude is such that winter-time is the dry season wherein the days are warm and sunny, mostly with brilliant blue skies and a clear atmosphere, and the nights are crisp to cold) as a feeling-being’s memory of apperceptive awareness is notoriously unreliable when it comes to the allure of love.

Viz.:

• [Richard: “(...). After all these delicious years of living together and exploring together, a rather salient and curiously unforeseen event has taken place. She has fallen in love ... and has spent the last six weeks endeavouring to come to terms with the shifting kaleidoscope of passions that swing her from one point of view to another. All the experiential understanding of a virtual freedom gets tossed aside in the twinkling of an eye ... only to come back solidly when she is able to come to her senses once again. We recorded one of our conversations only two weeks ago in order to have something factual – other than one’s notoriously unreliable memory – to fall back upon in the times of love’s stress.
*
“Is actual intimacy still vastly superior to love?”
“Oh yes, because love spoils it; love is actually a great spoiler of intimacy. Love is incredibly self-centred, demanding, wanting, needing ... it must have. It is an unfortunate force that comes into one’s life”.
“An unfortunate force?”
“Because when there is actual intimacy there is a pleasure that is more substantial, more of the earth, of me – of my body – and all of my body is intimate. It is that orgastic sensation”.
“And as you are now, there is no yearning, pining, longing ... which is the down-side of love”.
“And the disappointment ... none of that operates in actual intimacy. In love there can be a bruising going on”.
“Bruising?”
“Because of the emotion. After the emotion has gone there is a bruising feeling; I don’t want that emotion because it bruises me again and again. I don’t want the love of another person to ‘fill me up’”.
“What is that ‘bruising’?”
“You can either feel tired or you can have a whingeing pressure pain around the heart and diaphragm... and that is what I would call a bruising. It’s after the emotion has already gone”.
“Oh, you do not mean bruised emotionally?”
“No, it’s physical. The emotion is an onslaught on my physical body ... that’s how I would experience an emotion. It’s like ... you are feeling great and your heart starts pounding and you ...”.
“Are you saying that emotions are unhealthy for the body?”
“Yes, it’s good to have as little of them as possible ... rather none at all. This does not mean that therefore one should repress them. When an emotion is there, take it in hand ... put it in the middle of the table, as it were, and walk around it, have a good look at it and feel every aspect of it. Become aware of it and ask: ‘What is so good about this emotion’?”
“Some people would say to let go of it ...”.
“No, no, no. I don’t ‘let go of it’. By looking at it, it goes. This looking and feeling is looking and feeling with total awareness ... all of me is aware of what this emotion is doing to me as this body. Where, in the body, do I feel it the most? Does it really feel good? Is it one hundred per cent good? No, it is not ... there is always a ‘Yes, but ...’. Even the good emotions can never live up to what they promise. By looking at them they disappear; you see how unnecessary they are. That is with hindsight of course, for you cannot see that they are unnecessary – that there is ‘life after emotions’ – when you are in the grip of the emotion. This is getting to the ‘nitty-gritty’ of me. It is so fascinating ... all these emotions have always kept me in existence. The ‘Good’ emotions are also me. This is my self”.
“This is what you are. It is often said ‘We are emotional beings’. It is excellent to be rid of this for one can see clearly, understand cleanly and act appropriately. For example, love puts a gloss on people ... one sees only the best in the other and is blind to the worst”.
“Now I can look at a person and see such a normal person and I wonder how can such a person be so attractive to one who is in love. This is something I would never see when I was in love; I would never see that aspect”.
“Love covers up what the person actually is like and presents them in a good light”.
“Oh yes a fantastic light ... not just fantastic; love can make that man into the most perfect human being. Into a god”.
*
“Now what about actual intimacy? In intimacy you see the other as they actually are ... ‘warts and all’ is the expression”.
“That is not only better ... it is far more interesting”.
“It does not make you repulsed. One is neither attracted nor repulsed”.
“Exactly”.
“How are you with the other, then?”
“One hundred per cent. They get the all of me”.
“In actual intimacy, when you are with another person one hundred per cent – and there is neither attraction or repulsion – and you see clearly what other people would call attractive or repulsive ... what does that do?”
“Oh, that’s delicious! That’s delicious because that is freedom. Then I’m free from the grip of emotions”.
“So, seeing the other for what they actually are, do you see the ‘Good’ in them? The potential?”
“There is good and bad in everybody. I am aware of what humans call good or bad. I can see them with either eye, as it were; I can see them with intimate eyes or ‘human’ eyes. I am aware of that and I don’t take much notice of the ‘human’ measurement. In actual intimacy this whole moment, everything, is magnificent”.
“In the orthodox way, people who are described as ‘Goody-goodies’, see the good in somebody and try to draw out the good and make them a better person. What do you do, in actual intimacy, when you see both good and bad?”
“I don’t feel like interfering at all. I stay in myself”.
“And you talk from that?”
“I talk from here, yes. I respond according to the circumstance, whereas my identity would react. In intimacy I can respond, taking the whole scenario, the whole situation, into consideration. Whilst the identity goes from identity to identity. In intimacy I can easily sit here ...there is me as I think I am; there is me as I feel I am; there is me as I assert myself and there is me as I actually am. I am this body ... I have given way for the universe to live this body and with that I go anonymous. There are ripples of pleasure going through the body”.
“So you are like that, in virtual freedom there are ripples of pleasure, and being like that, what are you doing with the other person? What do you want, for them?”
“I want the very best. I would wish this upon them”.
“What do you say, then? Seeing the attractive and the repulsive ... and you do not try to draw out the good ...”.
“I’ve stopped doing that ... and I’ve also stopped stopping the bad. I sit with this totality of what is happening in the moment; this moment gives all this and this person is in front of me and there is this strange atmosphere between us and we both are trying – for I see that the other also wants the best – and I want for the other to be also here”.
“Ah! You want for the other to be here, where this moment is happening”.
“Oh yes, of course. What else could I want ... that is the very best I can want”.
“Would you say, then, that you brush aside the potential for good or bad in the other and – simply because they are a human being they have all the qualifications necessary to be here – it does not matter where they come from? They are a physical body and you want them to be here where their body is? You invite them to partake in intimacy. You are able to do it, for everyone has the capacity to be here ... they are just unaware that it exists”.
“Yes, and that is all what I could want, too. Then they can experience it for themselves”.
“Then you can talk directly”.
“Yes. Then we can all have fantastic fun. In intimacy”.
“Which is the direct experience of the other and the world about. No need for love?”
“No need for love. It is all so incredibly good; I am so pleased with everything ... I am enjoying this all so much ... and the self is still here. This is so ... so ... what a relief ... to have finally arrived. How can there be something better than this?”
“Virtual freedom is beyond normal human expectations, anyway. Yet there is more to come. Much, much more. In actual freedom one is the universe’s experience of itself. One experiences the infinite purity and perfection of the vast stillness that is the essential nature of everything”.
*
But it has all been to no avail, the power of love surging through the bloodstream is too strong to deny ... the body can be persuaded to produce quite an array of chemicals; a veritable cocktail is available to the insidious entity that has a psychological and psychic residence within ...”.
(from pp. 235-239, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 1st. Ed. (pp. 256-259, 2nd. Ed.), in Article 36, ‘There comes a Time when one must Leave the Nest and Fly’).

Regards,
Richard.

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

Footnote:

[1]leaving her hurt, hurting and hurtful; e.g.: vindictive and vengeful:

Viz.:

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

• [Richard to No. 15]: [...] Indeed, that is the very reason for my ‘just a quick note’ to [No. 3] (#14174) wherein I made it abundantly clear that it was indeed a real-life drama (aka melodrama) and provided textual evidence which demonstrates the primary reasons as to why it is all taking place before our eyes as we all type out our respective words ... namely: love and its failure to deliver the goods (with its resultant blaming of the ‘love-object’, in lieu of facing the fact that love itself failed, along with its attendant resentment/ hatred and/or jealousy/ envy and/or bitterness/ vindictiveness and so on and so forth). [...]. (Richard, List D, No. 15, 24 June 2013) [return]


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