Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

January 23 2012

Re: Richard writes about two types of Actual Freedom

RESPONDENT No. 6:  (...) Okay, I want to be free and will like to set up a meeting with an AF person. Is there is way to do that?

RICHARD: Yes, there is indeed a way to do that: simply take fresh advantage of my public invitation to you, on this very forum (made on Monday, Dec 14, 2009), for a personal meeting and fly to Australia at a date of your choosing. After all it was, and still is of course, an ‘open invitation’ (as in a blank cheque) for you to come to Australia ...

[...snip...].

Given that you say ‘I want to be free and will like to set up a meeting’ I am going to make it clear up-front that there is no guarantee being made here – be it either expressed or implied – other than to say that, when the conditions are ripe, magic happens.

For instance, a couple of months ago a person of Indian birth and upbringing flew into Coolangatta Airport late one night on a prearranged agreement to meet in person so as to talk about her life and to gain clarity in her life-style/ her livelihood situation.

Less than 24 hours after landing she was actually free of blind nature’s instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof.

In other words, the person who landed at the airport (that feeling-being who needed to gain clarity in her life-style/ her livelihood situation) vanished without a trace, in a matter of seconds, the following afternoon.

[...snip...].

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, Perhaps you could also consider offering blank cheques to people like Gardol. After all, ‘its beginning to look a lot like Christmas’.:) Anyways good to see you’re still frolicking around.

RICHARD: G’day [No. 24], Ha, yes, I am indeed still frolicsome – albeit entirely sincere all the while (which sincerity evidently needs to be restated for the sake of those who so conveniently overlook that salient fact in their zeal to vilify the phantom ‘Richard’ which automorphism convinces them has a reality out-side of their passionate imagination) – as has been the case for nearly two decades now.

(I have snipped out the latter section of my above email, where I refer to having seen many a frisky lamb/ frolicsome calf turn into sedate sheep/sombre cattle, as maturity takes its toll, per favour the instinctually affective programme all sentient beings are genetically endowed with, purely for the sake of emphasising just what the recent kerfuffle on this and other online forums is all about ... to wit: my report about how a ‘feeling-being’ had vanished without a trace, in a matter of seconds, less than 24 hours after landing at a nearby airport late one night on a prearranged agreement to meet in person).

And my above response to those ‘I want to be free and will like to set up a meeting’ words – which I, of course, took at face value (it would have been quite ludicrous to assume, then, that the person who wrote them did not mean what their very own made-public words clearly conveyed) – was also entirely sincere.

Indeed, I was delighted to read those ‘I want to be free and will like to set up a meeting’ words because of having earlier-on been made cognisant, by the person I addressed my response to, of a dramatic turnabout, regarding her previously declared intent to fly to Australia back in December 2010, and it certainly seemed apparent (upon reading those words and thus writing my response) that the self-inflicted emotional/ psychological drama she had been needlessly subjecting herself to for the last 12 months had come to an end.

But, obviously not, eh?

(Incidentally, I was not cognisant of the extent of that self-induced drama until reading through her replies to your posts on the matter).

In order to explain just what the recent kerfuffle, on this and other online forums, stems from – and this latest kerfuffle is currently shaping up to be the mother of all kerfuffles so far – I will first draw attention to the following:

[Richard]: ‘The ‘self’, whilst not being actual, is real ... sometimes very, very real. The belief in a real ‘thinker’ and ‘feeler’ is not just another passing thought. It is emotion-backed imagination at work. ‘I’ passionately believe in ‘my’ existence ... and will defend ‘myself’ to the death if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – will come to the fore then, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, linking  ‘my’ survival with the body’s physical continuation.

Nothing could be further from the truth for ‘I’ play no part in perpetuating physical existence: ‘I’ am not necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body’. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/ richard/listbcorrespondence/listb19.htm#07Mar98a).

Thus all the wild talk about how (for example) a person actually free from the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof (albeit pictured as that phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination) is capable of ‘committing a crime causing harm’ and ‘capable of murdering someone’ – such that someone she evidently trusts as being a rational adviser has personally warned her how she ‘might have to face grave consequences’ upon flying to Australia – all stems from ‘me’ being confused about ‘my’ presence and, in conjunction with that instinctive drive for biological survival, thus linking ‘my’ survival with the body’s physical continuation.

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.

Regards, Richard.

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

P.S.: Oh, in regards to your ‘offering blank cheques to people like Gardol’ you may have overlooked the five-billion-other-people-first pre-condition he put upon playing his part in bringing about a global peace and harmony and/or assisting in making apparent the already always existing peace-on-earth for more than just the handful of daring pioneers so far.

Vis.: [Gardol Yack]: ‘If I saw AF grow to 75% of the world population, I might reconsider’. (www.groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10300).

January 26 2012

Re: Richard writes about two types of Actual Freedom

RICHARD: [...]. In order to explain just what the recent kerfuffle, on this and other online forums, stems from – and this latest kerfuffle is currently shaping up to be the mother of all kerfuffles so far – I will first draw attention to the following:

• 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: Hi Richard, given that the instigation of the ‘kafuffle’ is claimed by Respondent No. 6 to do with the initial incorrect attribution of posts by [Sock Puppet ‘SA’] to her, I think it would be helpful if you could share how it is that you managed to ascertain that Respondent No. 6 and [Sock Puppet ‘SA’] are indeed one and the same.

RICHARD: G’day No. 24, In order to do that I first have to explain how it is that I have known, all along, the physical identity of the person who, ghoulishly identifying as my deceased second wife, Devika (aka Irene), made public details of what is generally considered to be of a confidential and/or private nature – bank account numbers, full names and addresses, medical details and so on and so forth – such as to immediately put into jeopardy (as had been already well-explained in Message No. 5387) both my personal security and my physical safety.

These confidential and/or private details also included the (purported) full name and address of a frail, half-blind, half-deaf 99-year old man – he will turn a 100 in a few weeks’ time if he lives that long (his wife of 90+ years died only a few weeks ago) – who has done nothing other than happen to be my biological progenitor.

(Incidentally, I have spent years deliberately distancing myself, publicly, from any blood-related persons for this very reason ... but that is another matter).

That the wording of that (purported) full name and address had the peculiar abbreviation ‘S/O’ (designating ‘son of’) betwixt the two names it readily informed me that the person ghoulishly identifying as my late wife had access to a rather unique paper document as nothing of that nature is recorded on my hard drive.

The fact that this person got my blood group wrong told me they had access to a photo-identity card I carry on my person, which has the words ‘Donor A’ on it to indicate my consent for all organs and tissues (the letter ‘A’ signifies ‘All’) to be available for transplant at physical death, and thus does not represent a blood group, as nothing of that nature is recorded on my hard drive.

The fact that this person published the name, telephone number and medical practice address of the doctor who prescribed the tablets I take thrice-daily, to manage an otherwise debilitating lower-back ailment dating back to 24-years of age (see Message No. 5402), showed me that they had access to the very packets those tablets are packaged in as that kind of information is not recorded on my hard drive.

All this and more (that this person published my privately online work-in-progress ‘Personal Web Page’, for example, with the assertion it had showed up in an internet search-engine (which it does not) demonstrated it to be someone to whom I had personally given a pre-release preview) not only told me that my computer’s security system had not been compromised – meaning that my hard-drive on my computer here in Australia had not been hacked into by electronic means – it also told me precisely who it was who was deliberately, systematically, and with malice aforethought, conducting the most massive invasion of privacy this forum has ever seen.

*

Thus, when the person belatedly identifying as [Sock Puppet ‘SA’] posted Message No. 10530, what would have otherwise been circumstantial evidence immediately caught my eye ... to wit: the quaint ‘I will like to’ phrasing (rather than the regular ‘I would like to’) in those ‘I want to be free and will like to set up a meeting’ words.

And that ‘I will like to’ phrasing is common to both of the Online ID’s/Internet Aliases you have asked me about in your above query. Vis.:

• [Sock Puppet ‘SA’]: ‘Okay, I want to be free and will like to set up a meeting (...)’. (Message No. 10530; Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:26 pm).

• [Sock Puppet ‘SA’]: ‘My name is S[**] A[**] and I live in India, currently, but I am of European origin. I will also like to meet up with you’. (Message No. 10548; Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:46 am).

• [Respondent No. 6]: ‘I will like to hear more about everyone’s experiences and progress in last few months (...)’. (Message No. 3627 [3637]; Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:26 pm).

• [Respondent No. 6]: ‘I have nothing to hide from any one around me, but i do like my privacy and will like to keep it that way.’ (Message No. 6184; Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:42 pm).

• [Respondent No. 6]: ‘I do not have any specific queries about the meeting, but will like to know as to what issues (...)’. (Message No. 8099 [8138]; Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:55 am).

• [Respondent No. 6]: ‘The name is pronounced any which way you will like to pronounce it’. (Message No. 8155; Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:34 am).

• [Respondent No. 6]: ‘(...) when i used the word conversation. yes, i will like to hear more about your observations’. (Message No. 8159; Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:14 pm).

• [Respondent No. 6]: ‘If you and Richard are going to meet, i will like to be the fly on the wall’. (Message No. 8816 [8817]; Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:57 am).

• [Respondent No. 6]: ‘(...) have also become free and will like to take time in sharing that information with people at large.’ (Message No. 9587; Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:08 pm).

Incidentally, during the computer-search for those above instances it became conclusively evident that nobody else had ever used that particular phrasing ... everybody else posting during that period (2008-2010) used the regular ‘I would like to’ phrasing.

The following 4 points are worth noting:

1. The signature/sign-off in Message No’s. 10530 and 10548 reads ‘[SP**]’ (rather than, say, ‘[SA**]’).

2. The signature/sign-off in Message No’s. 10527 and 10530 reads ‘[SP]’ (rather than, say, ‘[SA]’).

3. In Message No. 10545 the person belatedly identifying as [Sock Puppet ‘SA’] wrote: ‘I had no idea that I was posting privat emails as they were publicly available (...)’ yet a search of the world-wide-web, by two popular internet search-engines, on that very day (Tue, Dec 20, 2011), with the unusual term ‘Floating Convivium Prospectus’ copy-pasted from what that person had posted returned nil hits. Vis.:

<!> No results found for ‘Floating Convivium Prospectus’. (www.google.com.au/)

We did not find results for: ‘Floating Convivium Prospectus’. (http://au.search.yahoo.com).

Similar searches for other key terms/unusual phrases also returned nil hits ... and to this very day the person belatedly identifying as [Sock Puppet ‘SA’] has not provided the URL for that [quote] ‘publicly available’ [endquote] source.

Neither has anyone asked that person for it, for that matter, other than yourself. Vis.:

[Respondent]: ‘Hi ‘[SP]’, for the sake of authenticity could you please also supply the links when quoting text’. (Message No. 10531; Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:11 am).

4. On December the 20th, 2011 (Message No. 10546) the person belatedly identifying as [Sock Puppet ‘SA’] wrote: ‘Hope my oversight will not stop anyone on the forum from responding to my queries’ and yet, despite that clearly expressed wish to continue discussion about those very queries, more than a month has gone by since then and your two helpful replies (Message No’s.10528 and 10531) are still waiting there, ready to be responded to all this while, but there has been nothing of that nature forthcoming.

In fact, nothing of any nature at all ... for over a month, now.

*

What concerns me is that someone she evidently trusts as being a rational adviser has personally warned her how she ‘might have to face grave consequences’ (Message No. 10563) upon flying to Australia ... even as recently as Jan 23 (Message No. 10750) she informed you how she has [quote] ‘serious concerns that he could try to eliminate me physically’ [endquote].

Now, in view of the quite public nature of my renewal of that ‘blank cheque’ invitation of Dec 14th 2009 (which was itself a public invitation), it makes no sense at all that this person she evidently trusts as being rational would even consider for a moment – let alone actually warn her – in such a manner.

It is, quite simply, just not rational at all.

Perhaps if I were to spell it out graphically: there is a person, as yet unknown – or even persons, maybe, also as yet unknown – who are frightening her, scaring her out of her wits, almost, by the look of it, so as to advance their own agenda ... namely: their crusade to rid the planet of actualism/actual freedom.

For she is their ‘Star Witness’ (so to speak) in their clandestine campaign to discredit and/or destroy ‘Richard’.

And I say clandestine because the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust have been aware for quite some time of emails being privately circulated containing all manner of made-up stuff about ‘Richard & his associates’.

*

So, what to do, eh?

*

Look, as I have been actually free of the human condition for nearly two decades now (this is my 20th year come Oct/Nov) any ‘fatal flaw’, to use a cliché, would surely have shown up by now; furthermore, as Vineeto has been in the same condition as I am for over a year now (15 months since Oct 2010), all those tired old arguments about me, formulated via ‘reading between the lines’ or ‘seeing the picture not the pixels’ and so on and so forth, cannot – and quite evidently so – be even considered applicable anymore.

So, here is a point for the ‘vocal detractors’ to ponder: just pause to consider for a moment (if you can) just what it would mean if you are wrong – have been wrong all along – and that actualism/actual freedom is indeed as it is reported/described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

Because what it means is that you have treated an innocent man (and a war-veteran at that) in a most inconsiderate/uncaring way – resulting in both his personal security and his physical safety having now been put into jeopardy – and you are all going to have to live with that fact for the rest of your lives.

And this means every single one of you who have played a part in driving/promoting/ supporting this bizarre campaign.

Put simply: your highly-prized and much-touted empathy (not to even mention compassion) sucks ... and sucks big time.

You have all shown me your true colours.

Regards, Richard.

February 24 2012

Re: Just who is taking license to trifle with life of people?

RESPONDENT No. 6 to Respondent: [...] whatever I have written on this forum should be sufficient for anyone interested in humankind at large and their own predicament to question and inquire about what I know and have expressed as the sinister side of ASC-cum-Actual Freedom. A state of altered state that is as delusional as any other and can prove to be dangerous as the person in such a state does not recognize or is aware of the delusional fantasies he/she can manifest. [...].

If ASC-cum-Actual Freedom was the real deal I would have been the happiest person on this earth and would have written and explained and demonstrated unabated about it. You cannot even fathom how much.

But, I cannot keep up with a lie or a delusional game, when the facts of it being an ugly, sinister Altered state whence the person is so deluded that even if he is shouting, abusing, or torturing a person, he is unaware of it. Not just unaware but actually thinks of it to be the accurate and correct line of action. [...].

Let me clear your presumption: I had absolutely no suspicion of Richard at all, when I met him. In fact, it was the very opposite. [...].

I had no suspicion of Richard at all while it was unfolding in front of me. And even then, for a long time I kept on denying what was obvious and apparent because I could not believe that a person could be so deluded, so cold-blooded in his wheeling and dealings. This man, who proposes to be free of human condition turned out so deeply entrenched in it that it was unbelievable.

RESPONDENT: [...] The challenge to live close to a PCE or excellent experience is a valid one and well established.

RESPONDENT No. 6 to Respondent: Who says that it is a valid one of well established, whereas I challenge it as an extensive self delusion – where the experience is elevating but ultimately delusional in nature, that is why it is unstable and does not last long.

It is just another form of ASC. An ASC that poets and creative writers have also written about extensively. [...].

RESPONDENT: Also the question of whether a PCE type experience can become permanent appears to be answered in the affirmative by an increasing number of individuals, some not directly associated with Richard.

RESPONDENT No. 6 to Respondent: I have been made to understanding that AF is not ‘PCE type experience’ becoming permanent. [...].

I am sure that what is going on in ASC-cum-Peak experiences-renamed-PCE and also ASC-cum-Actual Freedom as propagated and written about by Mr. Richard is that due to lifting of *conditioning* a person’s *pure* instincts get exposed. In that *pure* state of being, the goodness, lovely and peaceful instincts take over the opposite instincts, because the very aim of the person in trying to get into that state is to be good, lovely and peaceful. However this extreme subjective state of being is unstable because the opposite instincts have the tendency to come to surface too, that is why the goodness, loveliness and peace does not last and the person experiences receding of this state. What happens in case of people who claim that they have been able to stabilize it is that they embrace a delusion where they keep on, consciously, harping on the good, lovely and peaceful, while unconsciously denying the appearance of opposite – whence they are angry, for example, but incapable now to either ‘feel’ it, recognize it, hence able to discern their own behaviour.

RESPONDENT: Have no idea what the *pure* instincts are that your talking about or what their relationship to instinctual passions is. Same with ‘good, lovely and peaceful’. Your attempt to add deluded qualities similar to those of Richard’s take on enlightenment ie sublimation, sounds farcical.

RICHARD: G’day No. 24, If only it were all but a farce (as in ‘farcical’), eh?

However, for your co-respondent it is anything but a farcical matter because, as she unambiguously states (further above in direct reply to your response on the subject), she has been made to understand – albeit by someone as yet unnamed – that an actual freedom from the human condition (aka being actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof) is not, in effect, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) made permanent.

Here it is once again for clarity (from message No. 10xxx):

#10563 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]
Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:23 am
[...] I have been made to understanding that AF is not ‘PCE type experience’ becoming permanent.

Now, as she has never been made to understand by me, of course, that being actually free is not, in effect, a PCE made permanent (either by my written or spoken words) then the question arises as to just who it was who made her understand it that way, non?

And this is not a trivial question as her entire case – that ‘Richard & his associates’ have a ‘license to trifle with life of people’/ have ‘trifled with life of a person’ – stems from/ depends upon/ revolves around her having been made to understand that, as PCE’s are really ASC’s (altered states of consciousness), an actual freedom from the human condition is, therefore, not a PCE type experience becoming permanent.

(In other words, and put succinctly, her entire case is that actualism/ actual freedom is not, in everyday life life, what is reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust website but is an (unstable) ASC type experience instead ... hence ‘trifle with life of people’ because it is therefore not something new to human experience/ human history after all).

Plus, and as she is on record (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) as stating she cannot recall ever having had a PCE, the question as to just who it was who made her understand it that way is what is crucial to that entire case of hers against ‘Richard & his associates’.

Also, and given that No. 25’s expression ‘toying with his fellow humans’ conveys the same sentiment as ‘trifle with life of people’ and ‘license to trifle with someone else life’, that crucial question relates to the essence of more than just a few other persons’ case against ‘Richard & his associates’ as well. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 25]: ‘Finally, Richard’s writings [...] well, you have to admit when read sensibly appears to be nothing but delusions of grandeur and toying with his fellow humans. I, for one, am with [No. 2] and [No. 4] on this (...)’. (Message No. 109xx; Fri Feb 10, 2012).

Now, as No. 2 (who is also on record in the Yahoo Group forum archives as stating he cannot recall ever having had a PCE) has categorised an actual freedom from the human condition as being ‘Mahasamadhi’ (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) and ‘Parinirvana’ (on his ‘Remains of the Day’ web-log), there is not going to be any prize issued for guessing just who that person is whom she had [quote] ‘been made to understanding’ [endquote] that an actual freedom from the human condition was not a PCE type experience becoming permanent but, instead, an (unstable) ASC type experience, eh? Vis.:

#9259 From: [Respondent No. 2]:
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2010 9:01 am
Subject: Re: An Epitaph

• [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]: hmmm..will have to think about that. btw congratulations on discovering the edifice of human civilization....

• [Respondent No. 2]: Notwithstanding your sarcasm, this is not a joke, I’m afraid. Actualists are breaking up their marriages, leaving their jobs, making enemies, making dubious long-term career decisions, ... Those who have gotten the point, glad to be of help.

Those who disagree and want to continue towards Mahasamadhi where they would be a ‘flesh and blood body apperceptively aware sans an ego and a soul’ and would be ‘beholden to no one’: you stand warned, you are on a disaster course. Not just for you, but for people who depend on you in various ways. The pursuit of dehumanizing yourself in this particular way, if carried through, will result in: dysfunction, delusion, isolation. [...]

Over and out.
-No. 2

Now, I know for a fact that when I flew out of India to Australia, in early September 2010, she entertained no such notions that a PCE was ‘just another form of ASC’ (for example) let alone that she was, up to that point in time, ‘sure that what is going on in ASC-cum-Peak experiences-renamed-PCE and also ASC-cum-Actual Freedom (...) is that due to lifting of *conditioning* a person’s *pure* instincts get exposed’.

And, look, nobody has to take my word for it (regarding what did not take place whilst I was in India) as she says so herself. Vis.:

#10782 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]
Date: Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:36 am
I have revealed some facts that I have come across about Richard after I met him during his visit to India.

Note well she says *after* Richard’s (6-month) visit to India she came across what she states are some ‘facts’. As they are *not* facts – that PCE’s are really ASC’s and that actualism/ actual freedom are not what ‘Richard & his associates’ report/ describe/ explain on The Actual Freedom Trust website – the question immediately arises as to just whereabouts it was, or by whose direction, that she came across those so-called ‘facts’. Here is another instance:

#10570 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]
Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:58 pm
Let me clear your presumption: I had absolutely no suspicion of Richard at all, when I met him [in India]. In fact, it was the very opposite.

Note well she says she had *absolutely* no suspicion whilst Richard was in India (in 2010) ... and that, *in fact*, it was the very opposite to that when Richard was actually there, physically, in person, as a flesh-and-blood body.

(Hence my public renewal of my ‘blank cheque’ invitation to fly to Australia – just as she had previously planned on doing, prior me flying out in September, back in December 2010 – so that she could find out for herself, in person, just what are actually the facts ... but someone as yet unnamed warned her she might have to face grave consequences, such as with her life, if she does so).

Here is another example:

#10570 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]
Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:58 pm
I had no suspicion of Richard at all while it was unfolding in front of me. And even then, for a long time I kept on denying what was obvious and apparent because I could not believe that a person could be so deluded, so cold-blooded [...].

Note well she says she had no suspicion of Richard *at all* when Richard was actually present, physically, in India in 2010 ... and that even then, for a long time afterwards, she could not believe that a person could be so deluded, so cold-blooded (and all the rest which, perforce, follows-on from having come across those ‘facts’ that, because PCE’s are really ASC’s, actualism/ actual freedom is not a PCE type experience becoming permanent).

Here is an example of what she publicly wrote, at the time, on the Google Groups forum:

[Respondent No. 19]: hi, were you able to meet richard? all ears.

[Respondent No. 6]: yes, i was able to meet Richard.

a. i think a lot of people get him 180 degree wrong while reading arrogance and the whole shebang in his words. I have never met a gentler and kinder human being in my life.

b. he is very practical, very down to earth and very observant.

just a bloke, to borrow [Respondent No. 4’s] words, most of the times. Yes, he is a walking encyclopedia and an expert on freeing oneself from human condition, but he is as curious and attentive as any one else or maybe more.

c. he is for real and whoever can meet him should meet him, if for nothing else, but to experience what it is like to talk to and experience the company of such a person as he is. he does have a very gentle and positive effect by way of his mannerisms (no hurry in him, very matter of fact and gentle).

d. i have not sensed – not for a split second – any emotion in him but intimacy, he values human beings, actually and really. I have definitely benefited from meeting him and look forward to changes that are happening in me (...). He is a facilitator, a fellow being who has discovered something wonderful for himself and have taken the trouble to share that with me. (...).

P.S.: ccing [No. 14] and Richard since they do not subscribe to this group mailing system. (21/4/2010).

*

To summarise:

1. By whom has she [quote] ‘been made to understanding’ [endquote] that an actual freedom from the human condition is not a PCE type experience becoming permanent?

2. By whom has she been warned that she might have to [quote] ‘face grave consequences, such as with my life, if it comes to that’ [endquote]?

3. Just who is it who is really taking ‘license to trifle with life of people’?

The following is probably the most blatantly obvious clue to emerge to date. Vis.:

#11075 From: [Respondent No. 2]

Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:30 am

[...] There are quite a few roadblocks to making public what has been shared amongst only a few people till now:

1. The sharer had faith and trust in those individuals, and so was able to share the material with them. The sharer does not (justifiably) have that faith in the public at large. The sharer is not sure that the material would not scandalize the sharer itself in the society that the sharer lives in and so would make the sharer’s future life even more troublesome. The sharer likely has already paid an extremely heavy social cost for the sharer’s misadventure.

2. The sharer will likely have to indulge in a public slanging match with Richard, and go over minutiae in a lawyer-like-detail (since for Richard it is going to be the most important job to defend himself and his philosophy, he will spend enormous time and energy to do it). The sharer may not be ready for that.

3. The sharer may have been traumatized and feeling extremely foolish by the turn of events, and would not like to recount them but instead, would probably think it best to move on while warning others to be careful about having any kind of faith in Richard. [...]

How come [No. 2] has now taken it upon himself to speak in such a paternalistic manner on behalf of [quote] ‘the sharer itself’ [endquote] when she is, and quite evidently so, eminently capable of speaking for herself, in one or more of her many guises, both before and after he posted his above oratorical crowd-swaying harangue? Vis.:

#3627 From: [Respondent No. 6]
Date: Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:26 pm
I will like to hear more about everyone’s experiences [...].

#10530 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘SA’)]
Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:26 pm
Okay, I want to be free and will like to set up a meeting [...].

#10555 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]
Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:31 pm
Please go through my message; I will like you to remove [...].

#10686 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘U’)]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:08 am
I will like to see the real evidence that that the new cult [...].

#11277 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘W’)]
Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:05 am
note to the presiding magistrate: Perhaps you will like to take [...].

#11280 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘B’)]
Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:09 am
photos [...] for the ones who will like to be warned off the psychotic [...].

#11325 From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:06 pm
G’day Richard, Would you divulge the affair between you and [...].

‘Tis quite fascinating to observe how [Respondent No. 2] is somehow (presciently?) able to warn everyone, at 2:56 pm on the 21st of February, 2012, to beware of a person identifying as [quote] ‘From: No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘H’) (and possibly others)’ [endquote] as being a sock-puppet of ‘Richard & Associates’ a full ten minutes before the person identifying as [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘H’) posted their above epistle (at 3:06 pm on that 21st day of February, 2012) ... and, furthermore, how he is somehow (miraculously?) able to do that in response to a post of his own – with the one-word text ‘Beware’ in its body – which is manifestly time-stamped as having being posted 5 hours and 27 minutes later (at 8:23 pm on that quite remarkable 21st day of February, 2012). Vis.:

#11324 From: [Respondent No. 2]

Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:56 pm

[...] On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM,

[Respondent No. 2] wrote:

Beware.

If it were not for the fact they are messing with other peoples’ minds – and in a really big way (as in [No. 15’s] ‘agonising doubt’, for instance, and his ‘postactualism’ recovery list) as well – it would indeed be, as you said much further above, all quite farcical.

(Or, as you went on to write after that, albeit immediately below now, how you are left wondering whether her ‘attempt to add deluded qualities similar to those of Richard’s take on enlightenment ie sublimation’ onto actualism/ actual freedom is something she is serious about or just using for ‘humorous effect’).

[RESPONDENT to No. 6]: Due to your having detailed prior knowledge about AF I am left wondering whether are you actually serious in using this conceptualisation/ terminology or are using it for humorous effect??

RICHARD: Just for the record, then, here is an example of what you characterised, albeit much further above now, as ‘Richard’s take on enlightenment ie sublimation’ (copy-pasted directly from the homepage on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website). Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘The instinctual passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head).

No other animal can do this.

That this process is aided and abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born – which is conditioning and programming and is part and parcel of the socialising process – is but the tip of the iceberg and not the main issue at all.

All the different types of conditioning are well-meant endeavours by countless peoples over countless aeons to seek to curb the instinctual passions. Now, while most people paddle around on the surface and rearrange the conditioning to ease their lot somewhat, some people – seeking to be free of all human conditioning – fondly imagine that by putting on a face-mask and snorkel that they have gone deep-sea diving with a scuba outfit ... deep into the human condition.

They have not ... they have gone deep only into the human conditioning. When they tip upon the instincts – which are both savage (fear and aggression) and tender (nurture and desire) – they grab for the tender (the ‘good’ side) and blow them up all out of proportion.

If they succeed in this self-aggrandising hallucination they start talking twaddle dressed up as sagacity such as: ‘There is a good that knows no evil’ or ‘There is a love that knows no opposite’ or ‘There is a compassion that sorrow has never touched’ and so on. Which means that the ‘Enlightened Beings’ advise dissociation (wherein painful reality is transformed into a bad dream) as being the most effective means to deal with all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like. Just as a traumatised victim of an horrific and terrifying event makes the experience unreal in order to cope with the ordeal, the ‘Enlightened Beings’ have desperately done precisely this thing ... during what is sometimes called ‘the dark night of the soul’.

This is because it takes nerves of steel to don such an aqua-lung and plunge deep in the stygian depths of the human psyche ... it is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee.

This is because past the human conditioning is the human condition itself ... that which caused the conditioning in the first place. To end this condition, the deletion of blind nature’s software package which gave rise to the rudimentary animal ‘self’ is required.

This is the elimination of ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’.

The complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ is the end to all the ills of humankind. (../richard/default.htm).

As I have already observed twice, in previous posts, [No. 2] is so way, way out of his depth in theses matters it is a wonder he is still breathing.

Consequently, I will leave off with the following instance of a direct result of his meddling in other peoples’ lives for all those affected to ponder upon during their ‘postactualism’ recovery period. Vis.:

#10570 [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]

Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:58 pm

If ASC-cum-Actual Freedom was the real deal I would have been the happiest person on this earth and would have written and explained and demonstrated unabated about it.

You cannot even fathom how much.

Regards, Richard.