Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Re: Near Actual Caring

CLAUDIU: Hi Alan. In 23080, you wrote:

Needless to say, this will never result in the genuine article that is an actual freedom from the human condition.

ALAN: And anyone with a modicum of sensibility (not obscured by personal feelings) will easily appreciate that what I was referring to (near actual caring) and what Richard was referring to (caring for the other as an ongoing modus operandi and the basic instinct of nurture in action) are two completely different things. This is especially obvious given the qualifiers I included - with no reserve, no holding back anything whatsoever – which is not the case in the “caring” which Richard was discussing. (Message № 23190; Tue, 26 Jul 2016)

[...remainder of post elided...].

SRINATH: I thought that the final step i.e. self-immolation, could indeed be construed as a putting of others before self.

RICHARD: G’day Srinath,

First of all, what follows is the text starting at the top of the web page which Claudiu linked to further above – in regards to what he described as “this putting the other before oneself” topic – as part of his engaged response to Alan’s “placing the other’s happiness before my own” depiction of what “giving myself 100% to another” means to Alan when put into practice.

Viz.:

R: Most Religions and Spiritual Paths advocate putting the other before oneself ... it is their way of preventing selfishness – which they assume to be identical with self-centredness. Yet it is self-centred to want to be a ‘good’ person and therefore gain one’s post-mortem reward in some after-life. Immortality for the self has to be classified as being the ultimate self-centredness. Self-centredness is translated as egotism ... is there such a word as ‘soultism’? There should be!
Let us have a look at the practice of putting the other before oneself: Take us four sitting here – and presume we are all ‘good’ people – and I am not going to be ‘selfish’ at all. Therefore I am going to totally look after (Q) ... I will put her before me in all circumstances. Now, (Q) is also a ‘good’ person and she is not going to be ‘selfish’ either ... so she is going to put Q(1) before herself. However, you have also been brought up with this religious and humanitarian concept of putting the other before oneself ... therefore you will put Q(2) before yourself ... and Q(2) will be putting me before himself. We have come a full circle; do you see the nonsense that is going on? Because the end result of putting the other first is that eventually you get looked after anyway. If we all just stop this charade and start looking after ourselves then we will be a lot better off. It makes much more sense.
Q: Then nobody owes anybody anything ...
R: There is no investment.
Q: ... and nobody owes me anything, either.
Q(2): There is no relationship.
R: No relationship ... right! It is a free association. (Richard, Audio-Taped Dialogues, Putting the Other before Oneself).

As you can see the topic is essentially about being self-centred – with especial attention upon that term referring to each and every ‘self’ being both ego-centric and soul-centric – in respect to the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness, which religio-spiritualists generally equate to self-centredness, via putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’).

Now, the incident to which Claudiu responded thusly was when feeling-being ‘Alan’ placed the affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ before the actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan (otherwise depicted as “giving myself 100% to another” in Message № 23179) being apparent 24/7 by forgoing ‘his’ second attempt at ‘self’-immolation, there-and-then, due in the main to feeling-being ‘Alan’ already being about an hour late for their prearranged rendezvous.

In other words, feeling-being ‘Alan’ prioritised the (potential) affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ – a conditioned happiness, dependent upon the situation and circumstances, and of a temporary nature – over the (potential) actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan – an unconditioned happiness, due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only, and of a permanent nature – which happiness also has the priceless advantage of having no trace of any malice whatsoever to later supplant it.

(Incidentally, note well how no mention is made of the then-current affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Alan’ – voice-recorded at-the-time as being “I am *so happy and excited* that I am going to meet the person I am closest to on the intimacy scale (...) I know it is going to be *a very enjoyable* day” [emphases added] – having the obvious potential of being at least sustained, at that then-current level, if not even further enhanced).

Furthermore, and given that Alan portrays that prioritising of affective happiness over an actual happiness as being a “near actual caring” further above, it is pertinent to point out that an actual caring is epitomised by an ever-present preference for the self-imposed suffering of one’s fellow human being to come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later.

For instance:

• [Richard]: “(...) the difference between you and me is that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No.74f, 2 February 2006).

Thus the “caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” that Vineeto wrote about (as quoted by Claudiu much further above) – which appears to have become known as a ‘near-actual caring’ these days – is self-evidently a caring which prioritises an actual happiness over an affective happiness any day of the week (else it be a gussied up real-world caring masquerading as a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster).

And now that the incident in question has been brought to its due notice then your above thought – as in, “I thought that the final step i.e. self-immolation, could indeed be construed as a putting of others before self”, that is – can be addressed in an applied fashion.

SRINATH: Otherwise what would be the reason for calling it biological altruism? A mother who throws herself in front of a train to protect her baby is clearly doing this.

RICHARD: Here is a typical example of what is to be found on The Actual Freedom Trust web site in regards to ‘self’-immolation, in toto, and the word ‘altruism’.

• [Richard]: “There is an intrinsic trait common to all sentient beings: self-sacrifice. It manifests in humans in the way that ‘I’ will passionately defend ‘myself’ and ‘my group’ to the death if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. Nevertheless, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality.
This is called altruism ... albeit misplaced.
Thus when ‘I’ willingly and irremunerably ‘self’-immolate in toto – both psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make *for this body and that body and every body* ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 60, 3 December 2003).

And again:

• [Richard]: “The word altruism can be used in two distinctly different ways – in a virtuous sense (as in being an unselfish/ selfless self) or in a zoological/ biological sense (as in being diametrically opposite to selfism) – and it is the latter which is of particular interest to a person wanting to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, as it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) ... blind nature endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group). By and large the instinct for survival of the group is the more powerful – as is epitomised in the honey-bee (when it stings to protect/ defend the hive it dies) – and it is the utilisation of this once-in-a-lifetime gregarian action which is referred to in my oft-repeated ‘an altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice/ ‘self’-immolation, in toto, *for the benefit of this body and that body and every body*’”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 83, 7 February 2005).

The only way in which the above text [quote] “could indeed be construed as a putting of others before self” [endquote] is by having the word “others” quite uncharacteristically refer to ‘this body and that body and every body’. For example:

• [example only]: ‘I thought that the final step i.e. self-immolation, could indeed be construed as a putting of this body and that body and every body before self’ [end example].

Here, then, is the 64-dollar question to ponder: did feeling-being ‘Alan’ put ‘his’ body and the body inhabited by feeling-being ‘Joan’ and every other body on the planet before feeling-being ‘Alan’ in that incident whereby ‘he’ placed the affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ before the actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan (otherwise depicted as “giving myself 100% to another” in Message № 23179) by forgoing ‘his’ second attempt at ‘self’-immolation there-and-then?

*

Lastly, as a feeling-being does not give themself 100% to another feeling-being via placing that other feeling-being’s happiness before their own then it is most certainly misleading to present that age-old religio-spiritual practice of ‘putting the other before oneself’ as if it were the way to go about doing so.

More to this point: it is a matter of public record that on the first occasion in which the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was finally able to give ‘himself’ completely to a woman – totally and utterly – she was so busy fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer she never even noticed there was no longer any aspect of that ‘me’ hiding from view and/or holding aloof in an ultra-cautious and/or ever-futile reserve (as in, who or what on earth had ‘he’ been saving ‘himself’ for all that long while).

Viz.:

• [Richard]: “(...) back when I was a normal man I came close to the loss of self already mentioned on several occasions (in my first marriage) only to instinctively pull-back, out of instantaneous fear at such imminence, as it intuitively seemed she would thus take over my mind and make me her slave for ever and a day.
It was not until after the four-hour PCE, which initiated the process resulting in an actual freedom, that it became obvious to me what such loss of self actually meant.
Accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally and utterly – whilst hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm (something which I had discovered whilst pubescent).
And then ... !Hey Presto! ... no separation whatsoever.
(Incidentally, rather than that intuitive fear of thus being her slave coming true it was quite instructive to have her then relate how she had been fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer all the while I was giving myself to her totally)”. (Richard, List D, No. 6, 10 November 2009 and No. 20, 9 December 2009).

You will surely notice how giving oneself 100% is all about the ending of self-centredness – self-centred as in being both ego-centric and soul-centric – and has nowt to do with placing another’s happiness before one’s own [a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’].

*

Incidentally, neither will being in love do the trick either (as was amply demonstrated by the instigator of the ‘mother of all kerfuffles’ back in January 2012).

RICK: Richard, I’ve read that in order to self-immolate, one needs to harness altruism in the purest sense. My problem is, I really don’t care as much about other people as I do myself ... I really am only concerned about myself and my issues. I really don’t have time to worry about someone else’s problems as I have too much to deal with concerning myself. I know however that, according to you, altruism is the key to success in order to self-immolate. What can a person in my situation do to best harness this sense of pure altruism? I can’t really seem to muster much sympathy and compassion (at least not enough to do anything about it like altruistically self-immolate) for those people on the news suffering because of this or that. How can I become less and less selfish and more concerned about others (as that is what it seems to require for success)? Maybe I need to fix my own personal problems first before I can worry about others’?

RICHARD: First of all, the word altruism can be used in two distinctly different ways – in a virtuous sense (as in being an unselfish/ selfless self) or in a zoological/ biological sense (as in being diametrically opposite to selfism) – and it is the latter which is of particular interest to a person wanting to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into being apparent, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, as it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) ... blind nature endows each and every human being with both the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group).

RICK: Yes, okay ... Well I suppose my problem is that I can’t or don’t know how to utilise this powerful instinctive impulse of altruism ... My predominant impulse seems to be selfism (a concentration of my own interests).

RICHARD: Of course your predominant impulse is selfism (the selfish instinct for individual survival) for that is the way blind nature functions – until/ unless some situation evokes altruism (the clannish instinct for group survival) that is – inasmuch there is the biological imperative to stay alive long enough to reproduce.

RICK: Okay. How should I go about to bring out and utilise this clannish instinct of group survival in myself to overcome the predominant but less powerful impulse of selfism?

RICHARD: As altruism is an instinctive impulse (and not a matter of will), and as it is a situation (and not wishfulness) which evokes that powerful instinct for group survival, then unless the fact that any action within the human condition is bound to fail is grasped with both hands, and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, the predominant impulse for individual survival, even though less powerful, will prevail.

RICK: What works most effectively?

RICHARD: The situation of course ... despite all of humanity’s hard-won civilisation (socialisation, humanisation, edification, education, refinement, sophistication) both those people on the news you wrote about earlier, and yourself, are still suffering because of this or that.

*

RICHARD: It is as straightforward as this: blind nature does not care two-hoots about you and me personally – essentially blind nature is only concerned with the survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned) – but I do ... the question is: do you?

RICK: Yeah, neither blind nature nor the cosmos care whether I am happy or not. But I certainly care about myself and am concerned about my well-being ... sure.

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way (with emphasis on the plural): blind nature does not care two-hoots about *individuals* – essentially blind nature is only concerned with the survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned) – but an individual does ... the question is: do you?

*

RICHARD: By and large the instinct for survival of the group is the more powerful – as is epitomised in the honey-bee (when it stings to protect/ defend the hive it dies) – and it is the utilisation of this once-in-a-lifetime gregarian action which is referred to when I speak of an altruistic ‘self’-immolation or ‘self’-sacrifice, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body.

RICK: The key it seems is figure out how I can utilise this once-in-a-lifetime gregarian action that you refer to. It sounds like something I would definitely want to do ... and as soon as possible.

RICHARD: Okay ... you wrote earlier about people on the news suffering because of this or that: do you too suffer because of this or that?

RICK: Well as far as heartache, anxiety, depression, emotional pains, and general feelings of malice and sorrow ... yes.

RICHARD: That is precisely what I am enquiring about (the suffering which ‘this or that’ can bring to the surface): is that not your own suffering there – on the news each time you tune in – reflected back at you as if looking into a mirror?

RICK: As far as experiencing starvation, torture, rape, grief of a slain loved one, or any other traumatic things that are happening to people right now in the news and around the world ... no, not presently.

RICHARD: It matters not just what particular ‘this or that’ it is which brings up the suffering – such as the heartache, anxiety, depression, emotional pains, and general feelings of malice and sorrow you mention – as it is that suffering which makes for ‘traumatic things’ (turns events into traumas).

Life is not ‘a vale of tears’ here in this actual world.

*

RICHARD: It has nothing to do with becoming [quote] ‘less selfish and more concerned about others’ [endquote] as human beings are all in the same boat in regards the human condition – no one is better off than another, at the core of their being, or worse off than someone else – and everything to do with wanting, with all of one’s being, to bring to an end, once and for all, the inherent suffering which epitomises human nature. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘... one has to want to be free from the human condition like one has never wanted anything before. Because unless one is vitally interested in peace on earth one will never even begin to free the crippled intelligence from the debilitating passions bestowed by blind nature. Yet becoming vitally interested is but the preliminary stage, because until one becomes curious as to whether what is being written here about genetic inheritance can be applied to themselves, only then does the first step begin. For it is only when one becomes curious about the workings of oneself – what makes one tick – is that person participating in their search for freedom for the first time in their life. This is because people mostly look to rearranging their beliefs and truths as being sufficient effort ... ‘I’ am willing to be free as long as ‘I’ can remain ‘me’. In other words: their notion of freedom is a ‘clip-on’. Then curiosity becomes fascination ... and then the fun begins to gain a momentum of its own. One is drawn inexorably further and further towards one’s destiny ... fascination leads to commitment and one can know when one’s commitment is approaching a 100% commitment because others around one will classify one as ‘obsessed’ (in spite of all their rhetoric a 100% commitment to evoking peace-on-earth is actively discouraged by one’s peers). Eventually one realises that one is on one’s own in this, the adventure of a life-time, and a peculiar tenacity that enables one to proceed against all odds ensues. Then one takes the penultimate step ... one abandons ‘humanity’. An actual freedom from the human condition then unfolds its inevitable destiny’.

RICK: I suppose I am not ‘curious’ as to what makes me tick. I am ‘interested’ as to what makes me tick for the main reason that that is part of the means to my end (oblivion). Actually *being* ‘curious’ is a distant second.

RICHARD: Do you comprehend that oblivion is the end of suffering forever?

RICK: Indeed ... That is my understanding.

RICHARD: The key to being free, then, is not altruism per se but wanting, with all of one’s being, to bring to an end, once and for all, the inherent suffering which epitomises human nature. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘... one has to want it like one has never wanted anything else before ... so much so that all the instinctual passionate energy of desire, normally frittered away on petty desires, is fuelling and impelling/ propelling one into this thing and this thing only (‘impelling’ as in a pulling from the front and ‘propelling’ as in being pushed from behind). There is a ‘must’ to it (one must do it/it must happen) and a ‘will’ to it (one will do it/it will happen) and one is both driven and drawn until there is an inevitability that sets in. Now it is unstoppable and all the above ceases of its own accord ... one is unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’.
One has escaped one’s fate and achieved one’s destiny’.

*

RICHARD: You say you really are only concerned about yourself and your issues ... have you ever desired oblivion?

RICK: Ever since becoming aware of the possibility of such a thing and what it entails.

RICHARD: Not before that (as expressed in the classic example of seeking oblivion in alcohol, or some other drug, so as to blot out all the cares and worries for a while), though?

RICK: I am not sure I follow. Escaping from temporary suffering is definitely something I have always practiced (since a little kid) and still do so in activities such as television programs, alcohol intoxication, video gaming, sex or masturbation, playing sports, smoking tobacco, listening to music, reading whatever sparks my interest either on the net or on paper, eating great food, and enjoying anything humorous are all things that absorb me so much, that sometimes, I am *almost* completely oblivious to any problems or concerns I presently have. These are all temporary though and when they cease, reflection about my sorry and pathetic state of living resurface. Permanent oblivion and permanent happiness was something I never even considered a possibility until I came across your writings approximately a year and a half ago.

RICHARD: All I was ascertaining was whether you had ever desired oblivion before coming across the actualism words and writings ... for then there is a deep urge just sitting there waiting, as it were, to come to the surface given the right opportunity.

A cautionary note: one has to be absolutely certain that this course of action is what one really wants to do – for once unleashed it is impossible to stuff it back in the bottle – as there were several occasions along the way where the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago wished ‘he’ had never taken the cap off.

*

RICK: For a year and a half I’ve wanted ‘die’.

RICHARD: Why?

RICK: Because I want to permanently do away with my personal suffering and the suffering I cause towards others by simply being alive. There was and is way too much suffering that I have caused/ am causing towards myself and those around me. Dying seems to be the only thing to do to end the pain. It is nice to hear that such a thing is possible without actually killing the body. Psychological and psychic ‘self’-immolation, death of everything ‘I’ am and ever have been for the sake of peace-on-earth for this body, in this lifetime, is extremely appealing.

RICHARD: You say it nice to hear that such a thing is possible without actually killing the body ... have you ever desired that (physical death)?

*

RICK: And I’ve had no success so I am looking for reasons as to why it hasn’t happened yet.

RICHARD: Your answer to the previous question may very well provide a vital clue ... it does entail finding out about the workings of yourself (what makes you tick) of course.

RICK: My answer to the previous question didn’t offer any apparent clue as to why I am failing to ‘die’. I would not expect it to though because my reason for wanting to ‘die’ has been pretty clear to me for quite some time (about a year and a half). Do you see any clue to why it hasn’t happened yet based on my answer to the previous question you asked me or any other of my responses?

RICHARD: Yes (although it could just be the way you put sentences together) ... for instance what the words ‘it is nice to hear ...’ conveys is poles apart from what something like this does:

• [example only]: ‘As physical death had seemed to be the only way to end all the hurt and hurting, permanently, I cannot even begin to tell you what a relief it is to hear that psychological/ psychic suicide is possible’. [end example].

*

RICK: Lack of utilisation of that instinctive impulse of wanting to sacrifice myself for the world or humanity (altruism) might have something to do with it. It might be that I have yet to recall a PCE or experienced a fresh one yet. It could be that I have not yet been able to satisfiably maximize felicitous feelings and minimize ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings. It could be that I don’t have an extensive understanding of the workings of my psyche and the human condition.

RICHARD: Again ... why, for a year and a half, have you wanted to ‘die’?

RICK: Again ... Because I don’t want to ever again be capable of experiencing even the slightest trace of pain or suffering nor be capable of inflicting upon another even the slightest trace of pain or suffering.

RICHARD: Do you see the distinct difference between what you are now writing and your initial words (at the top of this page)?

*

RICK: But yes, the ultimate goal is death of ‘me’ and everything ‘I’ am before physical death. I just really don’t know how to go about it. Simply wishing (with everything I’ve got, though) for it to happen hasn’t worked.

RICHARD: Nor is it likely to work ... it is all a question of motive at this stage.

RICK: Do you mean it is all a question as to what is making me or pushing me to ‘self’-immolate.

RICHARD: Yes.

RICK: Or do you mean it is all a question as to what should be making me or pushing me to ‘self’-immolate.

RICHARD: No.

This is not a school-exam (as in coming up with the right answers and/or rephrasing answers into the right words so as to get a nod of approval) ... this is all about finding out, for oneself, the workings of oneself – what makes one tick – for then one is participating in one’s search for freedom for the first time in one’s life.

And I say this as peoples mostly look to rearranging their beliefs and truths as being sufficient effort ... ‘I’ am willing to be free as long as ‘I’ can be ‘me’.

In other words: their notion of freedom is a ‘clip-on’.

One has to want to be free from the human condition like one has never wanted anything before. Because unless one is vitally interested in peace on earth, in this lifetime as a flesh and blood body only, one will never even begin to free the crippled intelligence from the debilitating passions bestowed by blind nature. Yet becoming vitally interested is but the preliminary stage, because until one becomes curious as to whether what is being written here about biological inheritance can be applied to themselves, only then does the first step begin. Then curiosity becomes fascination ... and thus the fun begins to gain a momentum of its own.

One is drawn inexorably further and further towards one’s destiny.

RESPONDENT: Presumably the 1992 sensational event had somewhat different qualities to it [the 1981 sensational event].

RICHARD: Somewhat ... in most respects, though, it was more or less a repeat of the 1981 effects (only more so).

RESPONDENT: What particulars about the two events seem to be significantly different?

RICHARD: Oh, the finality of the 1992 event (as in the finality of death, when someone close dies, as contrasted to their temporary departure).

RESPONDENT: Was passionate altruism as motivating as previously?

RICHARD: Not at the moment, no.

RESPONDENT: I find this to be more significant than you seem to think.

RICHARD: Oh? I had better set the record straight, then, because it does not have the significance you attribute to it at all.

RESPONDENT: You can do the altruism trick once.

RICHARD: Just as, when as a youth (replete with a full suite of affective feelings and instinctual impulses, drives and urges) that self-sacrificing trait had impelled me to go to war for what was then experienced as ‘my’ country – as in ‘to readily lay down one’s life for kith and kin’ – so too was it altruism which had set in motion the process which led to that moment.

I have written about this before ... for example:

• [Richard]: ‘... it is ‘me’ who is responsible for an action that results in ‘my’ own demise – without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here) – as it is ‘me’ who is the initiator of bringing about this sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously, and with knowledge aforethought from a pure consciousness experience (PCE), set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for ‘I’ cannot end ‘myself’). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and intentionally (cheerfully and blessedly), is press the button which precipitates an, oft-times alarming but always thrilling, momentum which will result in ‘my’ irrevocable ‘self’-immolation in toto. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being just here, right now, as the universe’s experience of itself ... peace-on-earth is the inevitable result because it is already always existing (‘I’ was merely standing in the way of it being apparent).
The act of initiating this ‘process’ is altruism, pure and simple ...’.

RESPONDENT: So how does what never existed become extinct?

RICHARD: Through an altruistic (for the benefit of both this body and everybody) self-sacrifice ... the psychological and psychic self-immolation of ‘me’ in ‘my’ totality. That is, ‘I’, who am but a passionate illusion, must die a dramatic illusory death commensurate to ‘my’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable autological event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life.

There is a wide and wondrous path to actual freedom: One asks oneself, each moment again, ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? This gives rise to apperception. Apperception is the outcome of the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here and now. Apperception is to be the senses as a bare awareness, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) of the world as-it-is, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception is a way of seeing that can be arrived at by pure contemplation. Pure contemplation is when ‘I’ cease thinking ... and thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind, being free of the thinker – ‘I’ as ego – is capable of clarity. With apperception operating more or less continuously, ‘I’ find it harder and harder to maintain credibility as ‘me’ feeling. ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul is increasingly seen as the usurper, an alien entity inhabiting this body and taking on an identity of its own. Mercilessly exposed in the bright light of awareness – apperception casts no shadows – ‘I’ can no longer find ‘my’ position tenable. ‘I’ can only live in ‘my’ obscuration, where ‘I’ lurk about as ‘me’, creating all sorts of mischief. ‘My’ time is speedily coming to an end; ‘I’ can barely maintain ‘myself’ any longer.

The day finally dawns where the definitive moment of being here, right now, conclusively arrives; something irrevocable takes place and every thing and every body and every event is different, somehow, although the same physically; something immutable occurs and every thing and every body and every event is all-of-a-sudden undeniably actual, in and of itself, as a fact; something irreversible happens and an immaculate perfection and a pristine purity permeates every thing and every body and every event; something has changed forever, although it is as if nothing has happened, except that the entire world is a magical fairytale-like playground full of incredible gladness and a delight which is never-ending.

RESPONDENT: Fortunately, life never fits into our preconceptions of it.

RICHARD: May I suggest? Whenever you write – or think or talk – substitute ‘I’ or ‘me’ or ‘my’ or ‘mine’ for ‘you’ or ‘us’ or ‘our’ or ‘ours’ in any sentence that has the context wherein you are duck-shoving the personal onto the collective (even if it be true that all humans are identically stupefied). Thus your sentence now reads: ‘Fortunately, life never fits into my (No. 25’s) preconceptions of it’. This personalisation is called ‘taking responsibility’ for the perpetuation of all the anguish and animosity (you are not responsible for the cause of all the anguish and animosity).

Nobody – but nobody – can set you free but yourself.

RESPONDENT: Then would you suggest that such a person should not try for virtual freedom before having a PCE?

RICHARD: Indeed, I can only suggest ... what another does with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to them. It is they who either reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction that they may or may not do. I can but offer tips, hints, pointers, clues – inside information – and in my experience I discovered that in order to shift from the self-centred licentiousness to a self-less sensuousness one must have confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe. This confidence – this surety – is gained from the PCE wherein life is seen and experienced to be already perfect and innocent ... one is physically experiencing first-hand, albeit temporarily, this actual world – a spontaneously benevolent world – that the normal world (the real world or reality) is pasted over.

RESPONDENT: Or is it that virtual freedom may help in having a PCE?

RICHARD: When one remembers a PCE – or precipitates another – then one is well on the way to freedom ... this is what actualism is all about. Scattered along the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom are as many PCE’s as one may need ... repeated peak experiences may very well be brought about on maybe a daily basis with constant application of reflective and fascinated contemplation. In such pure contemplation, ‘I’ cease seeing and seeing takes place of its own accord. ‘I’ can never be here now in this actual world for ‘I’ am an interloper, an alien in psychic possession of the body. ‘I’ do not belong here. All this is impossible to imagine which is why it is essential to be confident that the actual world does exist. This confidence is born out of knowing, which is derived from the PCE, and is an essential ingredient to ensure success. One does not have to generate confidence oneself – as the religions require of one with regard to their blind faith – the purity of the actual world bestows this confidence upon one. The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessing comes pure intent, which will consistently guide one through daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. Eventually the moment comes wherein something definitive happens, physically, inside the brain and ‘I’ am nevermore.

‘Being’ ceases – it was only a psychic apparition anyway – and war is over, forever, in one human being.

MARK: I have not had any real idea on how to approach them [instincts]. My reason for this being that if we are born with instincts intact right from our first moment and, given that we are a clean slate so to speak, then, said instincts must be encoded in the DNA ... or what?

RICHARD: As deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material which is especially found in the chromosomes of nearly all living organisms, is the carrier of genetic information it would seem to be so that instincts are encoded therein. I say this with the proviso that I am seeking an explanation ‘after the act’ for what happened at the base of the skull where it meets the top of the brain-stem, and I would rather look to the latest scientific probes so as to establish an empirically-grounded account rather than any other hypothesis, as practical science must be factually based. Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set. After all, they are fallible, ego-ridden and soul-bound human beings trapped in the human condition like everybody else, and are seeking to find a way through all this mess, that we humans are born into, via the scientific method. Theoretical science – such as this century’s quantum physics with its mystical cosmogony – makes a mockery of the meaning of the phrase ‘scientific method’. Mr. Albert Einstein left a legacy that has the intelligence of the partisans’ of the relativists faction firmly gripped in pursuing fantastical scenarios rather than addressing utilitarian matters ... like human suffering.

MARK: And how does one delete a part of one’s DNA (personally speaking my gene splicing skills leave a lot to be desired). I still don’t understand how one is to undo the deepest layers of instinct.

RICHARD: Speaking personally from experience, eventually – and ultimately – all the instincts are undone instantly via psychological and psychic ‘self’-sacrifice. This is, purely and simply, altruism at its very best ... and altruism’s energy is an instinctual passion (this is indeed hoisting oneself by one’s bootstraps ... writ large). However, until the initiation of the process that leads to ‘self’-immolation is consciously triggered – whereupon the ending of ‘me’ happens of its own accord – one can become acutely aware of the operation of the instinctual passions as they are experienced moment-to-moment. It is but the same ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ investigation of beliefs and feelings ... only extended deeper into one’s psyche.

Strangely enough, it does mean an exploration into the psychic realm ... which is why it is essential that one first establishes a firm base – called virtual freedom – to fall back upon when the going gets tough. A journey into one’s psyche – which is the human psyche – is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee ... one must have nerves of steel to go all the way. The rewards for doing so are immense, however, and the ramifications far-reaching.

It means peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body.

ALAN: Yet, if my reasoning was correct, I was left with the inescapable fact that ‘I’ still believe in immortality, by whatever name.

RICHARD: The persistence of identity is legendary, by now, and its doggedness is because it is an instinctually-based belief ... yet it is the instinct for survival that got us here in the first place. Is one really going to abandon that which produced one ... that which keeps one alive? There is a great dare in becoming actually free of the human condition.

ALAN: Perhaps this is where one requires the altruism/self-sacrifice motive. Step 1. ‘I’ must admit (and experience) that ‘I’ am all that is standing in the way of peace on earth. Step 2 . ‘I’ must have a reason to give up ‘my’ existence to allow that peace on earth to happen.

RICHARD: Initially one does this for both this body and everybody ... yet the reward for going to the very end of illusion and delusion is to emerge, unscathed, as the actual. The benefits of doing so are beyond price; the immediate bestowal of universal peace upon oneself is the benefit worthiest of acknowledgment. Yet, rewards and benefits notwithstanding, to have reached one’s destiny is to be of the ultimate service possible ... the universe has been able to fulfil itself in a human being.

ALAN: As we have previously discussed, ‘my’ desire to savour the purity and perfection is not sufficient motivation for ‘my’ extinction.

RICHARD: Aye ... that is self-centredness operating.

ALAN: ‘I’ will always believe that ‘I’ can achieve perfection – yet, I have just experienced that ‘I’ am all that is standing in the way of achieving that perfection. As you have said – ‘I’ want to savour the moment – and I know experientially that ‘I’ cannot. It’s enough to drive one certifiably insane – with a bit of luck! (or perhaps a bit of conviction).

RICHARD: I have said it before and I will say it again and again: I do find it cute that a freedom from the human condition (becoming happy and harmless) is considered a severe psychotic disorder!

*

ALAN: The adventure continues ...

RICHARD: Until ‘I’ die, in fact ...

ALAN: And ‘I’ do not want to give up the adventure, so some persuasion, or altruism?, is necessary.

RICHARD: Ahh ... after ‘the adventure’ is over something far, far better takes its place.

ALAN: Am ‘I’ really willing to sacrifice ‘my’ self to allow this to happen?

RICHARD: The question that the ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body back in 1981 asked was: ‘what am I saving myself for’?

ALAN: And yet, ‘I’ know it is inevitable, if I am to fulfil my destiny.

RICHARD: Aye, to escape one’s fate and achieve one’s destiny is what one is alive for: being here – now – is the very reason one was born.

ALAN: As you said in one of your posts (approximately), it is an irresistible pull, a momentum and impetus which is not of ‘my’ doing.

RICHARD: Yes, once altruistically set in motion, a momentum happens of its own accord. One knows, from the perfection of freedom from the human condition 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 ... pure intent, born out of the connection between one’s inherent naiveté 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. It is a matter of having the courage of your convictions and letting nothing stand in your way; determination and perseverance are the essential prerequisites to ensure success ... coupled with application and diligence. One finds one must – one needs must actually do it – for no one else will do it for you as no one else can do it for you. And although one may think and feel that it would be a lonely journey to take on one’s own it is not ... it is the most joyous escapade one can ever enter into.

It is the jaunt of a lifetime.

ALAN: It is like being on the outer edge of a massive whirlpool, being dragged closer and closer, and faster and faster, to the inevitable moment of entering the vortex – and ‘popping’ out the other side – I see I have not yet quite lost the imaginative faculty!

RICHARD: Yet this is so correct, for I am talking of nothing else but extirpation ... annihilation ... extinction ... the non-existence of any identity whatsoever. All of one’s precious ‘being’ will disappear ... not only the ego but the soul as well. ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ will cease to exist in any way, shape or form.

What you are calling ‘the vortex’ is blessed oblivion ... the same-same as physical death.

ALAN: So, as I sit here watching another sun rise, with the crescent moon and Venus still visible, and the clouds turning a delightful shade of pink, I glory in the opportunity of being able to be the universe experiencing itself. What a gas!

RICHARD: I am constantly amazed at the colour of this world ... and I am particularly struck by the sheer exuberance of it all. To put it in the lingo: this universe surely is flamboyant in its expressiveness!

It is impossible to take it seriously.

ALAN: The next question to be answered is whether the ASC is a worthwhile goal to pursue. The ASC surely beats the shit out of being ‘normal’ and I certainly felt happy and harmless, to use your expression.

RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘felt’ happy and harmless is the operative word here! There is nothing harmless about divinity ... this is a very selfish and self-centred approach to life on earth ... something that all metaphysical peoples are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s Immortality is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined soul after physical death. So much for their humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All Religious and Spiritual and Mystical Quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All Religious and Spiritual and Mystical Leaders fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing the Eternal After-Life. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the overriding importance of the survival of ‘self’. As for being happy ... the manifestation of love – the antidote for malice – and the manifestation of compassion – the antidote for sorrow – self-evidently bespeaks the spurious basis for their contingent happiness.

*

RICHARD: Now that ‘I’ know, via direct experience, that ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection ... then the only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). So when ‘I’ ask (as an open question) ‘what am I here for?’ ... the essential character of the perfection of the infinitude of this universe which born me, is living me and will die me in due course, is enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. ‘I’ give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) ... and let go the controls.

ALAN: Since finishing the post to Vineeto, earlier today, I have been reading your correspondence on mailing list B and got to the above. I have also been continuing with the seminal question burning away. ‘I’ have been puzzling and puzzling over ‘how can ‘I’ do it?’ And the answer lies in the above paragraph – ‘I’ got it! ‘I’ cannot ever, ever ‘do it’. That’s it – all ‘I’ can do is ‘give permission’, acquiesce, condone, surrender, concede and stop trying (oh so, so hard) to live the present.

RICHARD: Yes ... I would suggest examining what impulse the word ‘surrender’ refers to, though. Because ‘surrender’ means the giving up of oneself into the possession or power of another who has or asserts a claim to it; to yield on demand or compulsion to a person or a god ... as in submission to an enemy in resignation as a prisoner. It basically means to give in, to relinquish possession of, give up, deliver up, part with, let go of, yield, submit, capitulate, lay down one’s arms, throw in the towel, throw in the sponge, succumb ... and lose. It smacks of compliance, acquiescence, passivity, docility, meekness, sufferance ... a seeking of clemency.

You would become enlightened, in other words.

Whereas ‘sacrifice’ means to die as an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s life as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired, especially one’s life, for the sake of something regarded as more important or worthy.

What will remain is the flesh and blood body that you actually are.

RESPONDENT: Do you drink, smoke, hunt for women, lie, cheat, or steal? Do you overeat, over-sex, or over intellectualise?

RICHARD: I must acknowledge that I sat and stared nonplussed at this sentence for some time. As I see no mention of all the genuinely terrible things that afflict human beings – like wars, rapes, murders, tortures, domestic violence, child abuse, sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide – I find it difficult to take this question sincerely. Basically, you seem to have paraded your prejudices in public and are asking me if I believe in them too.

RESPONDENT: I did not think you would be doing those obvious evils.

RICHARD: I am not only talking of not doing these things, I am talking of not even having to suppress thinking these kind of thoughts at all ... ever. The reason why I am not impulsively thinking these thoughts is that in an actual freedom I have no furious urges, no instinctive anger, no impulsive rages, no inveterate hostilities, no evil disposition ... no malicious or sorrowful tendencies whatsoever. The blind animal instinctual passions, which some neuro-scientists have tentatively located toward the top of the brain-stem in what is popularly called the ‘reptilian brain’, have under-gone a radical mutation. I am free to be me as-I-am; benign and benevolent and beneficial in character. I am able to be a model citizen, fulfilling all the intentions of the idealistic and unattainable moral strictures of ‘The Good’: being humane, being philanthropic, being altruistic, being magnanimous, being considerate and so on. All this is achieved in a manner ‘I’ could never foresee, for it comes effortlessly and spontaneously, doing away with the necessity for virtue completely.

RICHARD: When ‘I’ freely and intentionally sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. The extinction of identity – both an ego death and a soul death – is a welcome release into actuality. I am finally here. I discover that I have always been here ... I have never been anywhere else for there is nowhere else ... except illusion and into delusion. The ‘real world’ and the ‘Greater Reality’ had their existence only in ‘my’ fertile imagination. Only this, the actual world, genuinely exists. This exquisite surprise brings with it ecstatic relief at the moment of mutation ... life is perfect after all. But, then again, has one not suspected this to be so all along? At the moment of freedom from the Human Condition there is a clear sense of ‘I have always known this’. Doubt is banished forever ... no more verification is required. All is self-evidently pure and perfect. Everything is indeed well. It is the greatest gift one can bestow upon oneself and others.

RESPONDENT: This does not make any sense. How does something that supposedly truly exists cause its own demise?

RICHARD: Simply by the earnest and sincere desire to do something constructive about all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide ... instead of indulging in intellectual masturbation.

It is called being altruistic.

RESPONDENT: Why am I afraid of ending the conflict?

RICHARD: Is it that up until now conflict has been ‘my’ raison d’être? Is it that ‘I’ have invested so much into it that it has become ‘my’ very identity? The reason is not all that important ... what is important is:

Just do it.

RESPONDENT: I will have to relinquish all of my hopes, dreams, desires, yes?

RICHARD: In order to enable that which is vastly superior to all your ‘hopes, dreams, desires’? Yes ... willingly, cheerfully.

RESPONDENT: All of my cherished pains, self-pity, causes, no?

RICHARD: All these and more are what ‘I’ am made up of ... these cherished things are ‘me’.

RESPONDENT: And I have a market mentality. I want to know what I will get in exchange. I am quite bamboozled ... what to do?

RICHARD: There is no problem about a ‘market mentality’ whatsoever ... ‘sacrifice’ means an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s being as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired for the sake of something more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled, candid, outspoken, spontaneous, relaxed, informal, open, free and easy.

As I have remarked before, ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.

RESPONDENT: Ah, but if I am doing it to gain ‘x’ then I am going in as a thinker. If I am doing it because I am allowing my being to be resonant with the order of the fullness that is this living universe, then I am not trying to gain a thing. I am simply being ‘with it’ (the alternative is – of course – to not be with it).

RICHARD: Indeed ... the universe does not force anyone to be happy and harmless, to live in peace and ease, to be free of sorrow and malice. It is a matter of personal choice as to which way one will travel.

RICHARD: The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event that eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all.

RESPONDENT: But what of the unconscious arising of various ego responses, do I crush them as they arise or learn in attentiveness?

RICHARD: Neither. Ask yourself this question each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’

RESPONDENT: Sorry, I don’t seem to be interested in asking this question.

RICHARD: Why do you not want to know how you are experiencing yourself? Is it painful? Is it trite? Or is it scary?

RESPONDENT: Perhaps this ego has nothing to gain.

RICHARD: But it has plenty to gain ... it has a job to do and it is being denied its opportunity.

RESPONDENT: Please explain.

RICHARD: Altruism. When ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘your’ moment of glory. It is ‘your’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘your’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life.

RESPONDENT: Or I perhaps I don’t see the sense in it. Perhaps you could explain.

RICHARD: An unexamined life is second-rate living.

RESPONDENT: No, on second thought, I think I just don’t get the question. That is, it doesn’t make sense to me. Quote: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ The how has got me stumped.

RICHARD: Affectively, of course ... that is how you are experiencing this moment. Look, let us not unnecessarily complicate things here. The ‘how’ simply means ‘what feeling am I experiencing right now with’ ... which is: ‘Am I bored?’, ‘Am I resentful?’, ‘Am I at ease?’, ‘Am I glad?’, ‘Am I sad?’ and so on. You see, peace-on-earth is here right now – the perfection of the infinitude of this universe is happening at this moment – and you are missing out on it because you are feeling what it is like to be here instead of actually being here. Hence: ‘How am I experiencing this moment’ means ‘What feeling is preventing the on-going experiencing of peace-on-earth?’

‘Before applying the actualism method – the ongoing enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive – it is essential for success to grasp the fact that this very moment which is happening now is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now and a hoped-for happiness and harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All one gets by waiting is more waiting. Thus any ‘change’ can only happen now. The jumping in point is always here; it is at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus, if one misses it this time around, hey presto, one has another chance immediately. Life is excellent at providing opportunities like this.

What ‘I’ did, all those years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective way to be able to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive each moment again (I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). It does take some doing to start off with but, as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes progressively easier to enjoy and appreciate being here each moment again. One begins by asking, each moment again, ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?

Note: asking how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is not the actualism method; consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is what the actualism method is. And this is because the actualism method is all about consciously and knowingly imitating life in the actual world. Also, by virtue of proceeding in this manner the means to the end – an ongoing enjoyment and appreciation – are no different to the end itself.

This perpetual enjoyment and appreciation is facilitated by feeling as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible. And this (affective) felicity/ innocuity is potently enabled via minimisation of both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings. An affective awareness is the key to maximising felicity and innocuity over all those alternate feelings inasmuch the slightest diminishment of enjoyment and appreciation automatically activates attentiveness.

Attentiveness to the cause of diminished enjoyment and appreciation restores felicity and innocuity. The habituation of actualistic awareness and attentiveness requires a persistent initialisation; persistent initialisation segues into a wordless approach, a non-verbal attitude towards life. It delivers the goods just here, right now, and not off into some indeterminate future. Plus the successes are repeatable – virtually on demand – and thus satisfy the ‘scientific method’.

So, ‘I’ asked myself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?

As one knows from the pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s), which are moments of perfection everybody has at some stage in their life, that it is possible to experience this moment in time and this place in space as perfection personified, ‘I’ set the minimum standard of experience for myself: feeling good. If ‘I’ am not feeling good then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous feelings? Ahh ... yes: ‘He said that and I ...’. Or: ‘She didn’t do this and I ...’. Or: ‘What I wanted was ...’. Or: ‘I didn’t do ...’. And so on and so on ... one does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most (‘feeling good’ is an unambiguous term – it is a general sense of well-being – and if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all).

Thus, by asking ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ the reward is immediate; by finding out what triggered off the loss of feeling good, one commences another period of enjoying this moment of being alive. It is all about being here at this moment in time and this place in space ... and if you are not feeling good you have no chance whatsoever of being here in this actual world. (A grumpy person locks themselves out of the perfect purity of this moment and place). Of course, once you get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy’. And after that: ‘feeling perfect’. These are all feelings, this is not perfection personified yet ... but then again, feeling perfect for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day is way beyond normal human expectations anyway. Also, it is a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once. One starts to feel ‘alive’ for the first time in one’s life.

Being ‘alive’ is to be paying attention – exclusive attention – to this moment in time and this place in space. This attention becomes fascination ... and fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only then – apperception can occur.

Apperceptive awareness can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive right now. This moment is your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time than now. And, wherever you are, one is always here ... even if you start walking over to ‘there’, along the way to ‘there’ you are always here ... and when you arrive ‘there’, it too is here. Thus attention becomes a fascination with the fact that one is always here ... and it is already now. Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. As one is already here, and it is always now ... then one has arrived before one starts. The potent combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking and thinking takes place of its own accord ... and ‘me’ disappears along with all the feelings. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity ... as a sensate body only, one is automatically benevolent and benign.

Psychological self-immolation is the only sensible sacrifice that ‘I’ as ‘me’ being can make in order to reveal that which is actual. And that which is actual is a clear and clean and pure perfection. Life is bursting with meaning when ‘I’ and ‘me’ are no longer present to mess things up. ‘I’ and ‘me’ stand in the way of the clarity and purity of the clean perfection of the actual being apparent. ‘My’ very presence prohibits this ever-present perfection being evident. ‘I’ as ‘me’ being prevents the very purity of life, that ‘I’ am searching for, from coming into plain view. With ‘my’ demise, this ever-fresh perfection is now manifest. Peace-on-earth was here in this actual world all the time.

It is all so simple, in the actual world; no effort is needed to meet the requisite morality of society. I have no ‘dark nature’, no unconscious impulses to curb, to control, to restrain. It is all so easy, in the actual world; I can take no credit for my apparently virtuous behaviour because actual freedom automatically provides beneficial thoughts and deeds. It is all so spontaneous, in the actual world; I do not do it – it does itself. Vanity, egoism, selfishness – all self-centred activity has ceased to operate when ‘I’ as ‘me’ being ceased to be. And it is all so peaceful, in the actual world; it is only in actualism that human beings can have peace-on-earth without toiling fruitlessly to be ‘good’. The answer to everything that has puzzled humankind for all of human history is readily elucidated when one is actually free. The ‘Mystery of Life’ has been penetrated and laid open for all those with the eyes to see. Life was meant to be easy.

So: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? It beats any pathetic mantra by a country mile.

RESPONDENT: You mention: [Richard]: ‘This is because ‘I’ wanted to know, ‘I’ wanted to find out, once and for all, that which has paralysed human beings for millennia ...’ [endquote].

RICHARD: Yes, this is the ‘me’ that was actively and consciously harnessing the affective power of the instinctual passion of desire and channelling it into one goal and one goal only: altruistically making apparent the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE) through ‘my’ demise. The ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body wanted to sacrifice ‘himself’ for the good of this body and that body and every body.

RESPONDENT: And you also mention the tortures, the rapes, the murders, etc. I am pretty selfish.

RICHARD: Good ... because unless ‘you’ are so ‘selfish’ as to want peace on earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body, then nothing will happen to even begin to bring to an end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child and suicides. And in case you think I am just being funny ... I was told last year on this Mailing List that I was selfish to want to save my ‘six foot flesh and blood body’!

If only each and every person was so ‘selfish’ there would be a global peace-on-earth.

RESPONDENT: My world largely begins and ends at my own doorsteps. It would be nice if brutality in the world ended; if not, at least I be spared.

RICHARD: This is the question: how can I bring about an individual peace-on-earth which, if each and every person were to act in this same-same unilateral manner, would result in global peace-on-earth? And if they did not (which is most likely) is this individual peace-on-earth of such a quality and magnitude so as to it not mattering one iota if no one else accesses it?

: All my passions are very personal: I am the world in the sense that all that I care about is my own world. Give me eternal happiness and the world will be fine

RICHARD: Aye ... this is how it is for each and every other person that I have spoken with over the last eighteen years. If each and every one actually cared about their ‘own world’ so as to unilaterally make apparent the already existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced by the PCE) then there would be a global peace-on-earth. If they did not (which is most likely), and only ‘I’ do it ... then not only have ‘I’ precipitated peace-on-earth for this body but ‘I’ have paved the way for any one with the gumption to do likewise by both example and precept.

It is a win/win situation.

*

RESPONDENT: If you don’t mind my saying, reading your posts the expression that comes to my mind often is: ‘the operation was successful, but the patient died’.

RICHARD: That is my very intention ... only when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul altruistically self-immolate does the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent (which is the only ‘success’ worthy of the name).

Thus the ‘operation’ is not yet ‘successful’’ eh?

RICHARD: Voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice means an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s being as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired for the sake of something more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled, candid, outspoken, spontaneous, relaxed, informal, open, free and easy. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.

RESPONDENT: Richard, my two cents on this topic: I don’t think there is so much fanfare in actual life as you mention in your posts.

RICHARD: Yes ... a person resigned to their fate settles for second-best.

RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. Are you saying that one whose ego ends without much fanfare has resigned to his fate and settled down for second best?

RICHARD: No. I am saying that one who learns to live in peace and harmony has ‘resigned to his fate and settled down for second best’.

RESPONDENT: What makes you think so?

RICHARD: Your initial words. Viz.: ‘and learns to live in peace and harmony’ . Freedom either is or is not: there is no ‘learns to live in peace and harmony’ in an actual freedom ... peace and harmony is already always just here right now.

RESPONDENT: Well, then let me explain myself differently. There appear to be two different modes/expressions of finding peace and harmony (please read between the lines): (a) the glorious ending of the ego, a once in a life time event, etc., and (b) a quiet realization that there is no point in living a life of conflict.

RICHARD: It does not make any difference to re-present your words in a point (a) and (b) layout ... they are still the same or similar words signifying the same or similar concept. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘(b) a quiet realization that there is no point in living a life of conflict’.

• [Respondent]: ‘a person realizes the futility of acting in ways that produce conflict’.

The main difference between the two proposals is that you have left off the ‘and learns to live in peace and harmony’ section of your initial proposal in your point (b) rearrangement.

RESPONDENT: I am wondering if (a) itself is an act of the ego?

RICHARD: Yes, its exit is a dramatic act ... for it is the ride of a life-time.

RESPONDENT: That is, it is a different form of ego that makes the ending of ego look very grand and glorious.

RICHARD: Yes ... it is an ego who will not settle for a second-best way of living; a second-rate life; an ersatz life-style in lieu of the best and chose to be yet another person who ‘learns to live in peace and harmony’ . This is because an actual freedom is gratuitous peace and harmony ... no learning is needed. In the pure and perfect – and gratis – peace-on-earth which is already always just here right now there is no need to redecorate, or renovate, or refurbish, or revamp, or spruce up, or smarten-up, or fix-up, or give a face-lift and so on.

It is indeed a vastly different ‘form of ego’ who sees that voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice (‘self’ as in ‘I’/‘me’ who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) is noble. It is indeed a vastly different ‘form of ego’ who understands that voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice is an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race. It is indeed a vastly different ‘form of ego’ who is willing to cheerfully devote and give over his/her very ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body.

It is indeed a vastly different ‘form of ego’ whose exit is a dramatic act ... for it is the ride of a life-time.

RESPONDENT: Do you consider this to be a possibility – that all the fanfare that surrounds ending of the ego is nothing but ego in disguise?

RICHARD: Certainly not ... the vastly different ‘form of ego’ is utterly exposed at its moment of exit; wide open and naked to the universe. It is a once-in-a-lifetime grand and glorious feeling of culmination and climax: it is the swan song; the pinnacle; the zenith; the finale ... and the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent.

It is such a monumental thing to have happen: this event is the pivotal point wherein 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 in one human being come to an end permanently.

In a word: innocence.

RESPONDENT: My question is: how, or through what, or in which way, or what method should be used by a human being to be permanently free from the self, you mention above.

RICHARD: Through psychological and psychic self-immolation for the benefit of both this body and everybody. To explain: there is an intrinsic trait common to all sentient beings: self-sacrifice. This trait can be observed in almost all animals – it is especially easy to see in the ‘higher-order’ animals – mainly with the parental defending of the young to the point of fatal injury leading to death. Defending the group against another group is also simple to observe ... it manifests in humans in the way that one will passionately defend oneself and one’s group to the death if it is deemed necessary. Speaking personally, as a youth this self-sacrificing trait impelled me to go to war for ‘my’ country ... to ‘willingly lay down my life for kith and kin’. It is a very powerful passion indeed ... Christianity, to give just one example, values it very highly: ‘No greater love hath he that lay down his life for another’. Also, all of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, 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’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence. ‘I’ am no longer 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. ‘I’ am ready to die for a cause – and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality

This trait is called altruism ... albeit misplaced.

To put it bluntly: ‘you’ in ‘your’ totality, who are but a passionate illusion, must die a dramatic illusory death commensurate to ‘your’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life.

Now, it is ‘I’ that is responsible for an action that results in ‘my’ own demise ... without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here). It is ‘I’ that is the cause of bringing about this sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button which precipitates an oft-times alarming but always thrilling momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself ... now. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result because it is already here ... it is always now. ‘I’ was merely standing in the way of this already always existing peace-on-earth from becoming apparent.

The act of initiating this ‘process’ is altruism, pure and simple.

RESPONDENT No. 22: Exposing is giving attention to the concepts as they occur. For example we can give attention to the notion of a ‘you’ that can be angry, an ‘I’ that can drop or hold beliefs. Awareness of those concepts as they arise, clarifies their conceptual nature and allows them to drop on their own.

RICHARD: But would you not wish to live a life wherein these concepts never arise? Therefore you never have to go about ‘clarifying their conceptual nature’ all the time? A life where all these things do not have to be constantly observed and clarified? And when they drop, they only drop until next time, anyway. What a laborious task it is to have to be ever-vigilant.

RESPONDENT: No, No, I would not wish that. Yes, Yes, I would like that. Yes, it is terribly laborious to watch, to remind oneself to watch, to be vigilant, wondering if one is doing it enough, should one be more vigilant constantly, and then watching the never being in the present moment. ‘It’ has been experienced only for a few minutes in the last twenty five years. Only once did the observer and the observed merge. Only a few times have I felt that Real compassion, forgiveness, Love. Only a couple of times have I had experience with the ‘other’ dimension.

RICHARD: It is entirely possible, throughout the vast majority of one’s time, for there to be no thoughts running at all ... none whatsoever. If thought is needed for a particular situation, it swings smoothly into action of its own accord and effortlessly does its thing. All the while there is an apperceptive awareness of being here ... of being alive at this moment in time and this place in space. No words occur in the brain – other than when necessary – for it is a wordless appreciation of being able to be here now. Consequently, one is always blithe and carefree, even if one is doing nothing. Doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus of happiness and pleasure on top of this on-going ambrosial experience of being alive and awake and here on this verdant planet now.

When the psychological ego and psychic soul willingly relinquish their sovereignty and take their leave, the senses can act in the optimum manner. Just as when a normal person becomes blind and all their other senses are heightened, so too does the abdication result in a phenomenal increase in the pleasurable and luxurious sensitivity of being a corporeal body in this very physical world. The resultant benevolence produces easy good-will, kindness and altruism, for one is living in a friendly world ... made all the more amiable because of the innate munificence and magnanimity of the purity of the perfection of the infinitude of the universe as is evidenced only at this moment in time.

This is an actual freedom from animosity and anguish – as distinct from becoming enlightened and thus having merely transcended and smothered them over with a honeyed coating of Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – and I am inordinately pleased whenever someone can grasp the priceless character of what this means for peace on earth. It is one thing to bask in Ineffable Bliss, Ecstasy and Euphoria while perpetuating the status-quo ... and quite another to delightedly enjoy the ripples of pleasure that this body is patently capable of manifesting whilst actualising benignity and blitheness. These organic waves of sensational pleasure are usually constrained by the demands of the ego and soul for emotional and passionate feelings ... which are the synthetic compensations for the supposed indignity of ‘me’ having to be here at all in this despised body.

You see, what one is as this body is this material universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. The physical space of this universe is infinite and its time is eternal ... thus the infinitude of this very material universe has no beginning and no ending ... and therefore no middle. There are no edges to this universe, which means that there is no centre, either. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go too. We are nowhere in particular ... which means we are anywhere at all. In the infinitude of the universe one finds oneself to be already here, and as it is always now, one can not get away from this place in space and this moment in time. By being here as-this-body one finds that this moment in time has no duration as in now and then – because the immediate is the ultimate – and that this place in space has no distance as in here and there – for the relative is the absolute.

In other words: I am always here and it is already now.

ALAN: Richard, I have been exploring further the question of nurture and altruism and their relationship to one another. I had been watching a rather silly, though quite amusing, film called Accidental Hero, starring Dustin Hoffman. Tonight, lying in bed, I was examining my reactions to the film and why it provoked feelings of pride? in me, when suddenly it ‘clicked’.

RICHARD: Maybe ‘nobility’ rather than ‘pride’ ? That is, nobility as in philanthropic gallantry, valour, heroism and so on?

ALAN: I wrote the following for my own benefit and, though it has all been said before, someone else may find it of use: The greatest thing anyone can do for their fellow human beings is to live a life free from the human condition. There is the added incentive, at this particular moment in time, that the second person to evince that an actual freedom from the human condition is possible, is doing a great service to humanity.

RICHARD: Yes ... and, arguably, a much greater service than the first (else it be still-born).

ALAN: It is not possible to be free of the human condition while ‘I’ remain in existence (as experienced in the PCE). ‘I’ must ‘self’ immolate to live the possibility and cannot do so without an altruistic motive, because this act involves the complete and utter end to ‘my’ being. As you have said, no trace will remain, no possibility of the Phoenix rising, as there will be no ashes from which to rise. This is a more noble sacrifice than has ever before been made in the annuls of human history. More heroic than the soldier who takes the bullet to save his buddy. Or the mother who goes under the wheels of a speeding lorry to push her child to safety. Or the pilot who opts to stay at the controls of his doomed plane to avoid a built up area.

RICHARD: Indeed ... as noble and heroic as those altruistic deeds be there is nothing in them that removes the status-quo and changes the course of human history forever.

ALAN: All of these had some hope of continuation of ‘their’ existence in the imaginary afterlife. ‘I’ know that, by committing ‘self’ immolation, no such possibility exists. Hence the need for altruism. I now understand perfectly, what you meant when you wrote of that moment in 1981 (Appendix 1 – Richard’s Journal).

RICHARD: You must be referring to this passage:

• [Richard]: ‘About six weeks prior to the sixth of September 1981 I had a revelation that I was going to really die this time, not become catatonic again, and that I was to prepare myself for it ... The night before I could hardly maintain myself as a thinking, functioning human being as a blistering hot and cold burning sensation crept up the back of my spine and entered into the base of my neck just under the brain itself. I went to bed in desperation and frustration at my apparent inability to be good enough to carry this ‘process’ through to its supreme conclusion. The next morning I awoke and all was calm and quiet. Expressing relief at the cessation of the intensifying ‘process’ that had reached an unbearable level the night before; I lay back on my pillows to watch the rising sun (my bedroom faced east) through the large bedroom windows. All of a sudden I was gripped with the realisation that this was the moment! I was going to die! An intense fear raced throughout my body, rising in crescendo until I could scarcely take any more. As it reached a peak of stark terror, I realised that I had nothing to worry about and that I was to go with the ‘process’. In an instant all fear left me and I travelled deep into the depths of my very ‘being’. All of a sudden I was sitting bolt upright, laughing, as I realised that this that was IT! was such a simple thing ... all I had to do was die ... and that was the easiest thing in the world to do. Then the thought of leaving my family and friends overwhelmed me and I was thrust back on the bed sobbing. Then I was bolt upright once more laughing my head off ... then I was back on the pillows sobbing my heart out ... upright, laughing ... pillows sobbing ... upright laughing ... pillows sobbing. At the fifth or sixth time something turned over in the base of my brain ... in the top of the brain-stem. I likened it to turning over a long-playing record in order to play the other side ... with the vital exception that it would never, ever turn back again’.

It was not just leaving ‘family and friends’, though, for to be free of the human condition is to abandon ‘humanity’ completely (leaving them to their fate, as it were, whilst one achieved one’s destiny) ... then, and only then, will one no longer be one of the ‘blind leading the blind’.

ALAN: ‘I’ must say goodbye to all my friends and relatives, as no trace of ‘me’ will remain. Not even a little bit to take pride and glory in ‘my’ achievement. Shit, ‘I’ will not even be able to look down from heaven and say ‘that was me!’.

RICHARD: Ha ... well said. I have oft-times put it this way: the extinction of ‘me’ is the ultimate sacrifice ‘I’ can make to ensure the possibility of peace-on-earth for not only this body but for that body and every body.

Thus I find myself here, in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and a vast stillness lies all around, abounding with purity and perfection. Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions, imbuing everything with unimaginable fairytale-like quality. Yet for me to be able to be here now at all was a blessing that only ‘I’ could grant, because nobody else could do it for me. I am full of admiration for the ‘me’ that dared to do such a thing. I owe all that I experience now to ‘me’.

I salute ‘my’ audacity.

ALAN: So, yes, altruism can be the only motive. ‘I’ do this for the benefit of my fellow human beings, or ‘I’ do this not at all. The only question which remains – do ‘I’ have the necessary intestinal fortitude to proceed?

RICHARD: No ... because no one has ‘the necessary intestinal fortitude to proceed’ before they proceed: it comes in sufficient quality, and only as required by the circumstances, as one proceeds.

The question is: what is preventing ‘me’ from proceeding?

RICHARD: ... that section [the ‘Anti-Peace Hall of Fame’ section of The Actual Freedom Trust web site] was created at the express suggestion of a spiritualist writing to this mailing list in October last year:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... if you want to be fair you could include one more link called ‘The Sceptics’, preferably in highlighted large fonts! I am sure there is a lot of material among your correspondents that you could separate and put in there so to facilitate ‘the seeker’s’ search.
• [Richard]: ‘You may be confusing those who object to be happy and harmless for spiritual reasons with those who are genuinely sceptical that such a thing is possible ...’

The naming of it came from a response to another spiritualist writing to this mailing list 20 days later:

• [Respondent]: ‘Thanks for the reply. This is fun! In fact, I am rather having a ball here at my keyboard with you Richard. But the challenge is wearing off.
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... and what ‘challenge’ would that be? So far this mailing list has attracted cult-busters, guru-busters, disciple-busters, clone-busters, method-busters – and even a myth-destroyer (albeit a one-poster though) – so perhaps you could declare your hand and establish yourself in the anti-peace hall of fame as ... um ... a prose-buster, perhaps?

RESPONDENT: I believe that I am that ‘spiritualist’ you are referring to ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? There is no need to believe it ... the name you use on this mailing list is printed in large letters at the URL the quote came from.

RESPONDENT: Gee and I thought I was a materialist ... hmmm??? So I am a spiritualist after all? That’s good to know since I was having a bit of a crisis in identifying me and my belief system. I am certainly glad you have so altruistically cleared that up for me. All I can say is ... PHEW !!! That’s a load off my mind.

RICHARD: You are very welcome ... you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last.

Incidentally, I am not altruistic – altruism is an instinctual inheritance which expires as the identity – and any and all (seemingly altruistic) actions are motivated solely by the fellowship regard engendered by an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event.

It is all so simple here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Thank you, Richard, for your reply. Another issue I’d like to discuss is nurture. I understand it is the instinctual passion that leads to compassion which is the main tenet of most spiritualist dogma.

RICHARD: The word compassion – ‘participation in another’s suffering; fellow-feeling, sympathy; pity inclining one to show mercy or give aid’ (Oxford Dictionary) – stemming from the late Latin ‘compati’ (meaning ‘suffer with’) via the ecclesiastical Latin ‘compassio’ (literally ‘suffer-together’) is the English equivalent to the Pali ‘karuna’ (usually translated as ‘pity-compassion’) and refers to the communal feeling of pathos or grief engendered by the feeling of sorrow induced in oneself through the suffering, or plight, of another.

In spiritualism individual sorrow can be sublimated/transcended so as to become/be universal sorrow – sorrow for all suffering beings – and has the effect of transmogrifying the affective ‘being’ within the body (the instinctually passional being) into an all-encompassing transcendental ‘Being’ ... a (dissociated) entity of grandiose, albeit pathetic, proportions.

RESPONDENT: The concept of altruism is different in that one engages in a spontaneous process of selfless action, as opposed to helping in a compassionate, holier-than-thou way.

RICHARD: The word altruism can be used in two distinctly different ways – in a virtuous sense (as in being an unselfish/selfless self) or in a zoological/biological sense (as in being diametrically opposite to selfism) – and it is the latter which is of particular interest to a person wanting to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, as it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) ... blind nature endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group).

By and large the instinct for survival of the group is the more powerful – as is epitomised in the honey-bee (when it stings to protect/defend the hive it dies) – and it is the utilisation of this once-in-a-lifetime gregarian action which is referred to in my oft-repeated ‘an altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice/ ‘self’-immolation, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body’.

RESPONDENT: So, in my life, I recently decided to pursue just the masters in physics (instead of the previously intended PhD), so that I could move back in with my parents and ‘help’ them free themselves of their interpersonal obstructions. (My mom is over 50 and my dad is over 70) This was before I came to actualism, and I had intended to go back there to serve as an example of spiritualist practice. Now, however, I’m not sure what my agenda is in planning on moving back. On one hand, its that gut-feeling instinct to care for and support (emotionally and financially) my ‘tribe’. This also fulfils the social Asian-American duty of filiality, which I did not intend. On the other hand, this type of compassion and social identity obedience to being a ‘good son’ is exactly the stuff I’ve always wanted to obliterate.

So, my question is, is it possible to go through with these plans in an altruistic manner, like saving someone who is in danger?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Another issue, related to this one, is my choice of career. I was considering teaching physics at the HS level, because I understand there is a shortage of science teachers in California. Is this also a part of the instinctual duty to fulfil the needs of society?

RICHARD: Not necessarily, no ... one does need to put food/water into the belly, and a roof over the head/clothes on the back (if the weather be inclement), and in this day and age the main way of obtaining the necessary wherewithal is through the covert slavery euphemistically known as ‘earning a living’.

RESPONDENT: ... [but] based on my theoretical understanding I have just found myriads of quotes which indicate that they clearly taught the overcoming of the affective faculty.

RICHARD: Hmm ... eradicating is vastly different to overcoming, non?

RESPONDENT: First quote: ‘[Un]-self-ishness, from the Indian point of view is an amoral state, in which no question of ‘Altruism’ can present itself, liberation being as much from the notion of ‘others’ as it is form the notion of ‘self’, and not in any sense a psychological state, but a liberation from all that is implied by the ‘psyche’ in the word ‘psychology’. [Ananda Coomaraswamy, Hinduism and Buddhism].

RICHARD: The experiential state which lies behind those words is (initially) one of union – a state of oneness as expressed in ‘We are all One’ for instance – and (ultimately) one of solipsism – a state of aloneness as expressed in ‘There is only That’ for example – so of course there is liberation from the notion of ‘others’ as well as ‘self’.

Whereas in actuality there is no separation in the first place such as to necessitate such self-absorbed narcissism ... there is an actual intimacy with every body, every thing, and every event, here.

In regards to altruism: the word altruism can be used in two distinctly different ways – in a virtuous sense (as in being unselfish), such as the author you quoted is using it, or in a zoological/biological sense (as in being diametrically opposite to selfism) – and it is the latter which is of particular interest to a person wanting to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to being apparent, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, as it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) ... blind nature endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group).

By and large the instinct for survival of the group is the more powerful – as is epitomised in the honey-bee (when it stings to protect/defend the hive it dies) – and it is the utilisation of this once-in-a-lifetime gregarian action which is referred to in my oft-repeated ‘an altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice/‘self’-immolation, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body’.

As for amorality ... the following links may throw some light upon that:

www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listccorrespondence/listc01.htm#06Mar00

www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listccorrespondence/listc03.htm#08Mar00

SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON ALTRUISM (Part Two)

RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

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

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

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