Richard’s Selected Correspondence
On How To Become Free of the Human Condition
RESPONDENT: What is the answer to the haietmoba?
RICHARD: In short ... it is an experiential answer.
To explain: the whole point of asking oneself, each moment again until it becomes a non-verbal attitude or a wordless approach to life, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) is to experientially ascertain just exactly what is the way or manner in which one is personally participating in the events which are occurring at this particular moment that one is alive ... after all, irregardless of whether one takes the back seat or not, we are all busy doing this business called being alive by the very fact of being a sentient creature known as a human being (with all that inheres in being and doing that).
Thus the answer to your query – what the answer is to asking how one is experiencing this moment of being alive – is dependent upon, on each occasion again, just exactly what the way or manner it is that one is personally participating in the occurrences which are currently happening.
RESPONDENT: Is it really superior?
RICHARD: As it is the only method so far (for as far as I have been able to verify) that has delivered the goods it has no peer ... obviously I cannot endorse any method which does not have a proven track-record.
RESPONDENT: Whether it is a contradiction or not, I need this issue [getting back to feeling good] clarified for the practical application.
RICHARD: Oh? What was not clarifying about my response when you first introduced this topic, then? Vis.:
And the reason why I ask is because this is the reply I received to that e-mail:
RESPONDENT: (...) How is the method best done – should I examine the feeling and find its trigger while experiencing it, in order to get back to feeling good?
RICHARD: If you have a tendency towards being an intellectual/ abstractional-type person then ... yes.
RESPONDENT: Or should I get back to feeling good and then figure out why I last felt less-than-good?
RESPONDENT: When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/belief?
RICHARD: Seeing the fact will set you free of the belief.
RESPONDENT: What is the fact?
RICHARD: What is the belief?
RESPONDENT: Let’s use the example ‘No one really likes me’.
RICHARD: Okay ... here is the way the actualism method works in practice:
Provided your answer to No. 5, in either instance, is in the affirmative you will now be back to enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive) and thus the prospect of seeing the fact which will set you free of the belief will be facilitated by being able to come upon it experientially ... it is your active participation/presence which vitalises/invigorates the investigation/exploration.
In short: armchair philosophising/psychologising will get you nowhere ... and fast.
RESPONDENT: I think I get it now. I will have to see if I can get it to work, and I’m not sure if I will be able to a lot of the time.
RICHARD: The degree to which one applies oneself to enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive), each moment again, is the degree to which one achieves success ... your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone.
RESPONDENT: It seems as though one has to be very hard headed and ignore the meanings of events, and instead simply focus on feeling good and the precise moment feeling good disappears.
RICHARD: I have located the following text:
RESPONDENT: As far as I can tell, Peter and Vineeto are/were more into investigating i.e. armchair philosophising/psychologising. I haven’t found much in your writing to suggest that you did much active investigating, but other actualists seem very much into it. This has been a source of my confusion.
RICHARD: Hmm ... I would suggest copy-pasting the following into the search-engine box at ‘Google’:
There are at least 75 hits to peruse ... then you might be inclined to copy-paste the following:
There are at least 189 hits to peruse ... then you might be inclined to copy-paste the following:
RESPONDENT: Is Actual Freedom a scientific method?
RICHARD: No, an actual freedom is a condition and not a knowledge producing procedure: specifically the condition which ensues where identity in toto – both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul/spirit (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) – becomes extinct.
The way in which that condition came about for this flesh and blood body – a way that has become known as ‘the actualism method’ – was by the identity in residence all those years ago (1981-1992) being totally attentive to how the moment currently being lived (the only moment one is ever alive) was being experienced, each moment again, and contemporaneously addressing any deviation from what has become known as ‘the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition’ ... wherein the word ‘wide’, as opposed to ‘straight and narrow’, refers to the dispensation from morals/ethics and values/principles through the pure intent to be happy and harmless (free from malice and sorrow) and the word ‘wondrous’ refers to a naïve state of felicitous and innocuous sensuousness.
RESPONDENT: Can someone please list the laws contained within the method that enable one to minimise the social identity and the instinctual passions?
RICHARD: Nope ... however, the experiential processes contained within the actualism method can be:
RESPONDENT: You said actualism is an effective method compared with spiritual ones (that is, one which really works) if applied in practice (it’s probably a failed act ;)) with sufficient diligence and pure intent, in order to make one happy and harmless.
RICHARD: The actualism method, first put into action in 1981, is indeed an effective method, when practiced with application and diligence and patience and perseverance, and guided by the pure intent to enable peace-on-earth in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, as it resulted in this flesh and blood body being actually free of the human condition ... this is the method which delivered the goods.
There is no valid comparison with spiritual methods ... spirituality does not have peace-on-earth on its agenda.
RESPONDENT: First, how many people have attained virtual freedom apart from your close associates Peter and Vineeto?
RICHARD: How each and every person is experiencing this moment of being alive, each moment again, is a matter for themselves to determine ... I long ago declined to be a probity policeman (for obvious reason).
RESPONDENT: What do you think is the core reason that a person like Konrad hasn’t got it?
RICHARD: The core reason why anyone does not ‘get it’ is because the actualism method does deliver the goods (total dedication to peace and harmony means that the end of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety is inevitable).
RESPONDENT: I ask this as there are now almost 6 years since you went public with your discovery and the method to achieve it, you must have some feedback ...
RICHARD: The only feedback is what can be read publicly ... I rarely, if ever, conduct a private correspondence these days.
RESPONDENT: ... or is it a perfect method needing no improvement?
RESPONDENT: And why don’t you give an example, a real salt on the tongue, eyeball account of what it was like for you applying the method for a day or even 2 minutes?
RICHARD: I have located the following text:
RESPONDENT: What actually happened in the beginning?
RICHARD: What happened for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body on the first of January 1981 (the day ‘he’ first put the method ‘he’ devised into practice) was so amazing for ‘him’ that ‘he’ said to ‘his’ then wife that ‘he’ had discovered the secret to life ... ‘he’ would go on to say it was so easy to feel happy and harmless for 23 hours 59 minutes of the day (an arbitrary figure) that ‘he’ wondered why it had never been done before.
RESPONDENT: What happened in you when you asked this question?
RICHARD: What happened for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body was that ‘he’ mainly felt happy and harmless irregardless of the situation and circumstance ... the 00 hours 01 minute of the day (an arbitrary figure) that ‘he’ did not never detracted from what has nowadays become known as a virtual freedom and was often quite easily rectified.
RESPONDENT: I don’t mean sparks flew and ASC’s happened ...
RICHARD: Okay ... because sparks *did* fly and both PCE’s and ASC’s (altered states of consciousness) *did* happen.
RESPONDENT: I mean what happened, banal or otherwise ... to help point the way ... what were the pitfalls?
RESPONDENT: VEPS (very enlightened persons) in the white house and the pentagon assure the rest of us that within a reasonable time span the post-Saddam era will take of and every Iraqi that will survive at last will experience the blessings of democracy as will be ‘dictated’ by the self-proclaimed new order. Anyway the goose is out that is a fact. So what to do?
RICHARD: Seeing that you ask: the first thing to do is to comprehend that one of the fundamental understandings, which enables the actualism method to work its magic, is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence.
RESPONDENT: Moreover, I question whether freedom or happiness is something to seek. The seeking, grasping, desiring mind is painful, is suffering.
RICHARD: Whereas with the PCE as one’s guiding light, as it were, one is drawn deliciously to one’s destiny.
RESPONDENT: It is to be ‘in the way’ rather than on the way.
RICHARD: How I express it is that the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and that the slightest diminishment of such felicity/ innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way.
One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday circumstances.
RESPONDENT: You say be aware of what you are experiencing.
RICHARD: What I say is nothing other than a report of what worked for the parasitical identity ... who asked, until it became a non-verbal attitude to life, a wordless approach each moment again, the following question: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? After all, this moment is the only moment one is ever alive, and such exquisite attentiveness as this attitude/ approach engenders makes short-shift of anything not conducive to peace and harmony. So much so that an inevitability sets in.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps it is not inevitable at all.
RICHARD: I do not see why not as I was born a normal person of normal parents; I had a normal childhood and went to a normal school; I took a normal job and got married in the normal way; I bought a normal house and car in the normal way (mortgage/hire purchase) and had normal children ... in short, if the ‘I’/‘me’ who was within was able to do it any ‘I’/‘me’ can.
RESPONDENT: It is only the way it may have unfolded for you and your purported parasitic predecessor.
RESPONDENT: Ok, I think I understand what you are saying: The instinctual passions are genetically inherited and have a perception of self which becomes the feeling of self.
RICHARD: No, the genetically-inherited instinctual passions do not have a perception of self ... what they do is usurp the sensate perception of self and create the feeling of ‘self’.
RESPONDENT: It is the feeling of self (‘me’/soul/core) which is illusory which gives rise to the ‘I’/ego or thinker. In other words, the instinctual passions are genetically inherited and they give rise to the illusion of the ‘me’ and the ‘I’.
RICHARD: Exactly, and what is vital to comprehend is that the feeler is primary and the thinker is secondary ... and that the thinker is but the tip of the iceberg.
I kid you not ... the feeler automatically creates its own feeling reality, usurping sensate actuality as already explained, which reality is so all-pervasive that it is only in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) that this actual world becomes apparent.
RESPONDENT: Are you saying then that in order to eliminate the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ that the instinctual passions themselves have to be eliminated ...
RICHARD: No ... and the reason why not is this simple: who would be doing the eliminating of the instinctual passions? As ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ it is an impossibility because the result of trying to do so would be a stripped-down rudimentary animal ‘self’ (seemingly) divested of feelings ... somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly known as ‘psychopath’).
Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ and so on – and has repressed the others.
RESPONDENT: ... and in order to do that the layers of the ‘I’ and ‘me’ have to be peeled back in order to uncover the raw instinctual passions?
RICHARD: In the end, only altruistic ‘self’-immolation, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, will release the flesh and blood body from its parasitical resident and, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, the end of ‘me’ is the end of ‘my’ feelings (aka the instinctual passions and all their cultivated derivations).
Of course, one does not psychologically and psychically self-immolate just because it seems like a good idea at the time. It requires a rather curious decision to be made – a decision the likes of which has never been made before nor will ever be made again – as it is a once-in-a-lifetime determination and takes some considerable preparation.
So, in the meantime, what one can do is choose to be as happy and harmless as is humanly possible each moment again – the means to the end are not different from the end – and with this pure intent, as one goes about one’s normal everyday life, each moment again provides an opportunity to find out what is preventing one from living in the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE).
RESPONDENT: The layers of the ‘I’ and ‘me’ consisting of beliefs and identity.
RICHARD: Well, as the word ‘identity’ is used to delineate the entity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), it is clearer to say that the layers of identity consist of, not only beliefs, but all the rest of what constitutes identity. Asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive will incrementally reveal what ‘all the rest’ is made up of ... and of particular importance is the beliefs masquerading as truths.
RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List, Alan. I am glad that you have joined for I am sure that the sincerity of your participation will bestow immense benefit to both yourself and anyone else who is genuinely concerned about becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth. We who are discussing these matters have before us a vital opportunity to partake in precipitating humankind’s long-awaited emergence from animosity and anguish into benignity and benevolence.
We fellow human beings writing here today are actively engaged in ensuring that these ‘Savage Ages’ will eventually become a thing of the dreadful past ... so that they will pass into the waste-bin of history like the ‘Dark Ages’ have.
It is not a little thing we are doing.
ALAN: The apparent end of the process is the realisation that all that was occurring was a process and completely meaningless – just part of ‘my’ antics.
RICHARD: The contents of the process are meaningless, yes, but the process itself is essential for the ending of ‘me’. ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself. What ‘I’ can do to bring about this ‘death’ is that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously – and with knowledge aforethought – set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and intentionally, is to press the button which precipitates a momentum – oft-times alarming but always thrilling – 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. When ‘I’ freely and cheerfully 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. It is a welcome release into actuality. Then I am finally here ... now. I discover that I have always been here now ... I have never been anywhere else for there is nowhere else ... except in 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.
ALAN: ‘I’ cannot accept that ‘I’ will never know the answer.
RICHARD: You will find, as the process proceeds, that ‘I’ will come to accept that ‘I’ can never know the answer – and gladly – when ‘I’ realise that ‘my’ psychological and psychic self-immolation is the best contribution that ‘I’ can make for peace-on-earth. ‘I’ have an in-built tendency for self-sacrifice – human history bears this out in silly physical self-sacrifice – so ‘my’ ending of ‘myself’ it is what ‘I’ am well-equipped to do ... it is what ‘I’ am good at doing. Literally millions of peoples throughout history, mistakenly identifying with ‘I’, have readily sacrificed the physical body for whatever ‘good cause’ that they have been brainwashed into believing. As I wrote in Article 17 of ‘Richard’s Journal’: ‘It is possible to not only seek but to find ... thereby enabling one to live life in full meaning twenty-four-hours-a-day. The universe is innately perfect and pure. It is already always immaculate and consummate. Nothing ‘dirty’ can breach the blameless bastions of this unimpeachable purity and perfection ... even the most profound thoughts and the most sublime feelings are self-centred. The self – ‘I’ – is not only defiled, it is corrupt through and through. ‘I’ am perversity itself. No matter how earnestly one tries to purify oneself, one can never succeed completely. The last little bit always eludes perfecting. ‘I’ am rotten at the very core. There is one thing that ‘I’ can do, however, to remedy the situation. ‘I’ can disappear. Psychological and psychic self-immolation is the only sensible sacrifice that ‘I’ can make in order to reveal perfection. Life is bursting with meaning when ‘I’ am no longer present to mess things up. ‘I’ stand in the way of that purity being apparent. ‘My’ presence prohibits perfection being evident. ‘I’ prevent the very meaning to life, which ‘I’ am searching for, from coming into plain view. The main trouble is that ‘I’ wish to remain in existence to savour the meaning’.
And again, in Article 15: ‘‘I’ will never find the ultimate fulfilment for ‘I’ am standing in the way of the ‘Mystery of Life’ being revealed. There is no way out, ‘I’ am doomed. ‘I’ must, inevitably, cease to ‘be’. Instead of bemoaning ‘my’ fate and vainly searching for an escape, ‘I’ can see ‘myself’ for what ‘I’ am. This seeing is the beginning of the ending of ‘me’. The extinction of ‘me’ is the ultimate sacrifice ‘I’ can make to ensure the possibility of peace-on-earth for not only me but for all humankind. Thus, I find myself here, in the world as-it-is. A vast stillness lies all around, abounding with purity. Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions, imbuing everything with unimaginable fairytale-like quality. 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. And what an adventure it was ... and still is’.
These are the wondrous workings of the exquisite quality of life.
ALAN: Whatever ‘process’ (if it was a process) started last night has continued today and intensified on my walk with the dog this morning. Strange sensations, mainly ‘pressure’ in the head and all the time the question ‘is this an actual process or something ‘I’ am making up’. The realisation that everything which occurs is just something ‘I’ am making up and, though real, it is not actual. At one stage, when very intense, I pick up a stone and clutch it desperately for the knowledge that the stone actually exists. The pain in my hand, when I clutch the stone tightly is an actual pain. Everything else is an illusion. All I have lived for 46 years is an illusion. ‘I’ desperately want a reply from Richard and now I know the reason why – to verify whether the process is actually happening.
RICHARD: Aye ... it sure sounds like the genuine article to me. From your description it would appear that this is indeed the same-same kind of process that went on in me when I had an ‘I’ lurking around within this body ... and being able to recognise a similarity is the only type of ‘verification’ worth anything I can give. A ‘pressure in the head’ I can relate to ... with me it was most intense at the base of the brain (at the top of the brain-stem) but it permeated throughout the head. It could last anywhere from five minutes to two-three hours, and sometimes would move down to the small of my back (between the shoulder blades) as it diminished prior to finishing. I would then get a convulsive jerking of the left leg for up to half an hour, then all would be over ... for that time round. At the time I took heed of the fact that these symptoms are well known among mystics and are called ‘Kriyas’ by the Indians (who have been doing this kind of thing for centuries), as I had nothing else to go by to explain these bizarre happenings.
The stone actually exists ... and the physical pain you get by ‘clutching it desperately’ is actual (the ‘desperately’ part is real, not actual ... but I understand the desperation that is engendered when reality – your entire world-view – breaks down). Rest assured that the flesh and blood fellow human being called Richard that is writing these words is also actual. It is a weird thing to go through ... but then again, war and rape and murder and torture and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide are equally bizarre. The Human Condition is weird, so any dissolution of it is correspondingly weird. Also, your pride can begin to take a hammering, so watch out for the tendency to becoming humble to ameliorate your condition whilst you go through this process ... else you may become enlightened.
RICHARD: You say: ‘Richard, I suppose the question that I ask is – what is the most effective way to deconstruct my mumbo jumbo belief system’.
It is ruthlessly simple ... begin by asking, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’
‘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).
There is only one person in this whole wide world that one can change ... ‘myself’. This is the most important point to understand thoroughly, otherwise one endlessly tries to change the other ... and as there are billions of ‘others’ it would be a life-time task with still no success at the end. If one grasps that the way to peace-on-earth is by changing oneself – and oneself only – then all of one’s interactions with others will undergo a radical transformation. You set them free of your graceless demands ... your endless neediness born out of being alone in the world. The cause of sadness and loneliness is not, as is commonly believed, alienation from others. The single reason for being alone and lonely is from not being what-I-am. By not being this flesh and blood body just brimming with sensory organs, but being, instead, an identity within, ‘I’ am doomed to perpetual loneliness and aloneness. ‘I’ am fated to ever pursue an elusive ‘Someone’ or ‘Something’ that will fill that aching void.
When I am what-I-am, there is no void. By being what I actually am – this body only – I have no need for others; hence I also have no need to place the burden upon them to fulfil that what was lacking. Not only do I free myself from that perpetual pursuit, but I also free others in my company from the task ‘I’ impose upon them. Being this sensual body is actual fulfilment, each moment again. Nevermore will I be needy, greedy and grasping. Nevermore will I plot and plan and manipulate others. Nevermore will I have to prostitute myself to others to assuage those main attributes of the identity: being lost, lonely, frightened and cunning. Being what-I-am is to be free-flowing, spontaneous, delightful ... and it is fun, for one can never be hurt again.
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 now 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 now 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.
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’ and ‘me’ as ‘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.
VINEETO: Richard gave a wonderful description on how to induce a peak-experience: ‘To get out of ‘stuckness’ one gets off one’s backside and does whatever one knows best to activate delight. Delight is what is humanly possible, given sufficient pure intent obtained from the felicity/ innocuity born of the pure consciousness experience, and from the position of delight, one can vitalise one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive now. Then one is no longer intuitively making sense of life ... the delicious wonder of it all drives any such instinctive meaning away. Such luscious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté – the nourishing of which is essential if fascination in it all is to occur – and the charm of life itself easily engages dedication to peace-on-earth. Then, as one gazes intently at the world about by glancing lightly with sensuously caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and one is the experiencing of what is happening. But refrain from possessing it and making it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared.
RESPONDENT: I have a bit of trouble summoning up delight (as Richard suggests), as it seems imaginary, as opposed to the release that comes with facing issues. That is still under consideration though.
RICHARD: The first sentence of above paragraph is specifically designed to get one out of ‘stuckness’ ... it is not intended as an on-going way of living life. It is a short, sharp shock of attention – a ‘kick-start’ in the jargon – to counteract the ‘I didn’t ask to be born’ resentment that caused the stuckness in the first place. Another ‘wake-up jab’ (which makes use of any remnant of pride) is to ask oneself: ‘I have two choices right now: being happy and harmless or being dull and degenerate ... which way do I sensibly choose to spend this never-to-be-repeated precious moment of living so that I can honestly call myself a mature adult?’
A happy and harmless person has a much better chance of precipitating a PCE ... which is the essential pre-requisite for an actual freedom (otherwise this is all theory). It goes without saying, surely, that a grumpy person locks themselves out of being here ... now.
RESPONDENT: Now coming to the method. I tried asking ‘‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’. Most of the time I get the answer ‘happy’, or when I stress upon ‘this moment’, I get blank with no answer, because at this moment there is no feeling. The feeling is only in the moment just passed by. But still ‘I’ do not have that experience all the time. Because ‘I’ is the heap of all the passed moments!
RICHARD: I will endorse Vineeto’s response to this part. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Richard, sorry for jumping to this question before replying to our ongoing long correspondence. I want to know what does ‘happiness’ mean to you. To be honest, to me it still is a feeling. I ask this question in relation to your post to No. 3 in which you wrote: [Richard]: ‘A happy and harmless person has a much better chance of precipitating a PCE ... which is the essential pre-requisite for an actual freedom (otherwise this is all theory). It goes without saying, surely, that a grumpy person locks themselves out of being here ... now’. [endquote]. Which means that being ‘happy and harmless’ is a pre-requisite for actual freedom (at least it gives better chances). So it is very important to know what is this happiness which is required before one even attempts for actual freedom.
RICHARD: There is nothing mysterious going on here, it is only a matter of how the English language is structured ... try reading it this way:
Nevertheless, there is more to it than that: the phrase ‘He is an angry person’ or ‘She is an hysterical person’ refers to someone who is more prone to be angry or hysterical – and more extreme in their anger and hysteria – than the average person. Likewise: ‘He is a bully’ or ‘She is a bitch’ refers to a person who displays an attitude and behaviour that automatically classifies them as being more extreme than the average person. So when I write ‘a happy and harmless person’ I am indicating someone who is more extreme in their happiness and harmlessness than the average ... similarly ‘a grumpy person’ indicates someone more extreme in feeling grumpy than the average person (and please do not ask me to define ‘average’ ... because have you ever realised that half the people that you know are necessarily below average!).
Perhaps this is an excellent opportunity to clarify this whole issue about feelings. Often people who read about actual freedom gain the impression that I am asking people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire affective faculty is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the psyche itself is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings. It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly know as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others (‘repressed’ not ‘suppressed’). In a PCE the feelings play no part at all – the self is in abeyance – but can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an ASC ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings. What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. I make this very clear in my writing:
RESPONDENT: Oh well, I am psyching myself up to try what has been suggested on the web site (I intend to purchase Richard’s Journal as soon as I get the money together) – I got everything to lose and the success stories speak for themselves!!
RICHARD: It is the most stimulating adventure of a lifetime to embark upon a voyage into one’s own psyche. Discovering the source of the Nile or climbing Mount Everest – or whatever physical venture – pales into insignificance when compared to the thrill of finding out about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being. I am having so much fun ... those middle-aged or elderly people who bemoan their ‘lost youth’ leave me astonished. Back then I was – basically – lost, lonely, frightened and confused. Accordingly, I set out on what was to become the most marvellous escapade possible. As soon as I understood that there was nobody stopping me but myself, I had the autonomy to inquire, to seek, to investigate and to explore. As soon as I realised nobody was standing in the way but myself, that realisation became an actualisation and I was free to encounter, to uncover, to discover and to find the ‘secret to life’ or the ‘meaning of life’ or the ‘riddle of existence’, or the ‘purpose of the universe’ or whatever one’s quest may be called. To dare to be me – to be what-I-am as an actuality – rather than the who ‘I’ was or the who ‘I’ am or the who ‘I’ will be, calls for an audacity unparalleled in the annals of history ... or one’s personal history, at least.
RESPONDENT: I would like to know, how useful for the goal of living it permanently, from your perspective, are exercises where you relax different parts of your body and focus your attention on various physical sensations (without preference for what sensation you focus on, tune-in or ‘become’).
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all ... I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any surrendering, any trusting, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities. Nor does one have to endlessly analyse one’s childhood for ever and a day. Nor does one have to do endless therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... likewise relaxation exercises will never set you free. Coming to one’s senses does not mean merely relaxing one’s toes, for example. As I have previously written, in order to facilitate a peak experience of perfection, one needs to have a keen sense of humour ... all that ‘being serious’ stuff actively works against peace-on-earth. Be totally sincere – most definitely utterly sincere, as genuineness is essential – and come to your senses as efficaciously as possible. If you ‘focus your attention on various physical sensations’ , then look to becoming the experience of these sensations happening ... rather than having them happen to you.
And remember that an actual freedom is all about having fun; about enjoying being here; about delighting in being alive. One has to want to be here on this planet ... most people resent being here and wish to escape. And then the condition is ripe for a PCE to occur ... and although each pure consciousness experience brings a fresh beginning, an absolute newness, the condition of freedom from ‘I’ has indubitable character traits ... each time discovered anew with the same delight as if it were the first time. With each experience one finds oneself here in this ever-fresh, never contaminated moment. Here is an atmosphere free from ‘human’ feelings, from ‘humanity’s truisms, from religion’s morals and from civilisation’s mores ... all of which are humanistic and cultural coping-mechanisms and agreements. There is a delicious surprise to be found in actualism: it is so liveable. It is living, here on earth, as this actual body, simply brimming with sensory organs ... yet completely devoid of emotions and passions manifesting as hallucinatory thoughts and utopian idealism. It is indeed possible to live peacefully, at ease and undisturbed by these futile feelings and delusive thoughts. It is an entirely different ball-game with different rationale which, from the ‘human’ view-point, lies diametrically opposed to the orthodox rules and regulations based on those venerated thoughts and feelings ... the more ancient the better.
RESPONDENT: In view of this definition, do you think it might be useful to inquire ‘how is this moment being experienced ...’ versus ‘how am I experiencing this moment ...’? Or it does not matter?
RICHARD: It does not matter ... what is vital is to get an on-going enquiry going each moment again. Such a ‘hands-on’ approach – an ‘on the job’ examination instead of ‘armchair philosophising’ – has such potent efficacy that rapid results are the order of the day.
RESPONDENT: In my case, this me, this ‘I’ is very skilful of somehow sneaking in through ‘a back door’.
RICHARD: It is important not to view ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ as an enemy – blind nature is the culprit – and to be friends with yourself ... only you live with yourself twenty four hours a day. Coopt any aspect of yourself as an ally in this investigation into the human psyche ... eventually ‘I’ come to realise that the very best thing that ‘I’ can do is altruistically self-immolate for the good of this body and all bodies. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result when ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory ... unless ‘I’ am seduced by the Glamour and the Glory and the Glitz into becoming the Saviour Of Humankind. It is a risk well worth taking, however.
RESPONDENT: Any activity I might become attracted to seems to define the ‘I’ – as a ‘doer’, but most of all, especially as the watcher.
RICHARD: Becoming free of the human condition is a result of making a curious decision to ‘do it’ – whatever it takes – and once one sets it all in motion a momentum takes over where one realises one has embarked already ... and once one has that impetus going one cannot ‘un-set’ the pace. An alacrity takes over and one finds that one has already been doing it and one has no choice in the matter (fascination is almost like ‘I am not doing this – this is happening to me’). This means one is already committed to finding out – it is not that one makes a commitment as one can always break a commitment after a lot of soul-searching – and this commitment one cannot break. There is no pulling back – which is why most people do not want to start – because once one has started one cannot stop. It is a one-way trip ... that is the thrilling part of it. With application and diligence, born out of pure intent, it will happen ... one cannot help but become fascinated, for this is the predicament that humankind has been agonising over for aeons. Any reluctance to become fascinated is because of the ‘no turning back’ aspect. After fascination comes obsession wherein you cannot leave it alone any more – or rather it does not leave you alone – and that is when that tempo picks you up – an eagerness grips you – and you feel alive, vital, dynamic. Things happen of a serendipitous nature. One can no longer distinguish between me doing it and it happening to me. They happen simultaneously – cause and effect are left behind in the Land of Lament – and it is absolutely thrilling. Then one is fully doing this business of being alive – doing it here on this earth in this lifetime as this body – and it is all happening now. This moment is happening and I am doing it and the doing is happening of itself and I am the experiencing of the happening. Then one is in this propitious state of being able to say: ‘I am the doing of what is happening’.
RESPONDENT: Thanks for taking the time to go more deeply into my ‘impressions’. I appreciate that, and I intend to come back to it and write again about those things, perhaps tomorrow, or at the weekend. Meanwhile, as I was just now sitting on the terrace looking at the trees of the national park through the darkness, enjoying a stubby of my favourite beer – Coopers Sparkling Ale – and two slices of Gourmet Vegetarian Pizza, and enjoying the stillness of the world free of my emotions and mind, a question began formulating. I know for myself, that I have a very different set of responses to the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment’ according to whether or not I am engaging in creative ‘work’ around the time of the asking. What I mean is, that when I have been working creating ‘stuff’ that didn’t exist before – whether it be a piece of writing or a vegetarian hot-pot, then the answers that come when I ask how I am experiencing this moment are along the lines of ... ‘the world is sublime’, ‘there is no ego here, there is no self, there is only the senses sensing light, sound, smells, vibrations ...’, ‘life is so easy’, ‘I am harmless and blithesome’ (I use the words ‘harmless’ and ‘blithesome’ since I ‘met’ you, but the state they describe was known to me beforehand, although I keep moving in and out of it). These answers come to the extent that I am freely following some stream of creativity that seems to continuously develop inside me.
RICHARD: Yes, I can recall something similar 20 years ago – I made a living as a practising artist – and ‘my’ greatest work came when ‘I’ disappeared and the painting painted itself. This is the difference between art and craft – and ‘I’ was very good as a craftsman – but craft became art only when ‘I’ was not. It was this magical way of ‘creativity’ that led ‘me’ into this whole investigation of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being, by the way. ‘I’ desired to live my whole life like these utter moments of artistic creation ... ‘I’ wanted my life to live itself just like my paintings painted themselves. Consequently, here I am today ... and what an adventure it has been.
RESPONDENT: Clearly you are priming me for the ‘right’ answer. The right answer is ‘yes, I am willing to proceed further’. It is the ‘right’ answer and it is my actual answer.
RICHARD: Such congruence is marvellous ... to become free of the human condition requires the dedication of purpose – a devotion to the task – that leaves previous challenges lying by the wayside for want of impetus. Maybe it is the taste of this that is what gives you pause to consider it to be ‘The Mission’? The intensity of purpose may conjure up images of a holy vocation ... but I mean business. I mean actually changing yourself – fundamentally, radically, completely and utterly.
RESPONDENT: I now understand more fully that it is our own self-constructed ‘reality’ (facts filtered through thoughts and feelings) that needs to be examined relentlessly in order for the actual world to be perceived directly. I have a much deeper understanding of what all this means to me, since I joined this list. It means to me that I continue examining all the thoughts and feelings that define ‘me’ moment by moment. In that way I move beyond the world of appearances (characterised by unexamined habitual ways of relating) into my own inner world. That inner world appears very real for a time. This is the state I called actual reality. Indeed it is second best to remain there. But first one has to move beyond socially sanctioned appearance into it. Isn’t that so? Or can one move directly from the world of appearances into Actual Freedom bypassing the stage of self-examination?
RICHARD: There is a rapid (and sudden) way to actual freedom and a gradual (then sudden) way ... and the rapid (and sudden) way does by-pass self-examination. There are certain dangers inherent:
The rapid (and sudden) way is certainly possible – given sufficient pure intent – yet even so there needs to be a tidying-up of social mores and habitual patterns ‘after the event’ anyway ... an actual freedom does not miraculously remove every little detail. It does make the fine-tuning a breeze, though.
RICHARD: It is very important to have confidence in your own ability to discriminate between current human knowledge and what you personally know from your own peak experiences. This will give you that optimism that is the ability to plough on regardless of whatever stands in your way until you evoke your destiny. It is not a matter of having faith or believing that it is possible; it is not a matter of trusting or hoping that it will happen to you; it is all to do with the solid knowing, born out of the peak experience, that it is here for you and anyone ... if only you will act upon your knowing. This ‘action’ amounts to – at times – ‘talking yourself into it’, for the other alternative is to let doubt and disbelief and distrust and despair eat away at your resolve. Only you can manifest your own freedom.
However, once embarked upon the ‘wide and wondrous path’, you are not on your own: the perfection of the infinitude of this physical universe is with you all the way ... but if you waver, you are indeed 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. Having the ‘courage of your convictions’ has nothing to do with believing, trusting, hoping or having faith that it be possible. I, for one, never believed, trusted, hoped or had faith that it was possible, for such an action of believing, trusting, hoping and having faith perpetuates the believer, the truster, the hoper and the faithful. On the contrary, I could no longer believe that it was not possible – which is a different action entirely to believing, trusting, hoping and having faith that it is possible – thus dispensing with the believer, the truster, the hoper and the faithful. Do you see this?
For example: Doubt is believing it not to be possible ... doubt is actually an action of believing, which supports the believer. Faith is believing that it is possible ... which also supports the believer ... and thus, either way, the believer pushes freedom away into an ever elusive future.
All this stemmed from my peak experience in which I experienced the purity and the perfection of life itself – here and now – and thus saw that what others had perceived as being our reward after physical death already existed ... at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus I ceased believing that life on earth was a grim business with only scant moments of reprieve ... yet I did not start believing in perfection. To repeat: I stopped believing, period. All sorrow and malice stems from the activity of believing ... which arises from the believer. ‘I’, as a psychological entity, can only believe – or disbelieve – in possibilities and impossibilities. In the peak experience ‘I’ temporarily abdicated the throne and I knew, by direct experience, that freedom was already actual. It was ‘I’ that was the problem, not the absence of perfection. When ‘I’ ceased to be, perfection became, as always, apparent. By believing perfection to be possible ‘I’ perpetuate ‘myself’. ‘I’, by ‘my’ very presence, inhibit that splendid perfection becoming apparent.
Perfection is already always here. Yet ‘I’, by believing in a remembered perfection, chase an ever-elusive chimera into an ever-receding future. Thus one stands still and does nothing but watch the dust settle all around ... and perfection, which is only of the moment, becomes apparent. ‘I’ have ceased to be. By ‘doing nothing’ I mean neither believing nor disbelieving; neither having faith nor having doubt; neither trusting nor distrusting; neither hoping nor despairing. In short, one’s superb confidence and overweening optimism precipitates ‘my’ demise ... ‘I’ do not make freedom happen ... ‘I’ allow the universe to ‘disappear’ the ‘me’ that I was ... and perfection has become apparent. ‘I’ did not invoke perfection, for it already is here ... and it is here now, not off into the future. It may have taken some time to eventuate, as ‘I’ got whittled away, yet when that time came, it was already here ... because it is always now.
To sum up: ‘I’ do not make perfection happen because it is already always here. What ‘I’ do is to ‘stand still’ and unreservedly allow ‘my’ eventual demise to occur. To do this, ‘I’ cease believing, hoping, trusting and having faith ... without falling into disbelief, despair, distrust or doubt. ‘I’, having the courage of ‘my’ convictions – which is the confidence born out of the solid knowing as evidenced in the peak experience – thus developing a superb confidence and an overweening optimism. Thus nothing can stand in ‘my’ way in this, the adventure of a life-time. It is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee ... but pure intent, born out of the connection between one’s inherent naiveté and the perfection of the infinitude of this physical universe, will provide one with the necessary intestinal fortitude. Private Correspondence
RESPONDENT: How wonderful the spirit and your message of freedom shines through. I myself have been on my quest for Absolute understanding, full time, for so long now; attempting integration of that which is truly unique and free, which we shall call here the infinitude. This endeavour, I am sure, is along similar lines as to the matters you discuss in that it involves the complete and utter annihilation of anything that is or constitutes a self and thus enables one to realise the infinite or non-being. Even after just one read-through of your correspondence I feel myself closer to the revelation of non-belief than ever before. So strong is the this sense of connection, such is my sense of urgency and so absolutely desperate to find total meaning and understanding am I, that I reply immediately. It does indeed excite and overwhelm me to have met you, albeit through correspondence, and your assistance even thus far in these matters is truly invaluable and much treasured and cherished. As it is, I am still unsure and thus ignorant of just what it is that I am looking for and hence often feel an empty incompleteness rather than an abundance of inner joy that is the final answer will I’m sure bring forth. Thus the potent literature content of the material you send is, through direct association of other’s accounts, the most powerful and hence likely means to ensure my success in this venture ... it is that I beg to ask of you for some more of this fine work. The message holding the very key I am needing and so ‘desperate’ to find will indeed be contained in your material and will ‘hit home’ and permit release, finally, of my confusion and bewilderment of ‘unknowing’.
RICHARD: You say that you have been on your quest for absolute understanding for a long time ... I would be very interested to hear some details of your understanding up to this point in time so as to ascertain where we can carry on a fruitful and rewarding discussion. However, going on what you have said in regard to being unsure as to just what exactly you are looking for and thus ignorant of what constitutes total meaning – I see that we could begin from there. You go on to say that you are desirous of ridding yourself of anything that constitutes a self – the annihilation of self. This is a further area we could discuss. And, thirdly, you say you wish to achieve non-belief and non-being.
1. The Goal: There is an utter purity in the perfection of this universe we all live in which wells up ever-fresh from an immense stillness which is the genesis of all that is apparent. This universe is infinite – it has no beginning and no end ... it has always been and always will be here. Things may come and go but the universe itself is everlasting. As the universe is infinite, it follows that it has no ‘edges’, as it were. As there are no edges to this universe it means there is no centre to it. We are nowhere in particular ... and I mean this literally, factually. We are all floating in limitless space upon this planet earth, going nowhere and coming from nowhere. The goal in life is to realise this infinitude and live it as an actuality each moment again. This is possible for a human being, as I have personally been living it for a number of years now. The living of it is to experience being everywhere all at once whilst being nowhere in particular, for this is the living experience of infinity. For most people, infinite just means endless – but this is a limited understanding based upon what the self-bound mind can grasp intellectually.
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.
RICHARD: I will re-post the operative words, which are just sitting there in plain view, in the section you snipped from the above response of mine: [Richard]: ‘In short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again’. [endquote].
RESPONDENT: Ok, forgive me, but I am bit confused. When you say ‘in the section you snipped from the above response of mine’ are you referring to this bit that I did not include: [Co-Respondent]: ‘I have my OWN commitment to integrity in this investigation, that depends not a whit upon yours. [Richard]: ‘If I may suggest? Sincerity is the key to unlock one’s innate naiveté, the nourishing of which is essential if the wondrous magic of life itself is to be apparent, which naiveté effortlessly provides the integrity you say you have your own commitment to. (...) I might add, though, that naïveté does away with all that ‘heavy lifting’ you spoke of in an earlier e-mail. Vis.: [Co-Respondent]: ‘From what I can glean so far, virtual freedom is a period of ‘heavy lifting’. [endquote]. Where you have gleaned this diaphoretic impression from has got me stumped ... here is but one of the many ways I describe the actualism practice: [quote]: ‘... the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events’. [endquote]. Or even more specifically to the point of your ‘heavy lifting’ comment: [Respondent No. 12]: ‘If it is the experiencer that makes efforts to be aware and stay aware, the centre is strengthened, not dissolved, right? [Richard]: ‘Since when has naiveté been sudorific? [endquote]. In short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again’. [endquote]. Because that is very plain and I understand that.
RICHARD: Just so there is no misapprehension: are you saying that you plainly understand there is no [quote] ‘working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote] involved such as to occasion you to think the goal of being happy and harmless seems contrived?
RESPONDENT: In the examples I copied and pasted from the AF site, all of which I thought were written by Peter, speak of effort ...
RICHARD: Aye ... yet nowhere do those examples speak of [quote] ‘a working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote], such as to occasion someone to think the goal of being happy and harmless seems contrived, do they?
RESPONDENT: ... and it is not clear to me why it takes effort as in: [quote] ‘but it does take ‘effort’, commitment, drive, ambition, stubbornness and sheer will power to get there’ [endquote] and: [quote] ‘to suppose that one can become free of being a psychological and psychic ‘self’ without ‘mental effort’ does not make sense’. [endquote].
RICHARD: Yet is it clear to you that there is no [quote] ‘working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote] involved in that effort such as to occasion you to think the goal of being happy and harmless seems contrived?
RESPONDENT: When you say the exact opposite as in: [quote] ‘in short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again’ [endquote] is the ‘looking until it is again’ the effort that is referred to in the passages I copied?
RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to a section of the above text:
Then I will re-post the relevant part of the first of those quotes you provided:
Now, when Peter writes of it being [quote] ‘amazing that I now get up in the morning and take it for granted that I will again have a perfect day’ [endquote] do you reckon he is on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition (a path marked by enjoyment and appreciation) or has he inadvertently wandered off the way?
And when Peter writes of it having taken [quote] ‘effort, commitment, drive, ambition, stubbornness and sheer will power to get there’ [endquote], whenever he needed them, do you reckon he was writing about what it took, on occasion, to get back on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition (a path marked by enjoyment and appreciation) after having inadvertently wandered off the way or is he writing about what it takes to stay on that path marked by enjoyment and appreciation (the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’)?
There is no need to answer ... these are rhetorical questions designed solely to draw attention to what is patently obvious (once seen).
RICHARD: Furthermore, what Peter is saying in those quotes which you have provided is a far cry from [quote] ‘attempting to be happy and harmless’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘making an effort to be here now’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘trying to force ones self to be happy and harmless’ [endquote] is it not?
RESPONDENT: Ok but you did not explain specifically what he does mean by that.
RESPONDENT: When an actualist finds a belief is that ‘enough’ or does one benefit by ‘replacing’ the belief ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ with a sensible cognition like ‘failing at a task doesn’t make one a loser. Thinking about oneself like that is only going to cause pain, so I’m not going to feed that thought. I can be happy w/o blank ... .’
RICHARD: If failing at a task does not make one a loser then what does succeeding at a task not make one?
RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if you tried something and could not do it that you would be stupid, and pathetic (which is what the label ‘loser’; means from my part of earth)?
RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my query: If failing at a task does not make one stupid and pathetic then what does succeeding at a task not make one?
RESPONDENT: I’ll admit it here flatly. Sometimes, I just don’t get what your trying to get me to understand.
RICHARD: I am asking a very simple question ... perhaps an analogy will demonstrate: two people are playing chess; the person playing white succeeds in the task of checkmating the person playing black/the person playing black fails in the task of checkmating the person playing white; the person playing white, who succeeded in the task, is said to have won the game/the person playing black, who failed in the task, is said to have lost the game; the person having won is said to be the winner/the person having lost is said to be the loser.
Now, and in my initial understanding of the word ‘loser’, if failing at that task does not make the person playing black a loser then what does succeeding at that task not make the person playing white (if not the antonym of that word)?
Given that you have since explained that by the word loser you meant stupid and pathetic (antonyms of intelligent/clever and admirable/excellent) then if failing at a task does not make one stupid and pathetic then what does succeeding at a task not make one (if not intelligent/clever and admirable/excellent)?
In other words, how can one evaluate one’s success/failure if [quote] ‘succeeding at a task doesn’t make one anything’ [endquote]?
RESPONDENT: Why does any behaviour have to ‘make’ one anything?
RICHARD: Since when has having/holding a belief been behaviour? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: What’s the point in torturing oneself like that?
RICHARD: Here is the essence of the question you asked:
What I am asking is does the obverse also hold true? For example:
What is the point of replacing a belief with another belief (albeit disguised as a sensible cognition)?
RESPONDENT: And yes, I always remember I’m talking to a certified madman.
RICHARD: Well now ... as this certified madman nevertheless not only comprehends the distinction between belief and behaviour but also the difference betwixt emotional pain and bodily pain there may very well be something to be said for a total absence of sanity, eh?
RESPONDENT: Succeeding at a task doesn’t make one anything.
RICHARD: Ha ... and judging another to be a loving and compassionate being is to not be judgemental either (yet judging another to be malicious and sorrowful being is), eh?
RESPONDENT: I smell (perhaps imaginatively) pin the spiritualist donkey on No. 68 game.
RICHARD: No, either modern-day psychotherapy (as in positive affirmations) or folk-lore remedies (look for the good).
RESPONDENT: So, your saying determining that one is sorrowful is just a fact, not a judgement?
RICHARD: No, determining oneself to be anything is to be appraising/evaluating oneself ... and all such judgment starts the moment one wakes up and continues throughout the day until one goes to sleep.
RESPONDENT: Likewise with recognizing one as a loving being. Ok, I think I’m with you there. It is a ascertainment of fact.
RICHARD: Here is how your question at the top of this page began:
In a word: yes.
In several words: not if the same-same belief keeps cropping up over and again.
Put succinctly: when one finds a belief the very seeing that it is a belief is the end of it being a truth; if the same-same belief keeps cropping up, over and again, as a truth then its very nature remains to be seen.
In short: what makes a belief a truth is its affective component (as in one’s investment in holding it to be so).
RESPONDENT: Its just the body succeeding at a task.
RICHARD: Oh? Since when has a body ever cognised that thinking about itself like that – [quote] ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ [endquote] – is only going to cause pain?
RESPONDENT: Um ... ok, it is an identity that cognates that.
RICHARD: Aye, and it is identity who dictates behaviour (persuades the body to do and say all manner of things) per favour its beliefs.
RESPONDENT: However, it is a reasonable thought to stop treating oneself ‘harshly’ in one’s ‘head’(i.e. self talk/mental talk).
RICHARD: Is it also a reasonable thought to stop treating oneself ‘gently’ in one’s ‘head’ (i.e. self talk/mental talk)?
RESPONDENT: I would figure a body sans identity as you would never, ever think ‘I’m pathetic, I’m a loser, I can’t believe how stupid I am ... etc’.
RICHARD: A flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto cannot believe, period.
RESPONDENT: It’s just crazy to think like that.
RICHARD: It is crazy (as in foolish) to believe, period.
RICHARD: Nope ... it is sanity in action (all over the world billions of people believe in believing).
RESPONDENT: Why tack on a identity to that?
RICHARD: Put succinctly: that pain has no existence here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: Ah ... are you trying to say that no matter what you think you never suffer?
RICHARD: No thought can, of course, ever make me suffer (induce affective pain) ... but that is not what I was saying: you had said that succeeding at a task does not make one anything/it is just the body succeeding at a task/why tack an identity onto to that despite the fact that only an identity can generate that pain (affective suffering).
RESPONDENT: I understand that, but what I think about my self can indeed cause me to suffer.
RICHARD: Indeed ... thus succeeding at a task does make one something/it is not just the body succeeding at a task/an identity is not being tacked onto the body.
RICHARD: Perhaps a personal anecdote may be explanatory: many years ago, when in the company of three others, the identity then inhabiting the flesh and blood body typing these words was waxing eloquent about what ‘he’ had achieved/what ‘he’ was yet to achieve, thus far, whereupon a person of the ‘thou shalt not be judgemental’ ilk, who had been listening somewhat impatiently, interrupted the flow of experiential knowledgeability rather brusquely so as to (non-judgementally) assert that ‘his’ problem was that ‘he’ saw life in terms of winners and losers ... to which averment ‘he’ replied, with words to the effect, that ‘he’ had no intention whatsoever of allowing blind nature to be the winner.
RESPONDENT: Was it ‘you’ or him who said ‘he’ had no intention whatsoever of allowing blind nature to be the winner’?
RICHARD: So as not to get lost in a mind-field of scare-quotes: this flesh and blood body did not say or do anything ... it was the identity within who did all the work.
RESPONDENT: Basically you used the urge to be a winner to make the human condition the ‘loser’?
RICHARD: To succeed where no-one had succeeded previously the identity in residence all those years ago desired success like it had never been desired before.
RICHARD: Needless is it to add that, had it not been for that identity’s totally dedicated/utterly devoted pure intent to not have intelligence be the loser, yet again for the umpteenth billionth time, this conversation would not be taking place (and that neither would this mailing list exist either)?
RESPONDENT: Intelligence won and your identity ‘lost’, right?
RICHARD: No, blind nature lost ... the identity got precisely what ‘he’ wanted more than anything else (the blessed release into oblivion) thereby allowing intelligence to operate unimpeded.
RICHARD: By the way ... another thing ‘he’ would stress, over and again, was that one is to be scrupulously honest with oneself if one is to succeed at that task.
RESPONDENT: This is part of my problem as it is easy to not see my own self-deception. I figure having a more systematic ‘method’ of inquiry could help with that, but perhaps I’m mistaken.
RICHARD: The actualism method is an attentiveness/ watchfulness method – not a method of enquiry – inasmuch one is attentive/watchful as to how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) so that the slightest deviation from the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition can be attended to forthwith ... thus enabling one to live as peacefully and harmoniously (as happily and harmlessly) as is humanly possible each moment again.
Any and all enquiry has far more chance of success when one is back on track again. Vis.:
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.