Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: The universe is not predisposed to good or bad ...

RICHARD: Indeed not ... what the universe is predisposed to (to use your phraseology) is perfection.

RESPONDENT: ... there’s no reason to expect life to be happy.

RICHARD: Happiness is not a product of good or bad ... it is inherent to perfection.

RESPONDENT: If by perfection you mean ‘lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind’ ...

RICHARD: The following exchange perhaps best encapsulates what I mean by perfection in this context:

• [Rick]: ‘Richard, could you list as many characteristics as possible that you would ascribe to the universe, please. Such as benign, infinite, wonderful, marvellous, eternal, a veritable perpetuus mobilis etc. As many as possible would be neat to look see. I’m just curious to read what the universe is and therefore what it isn’t from a pure consciousness experiencer.
• [Richard]: ‘The fundamental characteristic, or nature, of the universe is its infinitude – specifically having the properties of being spatially infinite and temporally eternal and materially perdurable – or, to put that another way, its absoluteness ... as such it is a veritable perpetuus mobilis (as in being self-existent/ non-dependent and/ or self-reliant/ non-contingent and/ or self-sufficient/ unconditional and/or self-generating/ unsupported).
Having no other/ no opposite this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the property of being without compare/ incomparable, as in peerless/ matchless, and is thus perfect (complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate).
And this is truly wonderful to behold.
Being perfect this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the qualities (qualia are intrinsic to properties) of being flawless/ faultless, as in impeccable/ immaculate, and is thus pure/ pristine.
And which is indubitably a marvellous state of affairs.
Inherent to such perfection, such purity, are the values (properties plus qualities equals values) of benignity – ‘of a thing: favourable, propitious, salutary’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and benevolence (as in being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous, and so on) ... and which are values in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ (Oxford Dictionary).
And that, to say the least, is quite amazing.

RESPONDENT: ... why is happiness inherent to perfection?

RICHARD: Simply because both the qualities (being pure and pristine) intrinsic to the properties (being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) of that perfection and the values (being benign and benevolent) inherent to those properties and qualities can only have a felicitous (and innocuous) effect ... here in this actual world lies complete felicity (and innocuity).

*

RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘... All this [an actual perfection and excellence as in standing unadorned on one’s own and thus being free, clean and fresh; owing nothing to no one and thus being incorruptible and without perversity; being unpolluted by any alien identity and thus automatically graceful, kindly/ amical, gentle and peaceful] comes as no surprise for it is what humans have all long suspected to be the case. This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is too big in its grandeur, too neatly complex in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery. (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#2]. This is indeed what humans have suspected, in my opinion foolishly.

RICHARD: Why do you opine that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent as delineated in that quote?

RESPONDENT: Why is the physical world ‘too big’, ‘too neatly complex’, and ‘too perfectly organised’ for miserable lives?

RICHARD: That succinct sentence came out of a realisation the identity in residence had in 1980 when ‘he’ looked – really looked for the first time – at the natural world and just knew that it, and the universe itself, was not set up (a manner of speaking) for humans to be forever forlorn in, with only scant moments of reprieve, as it was such a truly enormous construct (another manner of speaking), inasmuch that humans with all their massive earth-moving equipment could beaver away industriously forever and a day and not even begin to come near to making a facsimile thereof, that it was not, never had been and never could be, some sick cosmic joke (yet another manner of speaking) which humans all had to endure and make the best of. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘In 1980, ‘I’, the persona that I was, looked at the natural world and just knew that this enormous construct called the world – and the universe itself – was not ‘set up’ for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments of reprieve. ‘I’ realised there and then that it was not and could not ever be some ‘sick cosmic joke’ that humans all had to endure and ‘make the best of’. ‘I’ felt foolish that ‘I’ had believed for thirty two years that the ‘wisdom’ of the world ‘I’ had inherited – the real world that ‘I’ was born into – was set in stone. This foolish feeling allowed ‘me’ to get in touch with ‘my’ dormant naiveté, which is the closest thing one has that resembles actual innocence, and activate it with a naive enthusiasm to undo all the conditioning and brainwashing that ‘I’ had been subject to. Then when ‘I’ looked into myself and at all the people around and saw the sorrow of humankind ‘I’ could not stop. ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ had just devoted myself to the task of setting ‘myself’ and ‘humanity’ free ... ‘I’ willingly dedicated my life to this most worthy cause. It is so exquisite to devote oneself to something whole-heartedly ... the ‘boots and all’ approach ‘I’ called it then!’ (from page 261 in ‘Richard’s Journal’, Second Edition; ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust).

In other words, it is nonsense to believe in some form of malism – ‘the doctrine that this world is an evil one’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as there is no way that something so big in its grandeur, so neatly complex in its arrangement, and so perfectly organised in its structure, could possibly be but a venue for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery in.

RESPONDENT: If misery helped survival, having miserable humans would be blind nature’s perfection.

RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you of the school of thought which holds that suffering is good for one?

RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘Surely, no one can believe for a moment that it is all fated to be forever wrong. (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#2]. Why not?

RICHARD: For the very reason which immediately followed on from that sentence you have quoted. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is too big in its grandeur, too neatly complex in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery. Surely, no one can believe for a moment that it is all fated to be forever wrong. This is a tremendous universe in all its workings – this physical world humans live in is magnificent, to say the least’.

Have you never seen the magnificence, to say the least, of this tremendous universe (such that you would be of the opinion it is foolish to have suspected perfection and excellence)?

*

RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘The reason why I said that [that life is not a random, chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe] is because it is what materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds – that life is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#3]. I have yet to see anything that shows that life is anything but a chance, random event in an otherwise meaningless universe, including my short mini-PCE’s.

RICHARD: As I do not know what [quote] ‘mini-PCE’s’ [endquote] are, be they short or otherwise, I am unable to comment upon your experience of being yet to see – as is readily seen in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – that life is not a chance, random event in an otherwise meaningless universe.

RESPONDENT: Can you point me to something?

RICHARD: Yes ... but it will require reading the full paragraph which you part-quoted from:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... why say that life is not a random, chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe?
• [Richard]: ‘The reason why I said that is because it is what materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds – that life is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe – in contrast to spiritualism (which, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is a purposeful manifestation by or of a supreme being who created or creates the universe) ... and, furthermore, because the extreme version of the materialist position is nihilism where, as a generalisation, it is typically held that life is whatever one makes of it and, as it is all pointless anyway, the only true philosophical question is whether to commit suicide, or not, and if so, then whether now or later’.

You will see that the entire meaningful/ meaningless and/or purposeful/ purposeless debate revolves around spiritualists contending that their god/ goddess (an immaterial creative being, force, or energy, by whatever name) provides meaning/ purpose and that, because materialists contend there is no such supernatural entity, life then (as a chance, random event in an otherwise empty universe) is a life devoid of meaning/ purpose ... so much so that life without such a god/ goddess is whatever one makes of it.

Yet when pressed as to just what meaning/ purpose their god/ goddess provides the spiritualists become remarkably coy (they say that only their supernatural entity really knows and use words like inscrutable, enigmatic, recondite, paradoxical, and so on and so forth, plus further contending that all will be revealed after physical death in some timeless and spaceless and formless realm where all is bright and beautiful) ... so much so that life with such a god/ goddess is, in effect, whatever one makes of it.

RESPONDENT: Am I restricting the options when I say that either the universe is meaningless or there was a designer ‘God’ with a meaning in mind?

RICHARD: You are not so much restricting yourself (with those meaningful/ purposeful or meaningless/ purposeless options) but are, rather, being sucked into a teleological discussion about a dichotomy which has no existence in actuality ... as is made clear further on in that exchange you part-quoted from:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, are you saying that the ultimate meaning of the universe is to experience itself as a sentient creature? ... and do that by purposely creating reproductive organisms and then sentient creatures out of hard stone and energy? (...).
• [Richard]: ‘(...) I am not saying that the ultimate meaning of the universe is to experience itself as a sentient creature by purposely creating reproductive organisms and then sentient creatures out of hard stone and energy – such a teleological matter is something for teleologists to muse over in lieu of actually doing something about the human condition – as I make it abundantly clear on many an occasion elsewhere that it is the answer to the ubiquitous human quest for the meaning of life which is already always out-in-the-open here in this actual world’.

Which is why I said to you yesterday that I have no interest in getting into a teleological discussion – and that suffice is it to say I only use the term ‘the meaning of life’ (or ‘the purpose of universe’ or ‘the riddle of existence’ or whatever other way one’s quest may be worded) to refer to the where-do-we-come-from/ what-are-we-here-for/ where-are-we-going type of query which is endemic to most, if not all, thinking, reflective beings – as the answer to those types of queries/ quests lies open all about here in this actual world.

Needless is it to add that it is an experiential answer (which personal experiencing is the only answer worthy of the name)?

RESPONDENT: What I do understand now is that the universe ‘can be’ felicitous (for all we know). Gone is the block thinking the universe can’t be a happy or perfect one.

RICHARD: Good ... we can now revisit your third e-mail in this thread. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘... All this [an actual perfection and excellence as in standing unadorned on one’s own and thus being free, clean and fresh; owing nothing to no one and thus being incorruptible and without perversity; being unpolluted by any alien identity and thus automatically graceful, kindly/ amical, gentle and peaceful] comes as no surprise for it is what humans have all long suspected to be the case. (...)’. [endquote]. This is indeed what humans have suspected, in my opinion foolishly. [Richard]: ‘Why do you opine that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent as delineated in that quote? [Respondent]: ‘Because right now I don’t see why happiness is inherent to perfection. [Richard]: ‘In which case I will await your perusal and consideration of all the above before continuing’. [endquote]. Are you still of the opinion that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent?

RESPONDENT: It is clear to me that the universe is perfect (as are humans in their actual state)....

RICHARD: In what way is it clear to you that the universe is perfect ... and what perfect state are you referring to?

RESPONDENT: Why does that imply excellence though?

RICHARD: As I am not yet cognisant of what way it is clear to you that the universe is perfect/ what perfect state you are referring to I will await your clarification before proceeding.

RESPONDENT: What I was really opposing was the statement: ‘This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is *too big* in its grandeur, *too neatly complex* in its arrangement, and *too perfectly organised* in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery’. Most humans have a similar suspicion because of a belief in a god that wouldn’t allow them to suffer forever. What do the size of the universe, its complexity and its organisation have to do with whether or not humans will be eternally doomed to perpetual misery?

RICHARD: That succinct sentence came out of a realisation the identity in residence had in 1980 when ‘he’ looked – really looked for the first time – at the natural world and just knew that it, and the universe itself, was not set up (a manner of speaking) for humans to be forever forlorn in, with only scant moments of reprieve, as it was such a truly enormous construct (another manner of speaking), inasmuch that humans with all their massive earth-moving equipment could beaver away industriously forever and a day and not even begin to come near to making a facsimile thereof, that it was not, never had been and never could be, some sick cosmic joke (yet another manner of speaking) which humans all had to endure and make the best of. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘In 1980, ‘I’, the persona that I was, looked at the natural world and just knew that this enormous construct called the world – and the universe itself – was not ‘set up’ for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments of reprieve. ‘I’ realised there and then that it was not and could not ever be some ‘sick cosmic joke’ that humans all had to endure and ‘make the best of’. ‘I’ felt foolish that ‘I’ had believed for thirty two years that the ‘wisdom’ of the world ‘I’ had inherited – the real world that ‘I’ was born into – was set in stone. This foolish feeling allowed ‘me’ to get in touch with ‘my’ dormant naiveté, which is the closest thing one has that resembles actual innocence, and activate it with a naive enthusiasm to undo all the conditioning and brainwashing that ‘I’ had been subject to. Then when ‘I’ looked into myself and at all the people around and saw the sorrow of humankind ‘I’ could not stop. ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ had just devoted myself to the task of setting ‘myself’ and ‘humanity’ free ... ‘I’ willingly dedicated my life to this most worthy cause. It is so exquisite to devote oneself to something whole-heartedly ... the ‘boots and all’ approach ‘I’ called it then!’ (from page 261 in ‘Richard’s Journal’, Second Edition; ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust).

In other words, it is nonsense to believe in some form of miserabilism – the buddhistic ‘all existence is dukkha’ for instance – as there is no way that something so big in its grandeur, so neatly complex in its arrangement, and so perfectly organised in its structure, could possibly be but a venue for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery in.

RESPONDENT: The view I have is that happiness and all ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings are sourced in the brain ...

RICHARD: More specifically ... the affective faculty is the source of all feelings.

RESPONDENT: ... while the universe is a perfect but ‘neutral’ one. It seems anthropomorphic to say that happiness – an animal phenomenon – is inherent to perfection.

RICHARD: As I have made it abundantly clear, on more than one occasion, that I am not referring to an affective feeling of happiness, and that to be apperceptive is to be the universe’s experiencing of itself, there is nothing anthropomorphic about what I have to report/ describe/ explain.

RESPONDENT: There are both pleasant and unpleasant qualities for the senses which arise out of the properties of some-thing, some person or some event. Actualism is about being as happy & harmless as one can be, enjoying one’s life here on Earth as much as it is possible, appraising these actual qualities, dismissing the fictional or ‘self’ generated ones and making sensible choices in regard to these qualities. One’s life here consists of meetings with people, partaking in the available pleasures offered by one’s environment and participating in various activities and events. But what if one’s environment is as polluted, as filthy, as ‘hideous’ as one can imagine? Should one get used to it and ‘make the best of a bad situation’ or just leave?

RICHARD: The following may be of assistance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I should like to see you in the middle of Manhattan working till the night and then I should like to see you philosophising about life.
• [Richard]: ‘When I read through the discussion (as delineated further above) I do not see any ‘philosophising about life’ ... what I see is an exchange of practical information, reminders, tips, hints, suggestions, clues, and so on, regarding what works and what does not.
As for ‘the middle of Manhattan working till the night’ ... I could be in solitary confinement in some insalubrious penitentiary living on bread and water and still be happy and harmless (free from malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as that is the target which the identity within all those years ago set as a criterion of success.
Of course I would have to be pretty silly to behave in such a manner as to occasion that life-style ... yet the validation-benchmark remains cogent to this very day.
It is all so simple here.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Because there is no ‘I’ in you, there is nobody to worry about anything or correct, improve anything?
• [Richard]: ‘There is no worry, no, but I am not too sure that this is because there is no ‘I’ ... it is simply silly to worry as worrying does nothing whatsoever to get an event changed. I correct – and thus improve – what can be corrected ... according to a preference for creature comforts and ease of life-style. For example: if I can sit upon a cushion instead of the brick pavers of the patio I will ... that is a preference. But if a cushion is not available it does not matter ... I thoroughly enjoy being alive at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space irregardless of what is happening. I could be just as happy and harmless on bread and water in solitary confinement in some insalubrious penitentiary ... but I would be pretty silly to act or behave in such a way as to occasion that outcome!
The ‘I’ that used to inhabit this body did everything possible that ‘I’ could do to blatantly imitate the actual in that ‘I’ endeavoured to be happy and harmless for as much as is humanly possible. This was achieved by putting everything on a ‘it doesn’t really matter’ basis. That is, ‘I’ would prefer people, things and events to be a particular way, but if it did not turn out like that ... it did not really matter for it was only a preference. ‘I’ chose to no longer give other people – or the weather – the power to make ‘me’ angry ... or irritated ... or even peeved, if that was possible. It was great fun and very, very rewarding along the way. ‘My’ life became cleaner and clearer and more and more pure as each habitual way of living life was consciously eliminated through constant exposure.
Finally ‘I’ invited the actual by letting go of the controls and letting this moment live ‘me’. ‘I’ became the experience of the doing of this business of being alive ... no longer the ‘do-er’. Thus ‘my’ days were numbered ... ‘I’ could hardly maintain ‘myself’ ... soon ‘my’ time would come to an end. An inevitability set in and a thrilling momentum took over ... ‘my’ demise became imminent.
The moment of the death of ‘me’ was so real that it was experienced as being that one was going into the grave physically ... that is how real ‘I’ am.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So, the world is perfect.
• [Richard]: ‘The clean and clear and pure perfection of peace-on-earth never goes away despite all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicide. There is the preference for the creature-comforts and ease of life-style, of course, but one takes the world of people, things and events as it is. Even if every single human being was happy and harmless, there would still be cyclones and earthquakes and tidal waves and fires and crocodiles and sharks and mosquitoes and so forth.
Life is an adventure, after all.
The physical world cannot ever be perfect, in the sense that nothing uncomfortable would happen, due to the finite nature of all spatial/temporal things – animal, vegetable and mineral – and events happen which some people welcome but others not (a farmer may want rain to germinate the crop whilst a builder may want clear skies to get the roof on). I cannot consider for a moment that people would want a nearby volcano to explode and engulf their village or town or city ... yet it happens. And there are the trivial matters of daily life – I spilt hot coffee only a couple of days ago – yet in the final analysis none of these events matter. Ultimately nothing is of utter importance because we are all going to die, some day.
Things are only as important as one makes them be.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘As a child, a youth and a young man ‘day-dreaming’ was a common occurrence ... it was a way of having time pass, for example, whilst working for wages in any job that required only mindless repetitive movements to achieve the desired result. Then one day I caught myself looking at the clock and thinking ‘damn, only 2.00 PM; three more hours to go’ and it dawned on me, with upsetting intelligibility, that I was wishing large parts of my life away. Many years were to pass spent in finding better jobs, better locations to live in, better lifestyles and so on before I finally faced the fact that, while changing the physical situation is not to be sneezed at, it was how I experienced this moment that was vital ... only this moment is actual.
The question I asked was this: could I be in solitary confinement, in some hypothetical penitentiary, and be so delighted with being just here right now that ‘day-dreaming’ never need occur?

*

RESPONDENT: How can one say that a certain wished-for lifestyle (things to do and places to be) is part of somebody’s unique characteristics or bodily wants and not an identity imagined paradise? e.g. somebody likes and is attracted to the misty, cold and snowy Scotland Highlands yet he lives near the tropics or vice-versa.

RICHARD: As the entire globe is an actual paradise it is simply a matter of feasibility (availability of water, food, and shelter), ease of lifestyle (access to various creature comforts) and preference (the aesthetic appeal of particular scenic attributes for example) as to which part of paradise one lives in ... speaking personally it is a matter of sensibility to live in a warmer clime, rather than a colder one, and a matter of utility to live in the particular country of which I not only speak the language fluently but am very familiar with the legal laws and social protocols its citizens conduct and comport themselves by.

RESPONDENT: ‘Preference (the aesthetic appeal of particular scenic attributes for example)’ – is this akin to enjoying more the sight of a palm tree compared to a pine or that of a mountain compared to a sea-view or the life in a city to that in a village? What’s the difference between ‘aesthetic appeal’ and beauty? Are there any preferences and bodily senses likes/dislikes that are common to all people and some that are character specific? The website is pleasurable to the eye, all these images of boats, stars, flowers, this is much better than just a black-and-white presentation. Is the website a good example of ‘aesthetic appeal’?

RICHARD: I have written on these matters before ... I would suggest accessing this URL:

As the exchange extends through three e-mails it is too much to re-post here.

RESPONDENT: The proposition of Actualism is that the earth is perfect; despite tornadoes, draughts, the various whims of nature; animals starving, people starving. Its perfect.

RICHARD: No, the ‘proposition’ is, rather, that it is possible to experience perfection despite all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on.

RESPONDENT: Yet in terms of humans a grave mistake was made and we were given emotions.

RICHARD: ‘Twas not a ‘grave mistake’ at all ... it is blind nature’s instinctual survival program that is under investigation (a survival mechanism that was once essential for life in the wild but is now redundant and working against both personal and communal salubrity).

RESPONDENT: The whole area of the brain was thereby imperfect and flawed. It needs to be destroyed. Not perfect according to the tenets of Actualism. Am I mistaken?

RICHARD: Yes, you are mistaken in your appraisal of what actualism is on about.

RESPONDENT: Please correct me if I am. Perhaps I have the meaning of the word perfect wrong?

RICHARD: It would appear so.

RESPONDENT: You guys are proposing that there is a major imperfection built into the blueprint of humanity!

RICHARD: Not at all ... that is what you have made of it.

RESPONDENT: I myself use the word perfection very judiciously. Could you please comment on these things?

RICHARD: Certainly ... I am speaking of the experience of the perfection of being alive as a flesh and blood body, as evidenced in a PCE, whereas you are speaking of a perfect physical world (a world without ‘tornadoes, draughts, the various whims of nature; animals starving, people starving’ ).

RICHARD: When I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day ... and I know that I will wake up to yet another day of perfection. This has been going on, day-after-day, for years now ... it is so ‘normal’ that I take it for granted that there is only perfection. Plus I can easily put it all into words so as to unambiguously share my experience with my fellow human beings. Thus I can easily describe how this already always existing peace-on-earth became apparent: It was through the complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ as an irrevocable event.

RESPONDENT: What do you mean by a ‘perfect day’?

RICHARD: I mean a faultless day; a flawless day; a spotless day; an impeccable day; an immaculate day; an unflawed day; an unblemished day; an unimpeachable day; an unsullied day; an unfaultable day; an untarnished day; a pure day; a salubrious day; a blameless day; an irreproachable day; an unassailable day; an unadulterated day; an uncontaminated day; an unpolluted day; a clean day; a wholesome day; an innocent day; a guiltless day; an irreprehensible day; an untouched day; an unmodified day; a fresh day; a clear day; a sparkling day; an unsoiled day; a bright day; a new, lucid day; a scintillating day; an original day; a brilliant day; an excellent day; a novel day; a superb day; a wonderful day; a terrific day; a splendid day; a fabulous day; a fantastic day; a marvellous day; an amazing day; a thrilling day and so on. In other words: a magical day.

RESPONDENT: Richard, if that [‘an uncontaminated day; an unpolluted day’] really is your definition of a ‘perfect day’ then I can only conclude that have not been living on this planet where there clearly is contamination and pollution.

RICHARD: Of course there are two ways to read a paragraph (especially if it is isolated from the thread): the discussion is about consciousness being bereft of the invidious and pernicious identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... and a consciousness ‘unpolluted and uncontaminated’ by any feeling of ‘being’ whatsoever results in a perfect day in a perfect life in a perfect world day-after-day.

The physical world is, of course, polluted and contaminated with by-products of both organic nature (bio-mass effluent, animal excrement, decaying bodies and so on) and inorganic nature (volcanoes, wild-fires, sun-spot activity and so on). The human inventiveness and ingeniousness, that has resulted in so many creature comforts, also produces by-products adjudged detrimental to both physical and emotional-mental well-being.

In other words: the same azure and verdant planet (the third from the sun) that all we 6.0 billion fellow human beings live on.

RESPONDENT: [Rajneesh quote]: ‘There is simply the rose. It is perfect in every moment of its existence’.

RICHARD: This is so silly ... only sentient beings have feelings and only humans have thoughts. A rose has no sorrow or malice whatsoever ... nor love and compassion, either.

RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Perfection is not a goal; it is already there’.

RICHARD: Do you not find it a bit odd that he would say that perfection is ‘there’ ... rather than ‘here’? After all, he did say (further above) that ‘the only way is to be here. You cannot be there’.

RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘You are born perfect’.

RICHARD: This is a variation on the ‘Tabular Rasa’ theory so beloved of many philosophers down through the ages. It is false, however, as even a cursory study of genetic inheritance quickly demonstrates.

RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Only perfection happens in this existence, nothing else’.

RICHARD: Then what 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? I would not call that perfect ... would you?

RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Out of god, how can imperfection happen? Only perfection is possible’.

RICHARD: This is so puerile it is not even risible.

RESPONDENT: [quote]: >‘The idea that you have to be perfect makes you imperfect in the present, because the comparison arises’.

RICHARD: May I ask? How does this gobbledegook pass for wisdom?

RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘You go on comparing yourself with others. Somebody is more beautiful. Somebody is more intelligent. Somebody is more moral. Somebody is more sincere. Somebody is more healthy. Somebody is stronger. And you are crippled in these comparisons; such a dead weight falls on your head that you cannot move. But you have forgotten one thing – that you are you and you cannot be anybody else. Once you accept the fact that you are you and whatsoever you do you are not going to be anybody else, you are going to remain yourself ... once you accept it, a transfiguration happens’.

RICHARD: In 1980 I had a PCE – wherein I experienced life as perfection personified – that lasted for four hours. Then I reverted to normal. If I had not compared the one with the other I would still be normal today.

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

RICHARD: Actual perfection and excellence can best be described as being organic in the sensate meaning of the word ... it differs from Classical and Romantic perfection and excellence in that it is not an invention. It is not a product of the culturally programmed mind and heart. The trees, the flowers, a sunset or a sunrise, the stars in the night sky, and so on, all convey the flavour of it ... unless beauty obscures clarity Actual perfection and excellence is what is already here – when the false is stripped away – without striving for The True. It exists of its own accord and has always been harmless. It is authentic – self-generating – and thus requires no extraneous support. With one’s mind no longer trapped by the heart’s longings and the mind’s beliefs, it is a sensual delight to walk freely in this, the actual world. This actual – this sensate and organic – experience of being here now, living my life so happily and harmlessly, remains unsurpassed in the annals of the history of humankind ... and I am sitting here, watching television.

KONRAD: And since the essential nature of existence is a movement from indeterminateness to determinateness, or, to say it in other words, the emergence of information, this causes a mind who goes into that to absorb every form of information that exists.

RICHARD: If you say so, Konrad ... but that is not my experience. Existence is already always perfect as-it-is and is not moving from ‘indeterminateness to determinateness’ at all. Also, I only gather enough information to suit my requirements ... like writing to a logician, for example. I have no intention of spending years studying logic ... male logic is as useless as female intuition when it comes to uncovering the ‘mystery of life’. The only understanding worthy of the name is an experiential understanding ... which means actually living what is being spoken each moment again.

RESPONDENT: Yes, two things stand out: pure intent and don’t possess it. I am looking at pure intent to see if I have it and I am on guard to not pursue it or possess it.

RICHARD: You say that ‘two things stand out’ ... yet you slip in a third thing as if I had said it (‘to not pursue it’) when it is really ‘ancient wisdom’ that promotes that view. Speaking personally, the ‘I’ that was pursued it like ‘he’ had never pursued anything before ... ‘he’ made it the number one priority in ‘his’ life. ‘He’ was a married man, with four children, running ‘his’ own business, with a house mortgage to pay off and a car on hire purchase ... in other words: normal. And all the while that ‘he’ pursued it, ‘he’ was working twelve-fourteen hour days, six-seven days a week ... yet ‘his’ pursuit of peace-on-earth took absolute precedence over all other matters and dominated ‘his’ every moment (‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’).

RESPONDENT No. 3: Eido Rochi of Dai Bosatsu Zendo once said to us (mid 80s) that if we want enlightenment, we must want it as a drowning man wants air; that the closer we come to it, the more compelling it will be, of itself.

RESPONDENT: I experienced the actual today and it is so clear that it is always right here right now because it is what actually is. The closest description I can give is that it was a direct experience of everything as it was happening. Everything was perfect as it is and I was where I should be. There was perfect clarity.

RICHARD: Excellent ... I take particular note of where you say ‘everything was perfect as it is and I was where I should be’ because it indicates that perfection is already always here at this place in space at this moment in time ... it is, as it always has been, already consummate. Which means, peace-on-earth already is here – here in this actual world – and no one needs to invent it. It is all a matter of entering into it; enabling it to become apparent; allowing it to emerge; watching it unfold; giving oneself permission to have it happen ... or whatever description. Everyone is either rushing about trying to make an imitation peace (either the secular ‘peace-time’ truce between warring parties or the spurious supernatural after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’) ... or sitting back moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all. Nobody has devised, concocted or contrived this peace-on-earth ... it was already here as it always has been and always will be.

RESPONDENT: What is happening right now is second-best as compared to what?

RICHARD: The pristine perfection of the PCE.

RESPONDENT: Pristine perfection is an illusion.

RICHARD: Okay ... yet as there is no lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity (who born of the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire and who is epitomised by malice and sorrow and the antidotal love and compassion) here in this actual world, then if the pristine perfection I am living in is the illusion that you say it is, it is infinitely superior to the illusion that 6.0 billion people say they are living in.

RESPONDENT No. 27: Maybe you can use this post as another attempt to flog a dead horse.

RICHARD: No thank you ... because you have closed the door on the possibility of perfection and peace-on-earth when you write: ‘Enlightenment can only be from moment to moment. Which does not imply that because one moment was clear, that the next moment will be clear’.

RESPONDENT: What do we do with that state of perfection that No. 27 is alleged to ignore?

RICHARD: Enjoy it, of course. Delight in being here doing this business called being alive. Luxuriate in the pleasure of doing it now. Drink in the nectar of being here at this moment in time and this place in space and breathe the ambrosial air of peace and harmony.

RESPONDENT: Is this goal that you are aiming for is likely to be of any use? If so, how?

RICHARD: The goal is that you will become happy and harmless. The goal is that you will be free of sorrow and malice. The goal is that you will become blithesome and benign. The goal is that you will be free of fear and aggression. The goal is that you will become carefree and considerate. The goal is that you will be free from nurture and desire. The goal is that you will become gay and benevolent. The goal is that you will be free from anguish and animosity. The goal is that, by being free of the Human Condition you will experience peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body.

And you ask: ‘Is this any use’ ? I would say yes, most definitely it is useful. It means the end of all the wars, the murders, the tortures, the rapes, the domestic violence, the corruptions, the sadness, the loneliness, the sorrows, the depressions and the suicides.

Then we can truly work together to turn this earth into a paradise garden.

RESPONDENT: What would you do with it if you are as perfect as you wished to be and the rest of the universe continues to be neither perfect nor imperfect?

RICHARD: The universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect. The infinitude of this physical universe, being all that there is, has no opposite ... and that which has no beginning or end is perfect.

RESPONDENT: How would you exist?

RICHARD: That is just it ... there is no egoistic ‘I’ here. Nor an affective ‘me’. Psychological death and psychic extinction are the only doorways to an actual freedom.

RESPONDENT: If ‘peace-on-earth’ has never been achieved, what does then give you this understanding that with your perfection ‘peace’ will begin to unfold?

RICHARD: Global peace can only come about when there are five point eight billion individual ‘outbreaks’ of peace-on-earth.

Do not hold your breath waiting for global peace.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t that another wishful thinking? Another concept like ‘perfection’? Another goal?

RICHARD: If you do not want peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this body ... then you will never get it. Please, whatever you do, throw faith, belief, trust and hope right out of the window ... along with doubt, disbelief, distrust and despair ... and go for the actuality of peace and perfection ‘boots and all’. Use all of your determination – gather up all the intent you can muster and more – and jump in the deep end without a life-jacket.

Desire it like you have never desired anything before.

RESPONDENT: Are you perfect? If not, how would you ever know what perfection is, what perfection can or cannot do, what it is good for?

RICHARD: Perfection can be found via the pure consciousness experience (PCE) which happens during a peak experience ... which all humans have had at some stage in their life. A peak experience is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’, temporarily, and this moment is. Everything is seen and understood to be already always perfect as-it-is. Perfection can thus be known by anyone with apperceptive awareness ... which is this body being conscious without an ‘I’ in any way, shape or form. It is just that most people either forget about their PCE – for there is no emotional ‘I’ present to record the moment on its affective ‘tape-recorder’ – or they interpret the experience according to their culture’s icons. Apperception has a global occurrence ... it is universal in its scope.

The freedom of enlightenment is not an actual freedom ... it is a solution found within the human condition, for there is still an identity; be it as a self or a being or a presence or a spirit. Speaking personally, I am none of these ... I am this body being apperceptively aware. An actual freedom means freedom from the human condition. This what I experience twenty four hours a day is the same as is experienced in a PCE. This is the perfection and the purity of the infinitude of this physical universe personified. I am the universe – this material universe – experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being.

This is the on-going experience that is ambrosial.

RESPONDENT: If you are perfect, why do we still lack this state of ‘peace-on-earth’?

RICHARD: Because – I presume – people lack the gumption to proceed poste-haste to their destiny. ‘I’ saw perfect purity and peace-on-earth and ‘I’ went for it boots and all ... the requisite intestinal fortitude came to ‘me’ along the way.

RESPONDENT: What are you waiting for?

RICHARD: Once again, speaking personally, I am not waiting for anything. Everything I could wish for – and more – is already always here.

What are you waiting for?

*

RESPONDENT: You say: ‘The universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect’. If so, what is your problem? Don’t you trust existence?

RICHARD: No. ‘Existence’ (a nom de guerre for God) is notoriously untrustworthy. I can rely totally on this universe, however, because it is physical ... whereas ‘Existence’ is metaphysical.

RESPONDENT: How could that which is always perfect can ever become imperfect? And if it is really perfect as an ensemble with all in it, you too are already perfect. You cannot be imperfect and the universe would continue in its merry way in its state of perfection, can it? Either the existence is ever ‘perfect’ or it is not. The existence didn’t knock on your door and told you that it was imperfect – but you, the observer, put this label on the existence based on what you see. You are so disturbed by the existence that you think you could change its state by ‘doing’ something about it. Could it be that this sense of mitigation that you carry on your shoulder may be the root cause for what you observe? You really don’t believe the existence to be ever perfect because you are always attempting to mend it. So out of this conflict arise murder, mayhem, rapes, indifference, the chaos all around you and you become more riled up, become more intense for perfection which no one ever denied you. Instead of trusting the existence to take care of it, you are taking charge to mitigate it and thereby causing more chaos.

RICHARD: Wow, what a mouthful ... look, what happened was that ‘I’ disappeared and I found myself here in this already existing peace-on-earth. It is not as complicated as you make it out to be, above. You are trying to understand the ‘riddle of life’ whilst remaining in existence as a ‘being’. It is only when ‘I’ become extinct that the actual becomes apparent ... permanently. It can be glimpsed in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Instead of formulating theories, just go for it.

You can make up a story about it afterwards.

RICHARD: The thinker is forever divided from ‘the fullness of that’ ... the thinker is false, an illusion. The only constructive thing the thinker can do is allow itself to be disappeared (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’).

RESPONDENT: Yes, but do you think that such an occurrence is the result of a direct action by thought (‘allowing itself to disappear’), or is it triggered by the proactive perception of that fullness?

RICHARD: It is the result of a ‘direct action by thought’ inasmuch as it is the thinker thinking a seminal thought which is directly inspired by the ‘perception of that fullness’ (and not through reading about it). That inspired thought which the thinker thinks is the very thought that paves the way for such an occurrence. To wit: ‘I’, the thinker, joyfully agree 100% to allowing ‘myself’ to be ‘taken away by the utter fullness of it!’ . It is a conscious decision.

RESPONDENT: So the thinker can align/be in harmony with that. That is so simple. And here ‘I’ was looking for a situation where the thinker was at odds with harmony, hence my predicament. You seem to be pointing to the actual possibility for order, yes?

RICHARD: Yes ... order is concordance. 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.

*

RESPONDENT: It is like thought casts a one dimensional shadow over the much fuller than 3-D actual universe.

RICHARD: Yet when the thinker is not ... much fuller than 3-D thought is free to operate episodically as required by the circumstances.

RESPONDENT: Even then thought is limited, is it not, though there is no division between it and the unlimited fullness of that?

RICHARD: Thought is functional (operating in the domain of making sense of what is happening and in the area of commonsense cause and effect) ... if that is what you mean by ‘limited’? When ‘the unlimited fullness of that’ is allowed free rein thought functions at its optimum ... a much fuller than 3-D thought. Thoughts are sparkling ... coruscating.

RESPONDENT: Infused/steeped/in harmony with – the fullness that is, eh?

RICHARD: Oh yes ... fully immersed in an amazing, marvellous, wondrous and magical happening: the meaning of life is brilliantly obvious all around and throughout.

RESPONDENT: The state that I name ‘stasis’ if you allow me, as ‘perfect’?

RICHARD: Sure ... although most people I have used the word ‘stasis’ with, as being a word describing the motile equanimity that ensues in arriving at perfection, initially comprehend ‘stasis’ as being either a static equipollence or a stagnant immobility ... rather the dynamic, scintillating vitality of the perfection wherein everything is the vivid, sparkling and lustrous purity that is coming from nowhere nor going anywhere. Consequently I rarely, if ever, use the word ... too much explaining involved.

RESPONDENT: I think I understand this. And I agree. But do you believe that at the level of human beings lives, this equilibrium is altered, or do you find it as much perfect?

RICHARD: The people I meet face-to-face and the people I read about in books, journals, newspapers, magazines and the people I watch on films, TV, videos and so on all report, in one way or another, that they do not experience their own life, or the lives of others and life in general, as being perfect.

Whereas every body (and I do mean ‘body’) is already walking around in paradise ... which is why I advise people to come to their senses (both figuratively and literally).

*

RESPONDENT: If I am not wrong due to physics the world is going toward an atrophy. Disorder. You perceive what is and call it perfect.

RICHARD: In physics, atrophy applies only in a closed system, whereas this universe is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in myriads of countless form (nebulae, stars, planets and so on) all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time. This infinitude is perfection (infinitude has no opposite) and as infinitude cannot atrophy (infinitude is perpetuus mobilis) there is no disorder whatsoever.

RICHARD: I never have private thoughts about these matters discussed here ... I take the pristine perfection of this already always existing peace-on-earth for granted.

RESPONDENT: What do you mean by never having private thoughts?

RICHARD: For large chunks of my daily life there is no thought, thoughts or thinking at all ... thought, thoughts or thinking only happens, episodically, as required by the circumstances (such as writing this sentence) and ceases happening as soon as the sentence is written. What the other person has to say initiates thought, thoughts or thinking about these matters ... it is their interest that occasions these words.

RESPONDENT: Or that you take it for granted?

RICHARD: Just like I take gravity, for an example, for granted ... it is commonplace; it is the norm; it is the given; it is the status-quo; it is what is already always happening.

RESPONDENT: OSHO’s perspective is valuable to me; as is Veeresh’s and Krishnamurti’s (sic) and Raman Maharshi’s, and Hellmut wolf’s and yours Richard. Please hear that.

RICHARD: I have been hearing you all along.

RESPONDENT: I attack you because you deride and negate and slander against the names of people ...

RICHARD: Where is the ‘slander’ ? The saints and sages and seers are hanging themselves by their own words as I always provide annotated quotes from accredited sources. For example, perfection is not possible here on earth, according to one self-acknowledged enlightened master:

• [Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain]: ‘Unless humanity gets rid of the idea of perfection it is never going to be sane. The very idea of perfection has driven the whole of mankind to a state of madness (...) you are trying to do the impossible, which you know perfectly well is not going to happen – it cannot happen in the very nature of things (...) Perfection means a full stop, perfection means ultimate death; then there is no way to go beyond it. I would like you to remember again and again, I am imperfect, the whole universe is imperfect, and to love this imperfection, to rejoice in this imperfection is my whole message (...) I don’t want you to be perfect. I want you to be just as perfectly imperfect as possible. Rejoice in your imperfections! (‘The Goose is Out’ Chapter 5. Author: Osho. Publisher: Rebel Publishing House. ISBN: 81 7261 014 9. Copyright © Osho International Foundation).

And thus all over the world sannyasins, ex-sannyasins, non-sannyasins, friends of osho, or whatever name they go by these days, are dutifully loving their imperfections, rejoicing in their imperfections ... and sitting in cafes, for example, telling their fellow human beings to ‘fuck off’. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... recently in a cafe in Byron Bay when Vineeto came to me and I invited her to sit down and I was half way thru a sentence when she interrupted I immediately spontaneously told her to fuck-Off. And she did. She activated her Free Actuality and fucked off to the next table. I told her to fuck off because I am a human being with self with a history with value ...’.

This reality is in marked contrast to your recently stated idealism. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘There is only one position to take in order to bring an end to suffering and malice and sorrow and ignorance. When you meet another person enjoy their company. When another person offers you their company freely, enjoy the opportunity. Richard missed an opportunity. ‘I enjoy your company; you enjoy mine’. Simple ... the way to Actual Freedom is simple: step one, is to welcome people as they are and enjoy their company ...’.

As these are your very own words that are hanging you I again ask: where is the ‘slander’ ?