Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections
Commonly Raised Objections
Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions
Richard is not the First to be Free from the Human Condition

RESPONDENT: I have a question for
Richard. I find your claims that you were the first to attain an actual freedom from the human condition a little hard to take. My
question is how do you know this to be true without having met every single person alive or dead? I’ve read the recent
correspondence on this issue but I cannot see a clear answer. It’s important to me as I’m of the school ‘extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof’. I have no problem with your verifiable claims and the methods you outline allow for
verification, which is great.
RICHARD: Okay ... given you have literally asked for ‘extraordinary proof’
the following link provides a description of how I actually know – experientially know – and quite ‘extraordinary’ it is
too:
I have supplied a brief exegesis of what can be found on that page before:
• [Richard]: ‘In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual
enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the
character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time
– and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the
body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism).
Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...
furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual
enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself
gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic)
eye would look.
I was truly on my own ... no one had ventured into this terrain before.
In other words I traversed territory which no enlightened being has ever navigated –
virgin terrain somewhat akin to the ‘white-out’ experienced in a featureless landscape of snow and ice – until that ‘Great
Beyond’ which has been proposed heretofore to only be possible at physical death became an actuality whilst the flesh and blood
body was still alive.
I am, of course, referring to not only that which has been described as ‘The Peace
That Passeth All Understanding’ (only as an actuality and not a fantasy) but to being the actual experiencing of what has
variously been called ‘the meaning of life’, ‘the purpose of the universe’, ‘the riddle of existence’, and so on.
In short: being the experiencing of infinitude itself.

RESPONDENT: I have two questions:
Firstly, Why is the universe here? Why do I exist? Is there a reason?
RICHARD: (...)
RESPONDENT: Secondly, What difference does it make
whether Richard is the first to find actual freedom ...
RICHARD: It makes no difference whatsoever who was the first to find an actual
freedom from the human condition as it is what is found that makes a difference ... as expressed thisaway (also only a few weeks
ago):
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Questioning your ‘priority’ of discovery is tantamount to
rejecting ‘peace on earth’.
• [Richard]: ‘It matters not one jot who discovered an actual freedom from the human condition – somebody has to be the
first to discover something new in any area of human endeavour as a matter of course – as what does matter is the discovery
that, in order for the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent, identity in toto becomes extinct’.
RESPONDENT: ... and why do people spend so much time
debating it?
RICHARD: It has got me beat ... ... it is simply a fact that somebody has to be
the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour (such as discovering the cure for cancer for instance) and why
there is so much brouhaha about being able to live in this actual world 24/7, for the remainder of one’s life, now being
possible for the first time in human history defies sensibility.
Perhaps an analogy might go some way towards throwing some light on this peculiar
how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it phenomenon which pops up every now and again ... for example: suppose you were
to announce that you had finally found the cure for cancer by discovering the root cause of the disease – hence by eliminating
the cause then the effect, the cancer, is no more able to arise/exist and health abounds – and if, upon going public with this
discovery, you were to get repeatedly told that you cannot possibly know you were the one who finally made this discovery which
many, many people have sought, would you not have to wonder if they were all stark staring mad?
Yet, of course, you would not have to ... and why not? Because virtually everybody will
readily acknowledge there has been no cure for cancer thus far in human history – excepting snake-oil ‘cures’ that is –
and it is the discovery which would be examined for validity and not (in lieu of actually examining the discovery itself for
validity) the validity of any how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it explanation ... such as which announcing the
long-awaited discovery of peace-on-earth appears to almost mandatorily require the provision of.
Is it an addled addiction to the snake-oil ‘cures’, a strait-jacketed fixation on
logical impossibilities, an entrenched credulity that life is the pits and the universe sucks, which gives rise to this peculiar
question or something else ... something else like, for instance, an ingrained dubiety
(just-who-does-this-man-think-he-is-anyway), or even invidia, perchance?
Or is it, and maybe even more likely, nothing other than a knee-jerk reaction to the
price of admission?
RESPONDENT: Why make the statement about the pristine
newness in the first place?
RICHARD: The following perspicacious observation from an earlier co-respondent
brought forth as good an answer as any:
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do I understand correctly from your mail, that your being
unique in this is not what is important: that you merely wanted to stress with it that you bring something that is entirely new?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes. The on-going experiencing of the already always existing peace-on-earth is entirely new to human experience
... everybody I have spoken to at length has temporarily experienced such perfection, in what is called a pure consciousness
experience (PCE), but nobody has been able to provide a clear, clean and pure report as an on-going actuality. Usually the PCE is
interpreted and/or translated according to selfish personal desires, and by corresponding cultural conditioning, as a variation of
the many types of an Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) which perpetuates the ‘self’ as the ‘Self’ (by whatever name) in
some spurious after-life ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. And thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and
domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides have gone on forever and a day.
Now the opportunity exists for an eventual global peace-on-earth: with 6.0 billion outbreaks of individual peace-on-earth no
police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would
become a thing of the dreadful past ... terror would stalk its prey no more. People would live together in peace and harmony,
happiness and delight.
But do not hold your breath waiting’.
RESPONDENT: Yes, that’s literally more than two
questions, but the ‘spirit’ of the questions are singular.
RICHARD: As far as can be ascertained the singular spirit of your queries
appears to revolve around whether there is a meaning of life to be found and if so why inform one’s fellow human beings upon
making that discovery.
RESPONDENT: There are two gaps. Can they be filled
please.
RICHARD: Sure ... (1) there is indeed a meaning of life to be found ... and (2)
it is fellowship regard which occasions public disclosure of same.

RESPONDENT: Richard claims to be the
first one on the planet to experience Actual Freedom: How can he or anyone know this to be a fact?
RICHARD: The following link provides a description of how I experientially know:
I recently supplied a brief exegesis of what can be found on that page:
I also knew early in 1981, at the commencement of the path that would eventually lead
to an actual freedom from the human condition, that such a freedom was entirely new to human experience as I had had a four-hour
pure consciousness experience (PCE) six months prior wherein it was manifestly obvious that what the human race had made of such
experiences was a degradation of the actual.
Speaking in the context of the only religio-spiritual language I knew then (from the culture I was born into)
I would say, to anyone prepared to listen, that everybody has got it wrong because nobody has to physically die to get to heaven
... that eternity was just here right now because, as it was already always happening, it cannot cease at physical birth and
recommence at physical death after a 70+ year interregnum.
After the ‘something turning over in the base of the brain/nape of the neck’ event of September 1981, and
as the western-style mysticism I was experiencing moved deeper into being an eastern-style mysticism (I can recall telling my then
wife at that time I was jumping out of the frying pan into the fire as somebody had to sort this mystery out), I just knew that,
in order to be able to speak meaningfully about going beyond enlightenment I had to go through enlightenment so as to, not only
understand it experientially, but to be able to have insider information, so to speak, to pass on to my fellow human beings.
For what is the point of enabling peace-on-earth, and thus demonstrating the actual way to live life for a
benighted humanity, if one cannot explain the how and why of it? 

RESPONDENT: I have previously read the
link supplied and the proof that you offer is not a proof for the uniqueness of your actual freedom ...
RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? Here is the remainder of the brief
exegesis, of what can be found on that page, which I provided in the very e-mail you are now responding to (the first part I have
already re-quoted just above):
• [Richard]: ‘...furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate
deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had
explored some of the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out
altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye would look. I was truly on my own ... *no one had ventured
into this terrain before*. [emphasis added].
I did not need any more proof than that – indeed there is no other proof than that
– and, just for the record, I would have preferred there had been tracks to follow as it was an enormously risky journey to go
all the way through the institutionalised insanity known as spiritual enlightenment.
It was an incredibly hazardous thing to do ... I could have got lost forever and never
come out the other side.
RESPONDENT: ... it tells me that you have attained
actual freedom but does not tell me about anyone else.
RICHARD: As it tells of absolutely everybody else I would suggest a re-read ...
here is what I also wrote to you by way of an explanatory note:
• [Richard]: ‘In other words I traversed territory which no enlightened being has
ever navigated – virgin terrain somewhat akin to the ‘white-out’ experienced in a featureless landscape of snow and ice –
until that ‘Great Beyond’ *which has been proposed heretofore to only be possible at physical death* became an
actuality whilst the flesh and blood body was still alive. I am, of course, referring to not only that which has been described as
‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ (only as an actuality and not a fantasy) but to being the actual experiencing of
what has variously been called ‘the meaning of life’, ‘the purpose of the universe’, ‘the riddle of existence’, and so
on. In short: being the experiencing of infinitude itself. [emphasis added]. 

RESPONDENT: You offer a method to
attain actual freedom and that does allow for verifiable results – but again this cannot prove that no else has previously
attained actual freedom before you – how can it?
RICHARD: As nowhere do I say that the actualism method proves anything of the
sort (it just happens to be the method which worked for me) this is a pointless question.
RESPONDENT: Richard, with respect, just because you say
so does not make it so.
RICHARD: You do seem to be under some misapprehension: I am not in the business
of proving to you (or anyone else for that matter) that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human
experience ... I am simply providing a report of how I know it is.
What another does with my report is their business. 

RESPONDENT: Richard ... why the
obsession with proving you are the only one to be in a state of ‘actual freedom’ as you put it?
RICHARD: I neither put it that an actual freedom from the human condition is a ‘state’
nor do I have an ‘obsession’ about anything ... let alone ‘proving’ that nobody else either currently alive
or in human history has been actually free from the human condition.
RESPONDENT: It seems rather childish.
RICHARD: Why does it seem ‘rather childish’ to report something new
to human experience?
RESPONDENT: I don’t doubt your claims nor does it
matter to me if it is true or false ...
RICHARD: If I may interject? Why does it not matter to you that somebody has
finally found the answer, not only to all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition, but to life itself?
RESPONDENT: ... but I don’t see how there is any way
to verify such a statement nor to even care.
RICHARD: If I may point out? You cared enough to write this e-mail and inform me
of your concern.
RESPONDENT: Humans have been on this planet for how
long, no doubt in search of the ultimate or freedom or whatever name one chooses to give it: Do you actually think no one has
succeeded before you?
RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ that nobody has succeeded before ... I
know that nobody has. 

RESPONDENT: Just checked your website
and bio. It’s all nice enough, but I don’t get how you think what you’re talking about is unique. To me, you seem to be on a
well-trodden path.
RICHARD: And what ‘well-trodden path’ would that be, then?
RESPONDENT: Well goodness, where to start? You are
aware of the old Zen saying about mountains and rivers? Or the endlessly repeated admonitions of modern-day Advaita folks like
Wayne Liquorman about how ASC’s aren’t it, and there’s No Way? Or the Dzogchen teachings linked with Tibetan Buddhism about
how ordinary mind is the Way?
RICHARD: As none of the above even remotely resemble the wide and wondrous path
to an actual freedom from the human condition I would suggest checking the web site again ... in particular the very first
sentence on The Actual Freedom Trust home page (immediately below the logo) before doing so.
I mention this because it is only when the import of that very first sentence sinks in
is it possible to read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site with both eyes open.
‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.
RESPONDENT: Anyway, you can assert all you want ...
RICHARD: If I may point out? That sentence is a statement of fact ... not an
assertion.
RESPONDENT: ... the plain fact is, you’re saying
nothing different from what Zen, Dzogchen, Advaita and several other systems, Eastern AND Western, say.
RICHARD: Hmm ... as it would appear that the explanation as to why that very
first sentence is of import, which I wrote in my prior e-mail, has passed you by I will re-present it here:
• [Richard]: ‘I mention this because it is only when the import of that very first
sentence sinks in is it possible to read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site with both eyes open.
It will save you a lot of needless repetition of the ‘Tried and Failed’ ancient
wisdom in any future e-mail if you do. 

RESPONDENT: All manner of crimes have
been committed throughout history by people claiming to know the one true way. I don’t believe for a minute that what you have
on offer would turn out the kind of drones that kill for their religion.
RICHARD: Then why say it in the first place? Uh oh, I see why now ... look out
folks, here comes the ‘but ...’ (and it is the despotic-dictator type of a ‘but’ too).
RESPONDENT: I say it for the reason that it is very
off-putting to hear you claim that you were the one and only.
RICHARD: Why? Somebody – anybody – has to be the first to discover something
new in any field of human endeavour ... why is this so difficult to comprehend?
RESPONDENT: It sounds like aggrandised nonsense and
seems very deluded.
RICHARD: Why does it sound like aggrandised nonsense, and seem very deluded, to
hear/read that somebody has finally enabled the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as a flesh and blood
body?
RESPONDENT: Your whole heroic story sounds overblown.
RICHARD: That would be because any journey through the human psyche is both
fantastical and phantasmal: the human psyche is an illusory/delusory/hallucinatory metaphysical realm chock-full of chimerical
will-o’-the-wisps and bizarre states of being ... and feeling/intuiting oneself to be god/goddess, the timeless and spaceless
and formless source of all time and all space and all form, is about as bizarre as ‘being’can get.
RESPONDENT: It begs for a sceptical response which is a
shame given your valuable material and methods.
RICHARD: And just what ‘valuable material’ would that be? That I am
this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto); that physical death is the end, finish; that I am not a god by
whatever name as no such being/presence exists in actuality; that there is no timeless and spaceless and formless realm; that
peace-on-earth is already always just here, at this place in infinite space, right now, at this moment in eternal time; that the
pristine perfection of the peerless purity this actual world is ensures nothing dirty (no ‘being’ or ‘presence’) can get
in; that the meaning of life lies open all around and has never been hidden, and that the way all this became apparent was by
being attentive to how this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever actually alive) was being experienced, perchance?
RESPONDENT: Many of us think of despots when we hear
notions of ‘the one true way’ or in your case ‘the one true way so far’.
RICHARD: As no other method has set any body free from the human condition just
what makes you think of despots when I say it is the only method which has been effective thus far?
RESPONDENT: The only differentiating barrier you have
between yourself and other people who have found what you have found, is a very thin one crafted from language.
RICHARD: What ‘other people’ are you referring to? If the one example
you offered up is anything to go by then none of them have found what I have found.
*
RESPONDENT: But I do believe that freedom seeking
ideologies such as yours that attempt negate other modes of freedom seeking are fascist in nature and doomed to starve from a lack
of input from the wider ecology of ideas and modes of perception.
RICHARD: Ha ... so the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the
human condition – being as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible (virtually free from malice and sorrow) whilst still
being a ‘self’ – which is a path marked by the sheer delight at the enjoyment and appreciation engendered by being here on
this verdant and azure planet is a ‘fascist’ ideology in your eyes because it negates everything which is not actual,
eh? Perhaps, upon sober reflection, you may care to re-examine your belief? 

RESPONDENT No. 53: Humans have
been on this planet for how long, no doubt in search of the ultimate or freedom or whatever name one chooses to give it: Do you
actually think no one has succeeded before you?
RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ that nobody has succeeded before ... I
know that nobody has.
RESPONDENT: I don’t understand why you claim to know
the experience of every individual that has existed bearing in mind that not everybody that has come to ‘actual freedom’ would
have necessarily ‘gone public’ anyway.
RICHARD: No such (abstract) person, or persons, as you imagine has ever existed.
RESPONDENT: Surely it would be more accurate to say
that with the current evidence available to you it appears (to you) that nobody has succeeded?
RICHARD: No.
RESPONDENT: Are you making this statement from the
perspective that by definition if the ‘self’ has finished then the understanding has not been acquired by a ‘person’?
RICHARD: No, it is not a matter of definition, but a matter of fact ... where
are these other persons (or person) that have been, or are, already actually free from the human condition? Moreover, had you ever
even known about/heard of an actual freedom from the human condition until you came upon The Actual Freedom Trust web site?
Speaking personally, I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with
many and varied peoples from many walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been
scouring the books (and journals, magazines, newspapers, and latterly, the internet) for twenty plus years now, for information on
an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail ... and I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such
peoples, so as to compare notes, as it were.
Furthermore, since I went public in 1997 there have been many peoples like yourself
asking this very question – my search engine shows that I have provided the ‘scouring the books’/‘whatever media’
response 48 times – and have asked the ‘where is this person/where are these people’ question on almost as many occasions
... for just one example at random:
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Your claim that you are ‘the only one’ can not be true.
• [Richard]: ‘If you could provide names and addresses or book titles or URL’s ... or refer me to the relevant magazine
articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever it is that you are cognisant of I would be most
pleased.
I have scoured the books for twenty years ... to no avail.
Now, whilst I have a vested interest in the matter and have, thus, scoured the books
most assiduously more than a few of my co-respondents would be only too pleased to have me be in error that the already always
existing peace-on-earth has been enabled for the very first time (as strange as that may seem) ... yet in those six years nobody
has ever come back to me with a single instance where somebody else is already actually free from the human condition.
Mostly there is a deafening silence (other than, perhaps, the faintly decreasing patter
of scampering feet as they head for hills).
RESPONDENT: That I can (intellectually) at least
understand. The fact is that in this body there is a sense of self, but in the body who will hopefully respond there is (according
to Richards quotes) no self. Therefore there is a difference of understanding being expressed by the two bodies. Are you saying
that there has only been one body in the history of mankind that has expressed truthfully this understanding?
RICHARD: No, it is not a matter of truthful expression, but a matter of fact ...
I am saying that, up until now, there never has been a body actually free from the human condition (mainly because everyone has
been looking in the wrong direction).
Given it is so patently obvious that there has never been any peace on earth thus far
in human history I am wondering whether an analogy might go some way towards throwing some light on this peculiar
how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it phenomenon which pops up every now and again.
For example: suppose you were to announce that you had finally found the cure for
cancer by discovering the root cause of the disease – hence by eliminating the cause then the effect, the cancer, is no more
able to arise/exist and health abounds – and if, upon going public with this discovery, you get repeatedly told that you cannot
possibly know you were the one who finally made this discovery which many, many people have sought, would you not wonder if they
were all stark staring mad?
Of course not ... and why not? Because virtually everybody acknowledges that there has
been no cure for cancer thus far in human history – excepting snake-oil ‘cures’ of course – and it is the discovery which
would be examined for validity, and not the validity of the how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it explanation (in lieu
of actually examining the discovery itself for validity), which seems to be an almost mandatory requirement the announcement of
the long-awaited discovery of peace-on-earth brings forth
Is it an addled addiction to the snake-oil ‘cures’, a strait-jacketed fixation on
logical impossibilities, an entrenched credulity that life is the pits and the universe sucks, which gives rise to this peculiar
question ... or something else?
Something else like an ingrained dubiety (just-who-does-this-man-think-he-is-anyway)
for instance? 

RESPONDENT: I can take what you
have generously given and not feel obliged to buy into your unverifiable (i.e. by anyone but Richard) and inflated claims of
uniqueness.
RICHARD: Ahh ... this is the way I usually put it (just substitute the phrase
‘buy into my discovery’ for the words ‘believe me’ and it will all fall into place):
• [Richard]: ‘... I do not want any one to merely believe me [buy into my
discovery]. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me [buy into my
discovery] then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate
upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to
ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being
spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which
all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written.
Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and
affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path.
As it is the PCE which verifies what I have discovered I will re-present, from my
previous e-mail, just what those ... um ... unique claims are comprised of (the way an actual freedom from the human condition
differs from the ‘Tried and Failed’ solutions to all the ills of humankind) for your always sober examination. Vis. (October 22 2003).
You may recall my observation in a prior e-mail that, due to the rapid expansion of the
information age, it is simply not necessary to do a (physically impossible anyway) door-to-door survey of every man, woman and
child currently alive and thus be motivated to access the following URL: www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Ratings.htm
There you will find that Mr. Deva Sarlo, and his fellow collectors, have done your
leg-work for you and have collected together a list of over 1250 people offering solutions to the human condition which you can
peruse at your leisure and see for yourself whether an actual freedom from the human condition is indeed entirely new to human
experience or not ... and here are a couple more URL’s where you can cross-check the information provided:
http://www.nonduality.com/morea.htm,
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/gurulist.html
Either that or cease claiming that what I have discovered is an [quote] ‘inflated’
[endquote] report of being entirely new to human experience and thus begin to contribute something of substance to this discussion
list.
‘Tis high time for the ‘fascist gatekeeper’ either put up or shut up, eh? 

GARDOL: Please bear with me. Looking
at the long list of CRO’s, you will find this one at the top: ‘Richard is not the first to be free from the human
condition’. A niggling point to some ...
RICHARD: This is an apt place for some background information: in the middle of
October 2003 several people, most of whom were also writing to a Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti forum, all began writing to The Actual
Freedom Trust Mailing List with a similar theme:
• [Respondent No. 53]: Richard ... why the obsession with proving you are the only
one to be in a state of ‘actual freedom’ as you put it? It seems rather childish. I don’t doubt your claims nor does it
matter to me if it is true or false but I don’t see how there is any way to verify such a statement nor to even care. Humans
have been on this planet for how long, no doubt in search of the ultimate or freedom or whatever name one chooses to give it: Do
you actually think no one has succeeded before you? Does it matter?’ (Wednesday, 15/10/2003
7:13 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 54]: ‘I have a question: I don’t understand why you claim to know the experience of every individual that
has existed bearing in mind that not everybody that has come to ‘actual freedom’ would have necessarily ‘gone public’
anyway. Surely it would be more accurate to say that with the current evidence available to you it appears (to you) that nobody
has succeeded?’ (Thursday, 16/10/2003 7:02 AM
AEST).
• [Respondent No. 55]: ‘Just checked your website and bio. It’s all nice enough, but I don’t get how you think what
you’re talking about is unique’. (Thursday, 16/10/2003 11:07 PM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 56]: ‘I have a question for Richard. I find your claims that you were the first to attain an actual freedom
from the human condition a little hard to take. My question is how do you know this to be true without having met every single
person alive or dead?’ (Friday, 17/10/2003 2:12 PM AEST).
First of all, it will be noticed that they are numbered sequentially (53, 54, 55, 56)
and that the emails are likewise dated (15th, 16th, 16th, 17th).
Second, before responding a simple check of the IP address, from whence those emails
were routed (a university address), evidenced that the striking similarity of theme was not just a chance grouping but a concerted
effort.
Third, a later perusal of the then-current messages on the Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti
forum, where with many a chortle they discussed their enterprise amongst themselves, showed that one person (Respondent No. 53)
had orchestrated the entire affair.
Fourth, in essence what was being advanced was an academic epistemological argument –
which was consistent with the university-based email addresses – wherein no consideration of the extraordinary experiencing
itself was ever evinced ... on the contrary it was dismissed out of hand.
Fifth, the lack of importance being placed upon the extraordinary way of knowing is
readily ascertained by the fact that up until then – six years after first going public – queries about how it was known that
an actual freedom from the human condition was new to human experience/human history were answered, on each and every occasion,
with the ‘for as far as can be ascertained’ type of reply (the regular way of knowing).
Sixth, that egocentric/egotistic preoccupation (upon who was first), which exercised
the minds of those particular respondents, is not at all important – it is simply the fact that somebody has to be the first in
any field of human endeavour – as what is important is the discovery itself (an actual freedom from the human condition).
Lastly, experience has shown it is usually the case that those having that self-centred
fixation (on the discoverer) are not interested in what is of importance (the discovery).
GARDOL: ... (including me at first) but it became more
important as I examined it more completely. So let’s start at the top of the page you find when you click the first CRO.
[Respondent]: ‘I have a question for Richard. I find your claims that you were the first to attain an actual freedom from the
human condition a little hard to take. My question is how do you know this to be true without having met every single person alive
or dead? I’ve read the recent correspondence on this issue but I cannot see a clear answer. It’s important to me as I’m of
the school ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’. I have no problem with your verifiable claims and the methods
you outline allow for verification, which is great’.
[Richard]: ‘Okay ... given you have literally asked for ‘extraordinary proof’ the following link provides a description of
how I actually know – experientially know – and quite ‘extraordinary’ it is too: [link snipped without indication].
I have supplied a brief exegesis of what can be found on that page before: [quote]: ‘In 1985 I had the first of many experiences
of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web
site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was
experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an
Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’
(Buddhism). [endquote]. Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience
while still alive ... furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being
known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of
‘Being’ itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory
wherever the (psychic) eye would look. I was truly on my own ... no one had ventured into this terrain before. In other words I
traversed territory which no enlightened being has ever navigated – virgin terrain somewhat akin to the ‘white-out’
experienced in a featureless landscape of snow and ice – until that ‘Great Beyond’ which has been proposed heretofore to
only be possible at physical death became an actuality whilst the flesh and blood body was still alive. I am, of course, referring
to not only that which has been described as ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ (only as an actuality and not a
fantasy) but to being the actual experiencing of what has variously been called ‘the meaning of life’, ‘the purpose of the
universe’, ‘the riddle of existence’, and so on. In short: being the experiencing of infinitude itself’. [endquote].
Now I found something troublesome about his ‘extraordinary’ proof.
RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding, then, here is what that word
indicates:
• ‘extraordinary: out of the usual or regular course or order; special; of a kind
not usually met with, exceptional; now esp. so exceptional as to provoke astonishment, admiration, or disapproval; (synonyms):
unusual, uncommon, rare, unique, singular, unconventional. (Oxford Dictionary).
As going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in detail on the page the
surreptitiously-snipped link in the above exchange opened to) undeniably qualifies as being out of the usual or regular course or
order and/or of a kind not usually met with – as in exceptional, unusual, uncommon, rare, unique, singular, or unconventional
– there is really nothing of a troublesome nature (as in full of, characterised by, or causing a disturbance of the mind or
feelings, such as worry, perplexity or vexation) intrinsic to that extraordinary experiencing in or of itself.
As to why Gardol would want to say, then, that he found something troublesome about
that experiential evidence is exposed immediately below.
GARDOL: He says he ‘knew even before becoming
actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive’. And he knew this because as he
travelled deeper and deeper into ‘spiritual enlightenment’, he found himself in ‘virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye
would look’.
RICHARD: That is just an out-and-out fabrication ... it is clearly and
unambiguously reported, in the above exchange, that Richard knew this because of many experiences of going beyond spiritual
enlightenment.
Gardol’s worse-than-cheap trick of slyly shifting the focus onto the text which
follows the word ‘furthermore’ – which means ‘in addition, additionally; moreover, esp. used when introducing a
fresh consideration in an argument’ according to the Oxford Dictionary – so as to make out that it is the main extraordinary
evidence is so deceitful it almost beggars description.
What is written in the above passage he quoted is quite specific:
• [Richard]: ‘In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual
enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust website) and it had the
character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time
– and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the
body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before
becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...’. [endquote].
Needless is it to add that that, in order to go beyond spiritual enlightenment,
identity in toto goes into abeyance.
GARDOL: While in other places on the Actual Freedom
website Richard rails against the cunning entity that inhabits human beings ...
RICHARD: As a timely interjection, before Gardol goes on, here is a
(misattributed) passage he chose to quote later on in this diatribe of his:
• ‘Unless one is *motivated by integrity* then one will remain a very, very
cunning entity either fighting it out in the ‘real’ world or travelling on the spiritual path of self-discovery seeking
self-satisfaction and self-aggrandizement’. [emphasis added]. (The Actual Freedom Trust
Library, Honesty).
And here is what Gardol had to say further above:
• [Gardol]: ‘I regard the Commonly Raised Objections (CRO’s) section as most
beneficial in this undertaking. I must say that I find it charming and also *a great display of integrity* that they have
made these disputed points so easy to access’. [emphasis added].
Moreover, given that the entity Gardol goes on and on about (below) is none other than
the identity who, as a direct result of those extraordinary experiences/ that experiential evidence, altruistically
‘self’-immolated, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, there is no way the epithet
‘cunning’ could have any application ... as is made obvious on the page the surreptitiously-snipped link in the above exchange
opened to. Vis.:
• [Richard]: ‘I was able to experience what lay beyond Enlightenment several times
(...) This was more than death of the ego, which is a major event by any definition; this was total annihilation. No ego, no soul
– no self, no Self – no more Heavenly Rapture, Love Agapé, Divine Bliss and so on. Only oblivion. It was not at all
attractive, not at all alluring, not at all desirable ... yet I knew I was going to do it, sooner or later, because it was the
ultimate condition and herein lay the secret to the ‘Mystery of Life’. (Richard, Articles, A Brief Personal History - Part 2).
Here is a useful word:
• ‘invalid [an invalid assumption/ argument]: having no force, efficacy, or
cogency; (synonyms) baseless, unfounded, groundless, unjustified, unsubstantiated, unwarranted, untenable, illogical, irrational,
unscientific, false, faulty, fallacious, spurious, unacceptable, inadequate, unconvincing, ineffectual, unsound, weak, useless,
worthless’. (Oxford Dictionary).
GARDOL: ... here he takes
the insight of his own cunning entity as a fact.
RICHARD: No, here (in the above passage Gardol quoted) Richard clearly takes the
experiential evidence of going beyond spiritual enlightenment, with identity in toto in abeyance, as the fact ... a description of
which is on the page which the surreptitiously-snipped link in the above quoted exchange opened to.
Here is a useful word:
• ‘mislead: lead astray in action or conduct; cause to have an incorrect impression
or belief; (synonyms) misinform, misguide, misdirect, delude, take in, deceive, fool, hoodwink, lead astray, throw off the scent,
send on a wild-goose chase, pull the wool over someone’s eyes; inf. lead up the garden path, take for a ride’. (Oxford Dictionary).
GARDOL: Moreover he admits the basis of this fact lies in
the perception of his (the cunning entity) own ‘psychic’ eye.
RICHARD: No, he reports that the basis of this fact lies in the many experiences
of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (where identity in toto is in abeyance) before becoming actually free of the human
condition (where identity in toto is extinct). And, even more to the point, he already knew six months prior the commencement of
the path, which would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, that such a freedom was entirely new to human
experience. Here it is again (from the oh-so-conveniently omitted third CRO):
• [Richard]: ‘I also knew early in 1981, at the commencement of the path that would
eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, that such a freedom was entirely new to human experience as I had
had a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) six months prior wherein it was manifestly obvious that what the human race
had made of such experiences was a degradation of the actual. Speaking in the context of the only religio-spiritual language I
knew then (from the culture I was born into) I would say, to anyone prepared to listen, that everybody has got it wrong because
nobody has to physically die to get to heaven ... that eternity was just here right now because, as it was already always
happening, it cannot cease at physical birth and recommence at physical death after a 70+ year interregnum’. (Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, Respondent 56
18Oct03).
It goes with saying, of course, that identity in toto is in abeyance during a PCE. [‘more in Richard, Gardolcorrespondence’]

RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain there is
nobody else living an actual freedom from the human condition ...
RESPONDENT: How did you ascertain that?
RICHARD: The same way that I ascertain anything about anybody and everybody ...
I ask and I listen. Plus I read about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers and on the internet.
I watch TV, videos, films ... whatever media is available. I have been scouring the books and talking with many and varied peoples
from all walks of life for nineteen years now for information on an actual freedom from the human condition ... but to no avail.
Now the information exists – and has taken on a life of its own – and I am well content and having so much fun. As facts and
actuality can be commonsensically conveyed by the written word, this means that the third alternative to being either ‘human’
or ‘divine’ can be accessed by anyone discriminating enough long after I am physically dead. All I have ever wished for is for
the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition to exist in the world so that they are available for anyone
who comes across it, in any indeterminate future, to draw affirmation and confirmation from ... for anyone to avail themselves of
if it be in accord with their own experience and/or aspirations. That is, it is an affirmation that their experience is not only
valid but a confirmation in that a fellow human being has traversed this territory in an eminently satisfactory way. I just
happened to discover the already always existing peace-on-earth, the purity of which is so perfect that I am reporting my
experience to my fellow human beings.
The ‘flow-on’ effect from reading actual freedom writings is that if one minimises
the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (as explained further above) and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings in conjunction
with sensuousness then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. If it does not ... then
one is way ahead of normal human expectations anyway as the aim is to enjoy and appreciate being just here right now for as much
as is possible.
It is a win/win situation. 

RESPONDENT: ... the belief you have
that you are somehow the only one who is actually free ...
RICHARD: In all my years of travelling, talking with people, reading, watching media
and now the internet I am yet to come across someone who experiences life as I do. Hence it is not a belief.
RESPONDENT: Of course; I also have never met anyone who
experiences life as I do.
RICHARD: May I ask? Are you capable of following a discussion sequentially? This
is a side-stepping response ... I was talking about experiencing life sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (an actual freedom
from the human condition) ... as well you know.
RESPONDENT: But that does not make me the first to
experience actual freedom anymore than it makes you. Simple really.
RICHARD: This is a total waste of a sentence. 

RESPONDENT: Normally I would not
persist in persisting Mr. Richard. but you have claimed you are free and I am not. In fact; I am beginning to suspect it is the
other way around ... but at least I accord you the right to claim freedom for yourself Mr Richard.
RICHARD: There is more to an actual freedom from the human condition than having
‘the right to claim freedom for yourself’ ... it means getting off one’s backside and actually doing something about
one’s malice and sorrow and the antidotal pacifiers of love and compassion. It means enabling peace-on-earth, in this lifetime,
as this flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT: And ... you are the only person on the
planet doing that?
RICHARD: For as far as I have been able to establish thus far ... I have
travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV,
videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines,
newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but
to no avail.
I would be delighted to hear about such people ... so as to compare notes, as it were.
RESPONDENT: Are you aware that in Australia recent
legislation will make such a spurious claim on your part not only fanciful and rude and arrogant; but blatantly illegal as well?
RICHARD: It is not a ‘spurious claim’ as it is simply a fact. If you
know of such a person, or persons please let me know.
RESPONDENT: You have no right to announce that your
Third way is the only way and that all other ways fit into your simplistic categorisation scheme as normal or spiritual and thus
FALSE.
RICHARD: It is not a question of having ‘no right’ (or having the
‘right’) ... a fact just sits there making your ‘no right’ (or ‘right’) look silly. It is a fact that there has
been only two ways thus far in human history – materialism and spiritualism – and it is a fact that there is now a third
alternative. Facts can not be legislated out of existence.
RESPONDENT: You are publicly and permanently making
claims that will under the present or future laws of Australia rend you and/or the Actual freedom Trust liable to prosecution.
That is a statement of my considered opinion.
RICHARD: I have noticed that this whole area of litigation and lawsuit rather
dominates your thinking ... nothing like getting the law on your side to prevent an outbreak of peace-on-earth, eh? 

RESPONDENT: How many have you taught
successfully?
RICHARD: First, I do not teach anyone ... the PCE does that. I am not required
for the process of understanding (as in a ‘personality cult’ that can grow around a ‘charismatic leader’) ... <SNIP>
... as far as I have been able to ascertain there is nobody else living an actual freedom from the human condition ...
RESPONDENT: How did you ascertain that?
RICHARD: The same way that I ascertain anything about anybody and everybody ...
I ask and I listen. Plus I read about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers and on the internet.
I watch TV, videos, films ... whatever media is available. I have been scouring the books and talking with many and varied peoples
from all walks of life for nineteen years now for information on an actual freedom from the human condition ... but to no avail.
RESPONDENT: So you are the only one? You need more than
one case to prove your claims.
RICHARD: Not so ... 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. Such a remarkable consistency of pristine purity is the
only proof I need.
RESPONDENT: By the way, it wasn’t a request of proof
for you.
RICHARD: Okay ... who was it ‘a request of proof’ for, then, and why?
If it was ‘a request of proof’ by you for you ... can you not recall your own PCE’s, your own direct experiencing of
actuality at various stages throughout your life? Everybody that I have spoken to at length over the last nineteen years –
everybody – has had at least one PCE ... although most people cannot initially remember a PCE and may need a lot of prompting to
retrieve it from their memory. An example by a man from Australia:
• ‘I remember walking in the shallow water marvelling at my magical
fairy-tale-like surroundings. A vast blue sky overhead with an ever-changing array of wispy white clouds. The sun glistens on the
tiny ripples of water washing gently over my feet. The sensual feel of the mud oozing between my toes as they sink into the muddy
beach. Huge pelicans glide overhead and I liken them to the jumbo jets of the bird world as they come in to land on the water some
distance out. The sun on my skin is warming me through and through, the breeze is ruffling my hair and tingling my forearms, and
the water is cooling on my feet. It is so good to be alive, senses bristling as if on stalks and everything is perfect. Absolutely
no objections to being here – pure delight! After a while I turn to my partner who is sitting in the shade beneath a wonderfully
gnarled and ancient tree on the lake’s edge. There sits a fellow human being to whom I have no ‘relationship’. Any past or
future disappears; she and I are simply here together, experiencing these perfect moments. The past five years that I have known
her, with all the memories of good and bad times, simply do not exist. It is just delightful that she is here with me, and I do
not even have any thoughts of ‘our’ future. In short, everything is perfect, always has been, and always will be. It is an
experience of actual freedom where I, as this flesh and blood body only, am able to experience with my physical senses the
perfection and purity of the universe, totally free of any psychological or psychic entity within. I am also free of the delusion
that this is all the work of some mythical maker to whom I owe gratitude for ‘my’ being here, and there are no heartfelt
delusions of grandeur or Oneness. So totally involving is this sensate experience that the feelings and emotions of a ‘self’
or ‘Self’ have no place in the magical paradise of this actual world that is abundantly apparent. I am actually here, in the
physical universe and enjoying a direct and unfettered involvement, every moment’. [endquote].
An example from a woman from The Netherlands:
• ‘One of my peak experiences happened on the fore-shore. All of a sudden,
unpremeditated, ‘I’ and ‘my’ world-view had disappeared and an immediate intimacy became apparent. Although I had lived in
this village before and had grown very fond of it and its residents, there had always been a distance between me and other people,
which had to be bridged by temporary feelings of love and affection which were never satisfying for long. Now a shift in seeing
had occurred, and looking at the people around me, I noticed that the distance between me and others had miraculously vanished.
Not only between me and other people but equally between me and the trees, me and the houses on the boulevard, even between me and
the ocean. Nowhere was there a boundary. Another dimension had taken its place, which I initially experienced as a closeness
closer than my own heartbeat, yet it was certainly not love for all or oneness with everything. It was another paradigm than the
one in which the opposites play their major role ... and to depict it I needed another vocabulary than words like distant and
close, separation and oneness. Opposites can only be used when there is a stationary benchmark to judge them by. When ‘I’, the
standard from which everything was measured, ceased to be, a pure appraisal of the situation could take place. I saw everybody,
including me as-this-body, and everything else, in its own proper place and nothing was wrong in any way. The concept of bonding,
belonging and relationship could simply not be applied, not even with my partner, as there was nobody inside to do the relating.
This perfect intimacy was everywhere at once, not generated somewhere specific and then diffused to other locations as is the case
with love’. [endquote].
Sometimes a PCE is also known as ‘a nature experience’ ... wherein one’s own
personal experiencing is likewise the only proof worthy of the name. Being deep in a rain-forest goes some way towards making it
all clearer ... or any wilderness, for that matter. As one travels deeper and deeper into this – initially ‘other’ – world
of natural delight, one experiences an intensely hushed stillness that is vast and immense ... yet so simply here. I am not
referring to a feeling of awe or reverence or great beauty – to have any emotion or passion at all is to miss the actuality of
this moment – nor am I referring to any blissful or euphoric state of ‘being’. It is a sensate experience, not an affective
state. I am talking about the factual and simple actualness of earthy existence being experienced whilst ambling along or sitting
quietly without any particular thought in mind ... yet not being mindless either. And then, when a sparkling intimacy occurs, do
not the woods take on a fairy-tale-like quality? Is one not in a paradisiacal environment that envelops yet leaves one free? This
is the ambience that I speak of. At this magical moment there is no ‘I’ in the head or ‘me’ in the heart ... there is this
apperceptive awareness wherein thought can operate freely without the encumbrance of any feelings whatsoever.
It is not my ambience nor yours ... yet it is here for everyone and anyone for the
asking ... for the daring to be here as this body only. One does this by stepping out of the real world into this actual world, as
this flesh and blood body, leaving your ‘self’ behind where ‘you’ belong ... because the reality of the real world is an
illusion ‘I’ create by ‘my’ very ‘presence’.
This ambience delivers the goods so longed for through aeons.

RICHARD: ... hundreds of people have been poking away at what
is on offer, especially since coming onto the internet, trying to find the flaws they are convinced must be there – which is one
of the reasons why all correspondence is archived – and this only goes to show how badly people have been sucked in for
millennia by the many and varied snake-oil salespersons. I am not at all surprised that people be suspicious.
RESPONDENT: Richard, this is well said. It’s why I am
unsatisfied with your claims of being historically unique in being actually free from the human condition.
RICHARD: First and foremost: somebody has to be the first to discover something
new in any field of human endeavour ... is there any particular reason you prefer it to be somebody other than the person you are
currently conversing with (and, perhaps, of some other gender, race, age, or era) that was the first to enable the already always
existing peace-on-earth and thus make apparent the actual meaning of life?
Second, I provided a description of how I know that an actual freedom from the human
condition is entirely new to human experience – and an extraordinary way of knowing at that (in accord with what you asked for)
– yet, after dismissing the way I know as believing that I know, you reverted to the ordinary way of knowing to make your case
that I cannot know as I had already affirmed it cannot be known the ordinary way of knowing.
Third, I made it quite clear that I am not in the business of proving to you (or anyone
else for that matter) that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience ... that I am simply
providing a report of how I know it is and what another does with my report is their business.
Fourth, when you said my extraordinary way of knowing was an inflated way of knowing
(as a follow-up to previously saying it was ‘aggrandised nonsense’ which was ‘very deluded’ and ‘overblown’), I
suggested two ways of finding out for yourself what is ‘inflated’ and ‘aggrandised nonsense’ which is ‘very deluded’
and ‘overblown’ and what is not – experientially in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and by accessing a list of over
1250 people and reading their descriptions of what they know – which you took to mean I was saying that it could be known
definitively, by either way of finding out for yourself, that I was indeed the first to become actually free from the human
condition ... when what I was saying was those ways of finding out for yourself would not only show it was not an inflated
(‘aggrandised nonsense’ which was ‘very deluded’ and ‘overblown’) way of knowing but also show that what was
discovered is, in fact, entirely different to what all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours,
saints, and so on, over the centuries have been touting as the answer to all the ills of humankind (and thus, by default, entirely
new to human history as an ongoing experiencing).
Fifth, it was your claim that my extraordinary way of knowing was inflated (as in
‘aggrandised nonsense’ which is ‘very deluded’ and ‘overblown’) which I said needed to be either substantiated –
rather than just capriciously stated – or ceased being made in the first place ... and not that you were to demonstrate I cannot
know.
Sixth, given that you dismiss the extraordinary way of knowing as believing that I know
it may be pertinent to point out that I am well aware of the proposition made by Mr. Karl Popper that, logically, nothing can ever
be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a
one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen) yet to have to personally verify every single person, thing
or event in order to satisfy the demands of such a logical conclusion only serves to show the limiting strait-jacket that such an
abstract logic is as it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands of such theoretical
thinking (an academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in
practice’).
Seventh, in practice then, if the extraordinary way of knowing is held to be believing
that something be known, any (apparently) previously unknown discovery is a new discovery by default until evidence to the
contrary shows otherwise. Which is why I keep on asking the simple question where the person/persons already actually free from
the human condition prior to 1992 is/are to be found. If somebody – anybody at all – could provide names and addresses or book
titles or web site addresses or refer me to the relevant magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures
or whatever I would be most pleased ... as I could compare notes, as it were, and thus advance human knowledge.
Thus far, especially since coming onto the internet, nobody has been able to produce
such a person or persons.
Last, but not least, the following exchange may be of assistance as the question is
particularly perspicacious:
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do I understand correctly from your mail, that your being
unique in this is not what is important: that you merely wanted to stress with it that you bring something that is entirely new?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes. The on-going experiencing of the already always existing peace-on-earth is entirely new to human experience
... everybody I have spoken to at length has temporarily experienced such perfection, in what is called a pure consciousness
experience (PCE), but nobody has been able to provide a clear, clean and pure report as an on-going actuality. Usually the PCE is
interpreted and/or translated according to selfish personal desires, and by corresponding cultural conditioning, as a variation of
the many types of an Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) which perpetuates the ‘self’ as the ‘Self’ (by whatever name) in
some spurious after-life ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. And thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and
domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides have gone on forever and a day.
Now the opportunity exists for an eventual global peace-on-earth: with 6.0 billion outbreaks of individual peace-on-earth no
police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would
become a thing of the dreadful past ... terror would stalk its prey no more. People would live together in peace and harmony,
happiness and delight.
But do not hold your breath waiting. 

VINEETO: But don’t expect anyone else to do it for you, only
you can – by direct experience – determine the veracity of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust website and only you
can determine whether actualism is indeed brand new in human history.
RESPONDENT: Very true. Have no problem with that –
just Richard’s claims of uniqueness.
VINEETO: If you had no problem with actualism being brand new in human history
you would not object to Richard being the pioneer of this brand new discovery. What you really are saying is that you think
actualism is not brand new because you compare it to the Tried and Failed spiritual methods of Byron Katie and Zen teachers,
therefore to you Richard’s discovery is not unique.
It is interesting that thus far only those who are well and truly disenchanted with all
religious and spiritual teachings – and that includes Buddhism and Zen – have been able to discover the transparently palpable
difference between practicing dissociation and the elimination of both one’s social identity and one’s instinctual ‘being’
that allows the actual world to become apparent.
RESPONDENT: I am currently investigating Actualism and
using the methods.
VINEETO: There is only one method in actualism. If you think that actualism has
any similarity to Byron Katie’s four questions or to Zen Buddhist teachings then you need to further investigate in order to
discover the genuine actualism method. To give you a hint, the actualism method has an inherent non-spiritual and down-to-earth
intent – to become happy and harmless in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are. There is nothing other-worldly, nothing
self-aggrandizing, nothing nihilistic, nothing negative, nothing dissociative and nothing self-centred about that intent. 
Actual Freedom Homepage
This Topic Continued
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless
Design,
Richard's & Vineeto’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions
and Guarantee of Authenticity
|