Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Flogged Misconceptions

IRENE to Vineeto: I must commend you on your sincere devotion to Richard’s method! Like your zeal in defending Richard (as the originator of your newly adopted practical life philosophy) and yourself, plus attacking anybody who still questions it or has pointed out the flaws in it.

RICHARD: May I ask: what flaws are you referring too? And, if I may point out, your phraseology regarding Vineeto ‘attacking anybody who questions it’ is nothing more than a point of view. It could equally be said in reverse. Vis.: Vineeto is ‘questioning anyone who attacks it’. Speaking personally, as I have been writing on the Internet for over a year now, I have honed my talents as a wordsmith with particular verve and vivacity as virtually everyone who wrote objected to being happy and harmless. In my first week of having my Web-Page up and running someone wrote in ‘questioning’ what I had to say. The writer quickly turned it into a debate and ‘questioned’ me as to my statement ‘I have no desire to argue’. So I wrote back: ‘I said that I have no desire to argue ... and I still have no desire to do so. But you seem bent upon having an argument, so I am obliging you. We can stop it at any time you wish and have a meaningful and fruitful discussion ... if you want it. I have no desire to argue for my experience has shown me that argumentation and disputation lead nowhere constructive ... as this current spate of correspondence betwixt you and me is amply demonstrating. But ‘having no desire to do so’ does not mean that I will not. It just means that I would prefer not to. The English language is quite clear and specific, when one gets into the subtleties of it’.

IRENE to Vineeto: Another classic [symptom of zeal] is renouncing all the old indiscriminately. I know it well from very personal experience, and I don’t expect you (yet) to be open to me being correct, as I wasn’t either when I was so busy proving that it worked so deliciously ... for 11 years.

RICHARD: May I suggest that you might have been a trifle hasty with your ‘renouncing all the old indiscriminately’ statement that you say you know ‘well from very personal experience’? As you may now recall, upon sensible reflection, Richard and Devika went into the details of human nature to the point of examining minutiae to such an extent that it beggars belief. Also, the ‘old’ has been tested out by billions of people over thousands of years ... and it just has not worked. But all that ‘Tried and True’ stuff notwithstanding – and howsoever obliquely that you put it – I am pleased to see that you do remember actualism working ‘so deliciously ... for 11 years’.

RESPONDENT: ... feigned harmlessness, cut and paste laziness and of course those impressive ‘big words’ that make him look like an inconsiderate idiot. Then one of his parrots will come to their guru’s defence using his cloned vocabulary and corrupted aggro attitude.

RICHARD: My, my ... you do go on. Nevertheless, I am only too happy to attend to your worries:

1. You do not know me personally so you have no way of knowing whether my harmlessness is ‘feigned’ or genuine.

2. I do not ‘copy and paste’ out of laziness at all ... it is just that there is only a finite number of ways of saying the same thing differently before one starts duplicating what one has said elsewhere. I basically said all I had to say with 114,000 words in my journal years ago ... and the count is over 2,000,000 words by now. Also, experience has shown that someone may not ‘get it’ the first time around, or the second or third, but will have it sink in on the umpteenth repeat. And there is also the matter of not being able to remember who I have said what to and when and where ... nor knowing whether what I wrote to person ‘A’ was read by person ‘B’ anyway.

3. You are not the first person to have a problem about another’s erudition and scholarship ... yet the English language has upwards of 650,000 words in it. Do you really suggest that I restrict myself to the usual 4,000 to 6,000 that is the extent of the vocabulary of the average person? If so, why? Must all peoples remain semi-illiterate just because peoples like yourself find linguistic expressiveness to be ‘inconsiderate’ towards those lacking the gumption to flex their minds with what you revealingly call ‘impressive big words’?

4. The use of the word ‘parrots’ is like the throwaway ‘egotistical’ line you used above ... easy to say and contributing zilch to investigative dialogue (and ‘parroting’ is a word to describe mindless imitation of another anyway).

5. As I am on record as saying – over and over again – that I am a thorough-going atheist through and through I hardly see why you bother to try and hang the appellation ‘guru’ upon me. But then again, it is so easy to chuck these phrases around, is it not? Much easier than thinking things through for yourself, eh?

6. It is very difficult for anyone to say the same thing whilst not using the words and phrases of one another ... somewhat like your use of ‘ego’, ‘egotistical arrogance’, ‘impressive big words’, ‘inconsiderate idiot’, ‘parrots’, ‘guru’, ‘cloned vocabulary’, ‘aggro attitude’, ‘thick skulls’, ‘alienating’, ‘wanking’ ... but never mind ... you would make a good engineer.

RESPONDENT: No one can say you are right or wrong, but the fact that Vineeto and Peter, that are so close to you, did not arrived yet there is the proof that everything you are experiencing could be your hallucination.

RICHARD: Hmm ... do you realise that, as you ‘strongly believe’ I am in an ASC, you have just classified such a state of being as an hallucination?

Apart from that: the fact that nobody has become actually free in the six years since I first went public only means that nobody has become actually free in the six years since I first went public – anything else is speculation – and to focus upon such speculation is to miss the truly remarkable virtual freedom that is possible by applying the actualism method ... and as a virtual freedom is way beyond normal expectations anyway then, irregardless of whatever happens in the future, my having gone public will not have been in vain.

And even further to this point there are some people who, having taken in the gist of what I have to report about spiritual enlightenment, have dropped spiritualism for the crock it is and reverted to materialism ... so it is even of benefit to have gone public if only for the disillusionment of those who had hitched their star to some massively deluded person.

All in all I am already well-pleased ... and, as it is only early days yet, I will probably be even more pleased one day.

RESPONDENT: After all with what right Vineeto and Peter are defending you in the moment they don’t have personal experience?

RICHARD: They do not have to have any ‘right’ – for what they have to report/say comes out of PCE’s and not just out of what I have to report/say – and it is rather telling that you would describe it as ‘defending’ me ... rather than, for instance, confirming what I have to report/say.

RESPONDENT: That means they obey you ...

RICHARD: It is the PCE which is a person’s lodestone ... not me and/or my words. Me and/or my words provide confirmation of what the PCE makes evident ... and provide the affirmation that a fellow human being has safely negotiated the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition.

RESPONDENT: [That means they obey you] because of belief ...

RICHARD: No, a PCE is the direct experience of actuality ... belief plays no part in it whatsoever (nor does faith, hope, trust, and certitude for that matter).

RESPONDENT: [That means they obey you because of belief] and might destroy other peoples’ life.

RICHARD: If you can satisfactorily explain to me how being happy and harmless (virtually free from malice and sorrow) 99% of the time might destroy other peoples’ life I would be more than a little surprised ... which brings me to the obvious question: what is your objection to people being happy and harmless?

My guess, and it is but a guess, is that the latter part of your last sentence would be more in accord with the truth if it were put something like this:

• [example only]: ... might destroy other peoples’ after-life.

‘Tis only a guess, mind you.

RESPONDENT No 44: Richard do you understand that the words you are saying after they left your mouth are already old? My kindly asking was Can you make one overview [one abridgement in sort of your invention so we don’t have to read all these actual freedom sites and correspondences]? Let’s say you met a friend in a bar and you try to explain him your way of seeing things, as you done with Vineeto and Peter.

RICHARD: Now here is an interesting thing: Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to what I had to report/ describe/ explain ... so much so that he was able to successfully explain it to Vineeto before she even met me. You see, he was able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all his spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning ... he never told me, for instance, with (borrowed) wisdom that the words that I was saying, after they left my mouth, were already old. In short: he was ripe and ready for something new.

RESPONDENT No 44: Can you do it once more?

RICHARD: Ahh ... but can you be another Peter (so to speak)?

RESPONDENT: Richard, why do you want Respondent No 44 to be Peter?

RICHARD: Presuming that you mean why I am asking my co-respondent whether they too can listen with both ears (aka listen afresh) – whether they are able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all their spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning – the answer is quite simple: they would be ripe and ready for something new ... rather than, for instance, telling me with (borrowed) wisdom that the words I am saying, after they leave my mouth, are already old.

In case you missed the import of ‘listen with both ears/listen afresh’: something (anything) which is old is still old whether it be 7 seconds old, 7 minutes old, 7 hours old, or 7 years old.

RESPONDENT: Are you trying to create actualist clones?

RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are wanting to know: my co-respondent asked me to explain to them that which I have already reported/ described/ explained, both on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, just as I had done with Peter and Vineeto before both the web site and the mailing list existed ... only in an abridgement/ overview format (a précis, or a synopsis, in other words) this time around instead of the fully-fleshed report/ description/ explanation Peter and, later, Vineeto were regaled with.

So I described how Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to the exact same thing I had reported/ described/ explained to others before him – that which is nowadays available for all to read free of charge on both on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List (a précis of which is also available for all to read free of charge on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) – and enquired, when asked by my co-respondent whether I could do that exact same thing again with them, whether they too can listen with both ears (aka listen afresh) – whether they are able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all their spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning – rather than, for instance, telling me with (borrowed) wisdom that the words I am saying, after they leave my mouth, are already old ... and because of this query of mine you want to know whether I am trying to create actualist clones.

Am I understanding you correctly?

RESPONDENT: What you call ‘sprituality’ or ‘actualism’ is nothing more than a collection of management techniques.

RICHARD: The word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.

RESPONDENT: Ok, I’ll agree with that. But, and to the point here, why don’t you clue in Peter and Vineeto, because they’re totally mis-understanding. Hell Richard, you’re creating obnoxious monsters!

RICHARD: As both Peter and Vineeto understand that the word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive your query is a non-sequitur.

*

RESPONDENT: A real teacher will always throw you back upon yourself, which is the opposite of what Richard is doing here with Vineeto and Peter. He talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk.

RICHARD: As I am not a teacher (let alone a real one) I do not even talk the talk.

RESPONDENT: Touché. So why don’t you clue in Vineeto and Peter?

RICHARD: As both Peter and Vineeto are well aware I am not a teacher (let alone a real one), and that I do not even talk the talk, your query is a non-sequitur.

RESPONDENT: They don’t understand shit, so cut the crap! Now you’re making a fool of your own self for chrissakes. Don’t take me for fucking stupid Richard. JezesHChrist!

RICHARD: You are the one who understood that the word ‘actualism’ referred to nothing more than a collection of management techniques.

RESPONDENT: That’s what Peter and Vineeto are using it for, yes. They can ‘mastrubate’ themselves from now till kingdom come and have ‘experiences’ out the kazoo, and like Wayne put it, ‘You indulge in self-improvement, and all you have to show for it is an improved self.’ You obviously need to clear some things up with them, because they’re off to the races god knows where?

RICHARD: No god knows of where they are off to – least of all Mr. Wayne Liquorman – as there are no gods here in this actual world. [Wayne Liquorman: ‘The body-mind mechanism of the sage is like any other body-mind mechanism – an instrument through which God, or Consciousness or Totality, functions’. www.advaita.org/blayneinterview.htm]

RESPONDENT: It just an expression Richard, like ‘sheesh!’ not to be taken literally, don’t get your knickers in a bunch. And Wayne didn’t say that, I did.

RICHARD: Okay ... no god knows of where they are off to – least of all No 36 – as there are no gods here in this actual world. [No 36: ‘There is no separate anything that exists apart from God Itself. That is all there is, and I am that’. www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/judi-1.htm]

RESPONDENT: Exactly, yes.

RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this matter has been satisfactorily cleared up, then.

RESPONDENT: Not so fast there Buckwheat, ‘god’ was never the ‘matter’, your bullshitting is the matter! Your leading people on to the detriment of not only themselves, but of the world at large is the MATTER!

RICHARD: You said ‘exactly, yes’ ... not me.

RESPONDENT: That there are no gods here, yes. But that was a side-stepping issue that you brought up. You want to try again Richard, or is your brain not working too well today?

RICHARD: To paraphrase/plagiarise ... ‘you indulge in self-realisation and all you have to show for it is a realised self’.

RESPONDENT: No Richard, been there, done that. And you of all people have the room to talk there! Which IS the whole point, I’m not the one running around selling ‘escapism’.

RICHARD: Okay ... ‘you indulge in god-realisation and all you have to show for it is a realised god’.

RESPONDENT: Keep clowning around Richard, it’ s your fucking nickle. :-) You don’t need to speak to me, you need to speak to Vineeto and Peter.

RICHARD: The reason I am speaking to you, and not to Peter and Vineeto, is because the subject title of this thread is ‘Intent and Altruism’ (and not ‘Intent and Selfism’): according to your web page you cried, in 1973, when you came upon a book by Mr. Franklin Jones, knowing you were not alone with the Incredible Understanding that there were no separate entities as such, and then spent the next 23 years in a seeking position until suddenly one evening the whole adventure came to an end with what your mailing list intro describes as ‘Realisation’ (that is, there is no separate anything that exists apart from God Itself, and you are that). Put succinctly: your intent, from age 26 onwards, accordingly came to its fruition in 1996.

As Peter and Vineeto have no such intent there is nothing of that ilk for me to speak to them about/clear up some things with/clue them in regarding (or however else you may choose to phrase it) ... and thus I am not clowning around/bringing in a side-stepping issue/evading the issue/being very childish/not being very manly/playing little dancing avoidance games (or however else you may choose to phrase it) either.

Put simply: the direct experience that matter is not merely passive demonstrates that no god (or goddess) is animating the universe. I did point out to you, when you first subscribed to this mailing list in September 2002, that an actual freedom from the human condition lies beyond spiritual enlightenment (aka ‘Realisation’) and thus is not at all compatible with what is popularly known as non-duality (aka Advaita).

That you chose to ignore what I had to say then – and continue to choose such ignorance – is your business, of course.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I know they don’t, they are clueless, and that’s what I’ve been saying. that they would be better served in psycho therapy. Yes, I agree, ‘realization’ is old history, not even relevant. But it’s not freedom ‘from’, it’s freedom ‘into’ and ‘as’. ‘I am that’ in inclusive, not exclusive.

RICHARD: I do understand that it is not freedom ‘from’ the human condition – that it is freedom ‘into’ and ‘as’ the human condition – and that ‘I am that’ is inclusive of, and not exclusive of, the human condition (after all I lived that/was that, night and day, for eleven years and intimately know all its nooks and crannies) ... which is why I say that an actual freedom from the human condition.- the direct experience 24/7 that matter is not merely passive – is beyond spiritual enlightenment.

And, as both Peter and Vineeto understand this, they are not ‘clueless’ (or any of the other ways you have chosen to describe them).

RESPONDENT: Although I generally agree and enjoy many of the things stated on AF website, I have some doubts and I thought you might found them worth of attention. The first one concerns the writing style of some older actualists, like Peter, Alan and Vineeto, which is similar in its form and content with Richard’s.

RICHARD: Aye ... and that would be because each person, myself included, is talking about, referring to or describing the same identical thing. For example, if you were the first to go outside in the morning to experience the weather, and consequently report that the sky is blue today, then when I too go outside to experience the weather I would similarly say that the sky is blue.

It is nothing more mysterious than an agreement that our experiences match.

RESPONDENT: What I want to say is that when a person belongs to a group whether an actual or a virtual one, a characteristic he acquires is the lack of originality in its thinking, the ability to use new words in describing one’s experiences.

RICHARD: As none of the three people you mention belong to a group then your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Just as a matter of interest: how many original ways can a person say ‘blue sky’ (bearing in mind that there are 6.0 billion people on the planet)? As for ‘new words’ ... this is how I answered someone else when they raised this same point last year:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Speaking the same lingo [the same words] ... is a hallmark of cultism’.
• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps you may be able to assist me in something rather important? My computer is making both groaning and grumbling noises and when I type in run-commands there is no response ... this is my take on what is going on: I figure that the wheelbarrow is conflicting with the scotch mist – both of which, as you would know, share the same chewing gum – and I am wondering whether it would be best to replace the wheelbarrow or the scotch mist. Do you have any suggestions, tips, hints or clues that might assist me? Maybe I should replace both? Or should I make adjustments to the chewing gum ... and if so, what would be the best way to go about it?’

If there were 6.0 billion people all using ‘new words’ to describe the same thing then effective communication would be a thing of the past.

RESPONDENT: This would mean closer than (...) Peter & Vineeto ...

RICHARD: No it does not mean that (neither Peter nor Vineeto are aiming to become actually free from the human condition by following another’s footsteps).

RESPONDENT: Sure Richard ...

RICHARD: It is indeed so ... neither Peter nor Vineeto are aiming to become actually free from the human condition by following the footsteps left by the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body all those years ago.

RESPONDENT: ... [Sure Richard] they repeat your words ad nauseam until it has turned into a choking dogma.

RICHARD: Whatever it is Peter nor Vineeto may or may not be doing, according to you, it still remains a fact that they are not aiming to become actually free from the human condition by following another’s footsteps.

RESPONDENT: You have created them.

RICHARD: Whatever it is this flesh and blood body may or may not have done, according to you, it still remains a fact that neither Peter nor Vineeto are aiming to become actually free from the human condition by following another’s footsteps.

RESPONDENT: They are choking on your teachings.

RICHARD: Whatever it is Peter nor Vineeto may or may not be doing, according to you, it still remains a fact that they are not aiming to become actually free from the human condition by following another’s footsteps.

RESPONDENT: Set them free already.

RICHARD: As the only being who can set anybody free is the one in residence then this flesh and blood body will not be complying with your unsolicited directive.

RESPONDENT: Or do you still need them for financial or other needs?

RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body has never needed Peter or Vineeto for ‘financial or other needs’ your query is a non-sequitur.

*

RICHARD: ... those (unreferenced) quotes are taken directly from The Actual Freedom Trust web site and are written by Peter.

RESPONDENT: As I was informed of yesterday ... however, Peter has been informed by you ...

RICHARD: Not only did Peter not get informed, as to what he should or should not write on those two occasions, this flesh and blood body blood body does not vet anything that either he or Vineeto publishes on The Actual Freedom Trust web site for there is indeed no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation ... all simply because, as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) actuality speaks for itself, no such entity is required.

It is all so simple here.

RESPONDENT: ... [As I was informed of yesterday ... however] and as you are the founder ...

RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is not the founder – ‘a person who sets up or establishes something for the first time; esp. a person who establishes an institution with an endowment for its future maintenance’ (Oxford Dictionary) – of either The Actual Freedom Trust web site or The Actual Freedom Trust itself. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘The Actual Freedom Trust is a statutory legal body that *five nominal directors established* in order to operate under for sensible commercial reasons. (snip).
• [Respondent]: ‘What does that mean ‘for sensible commercial reasons’?
• [Richard]: ‘Well, it partly means that the five nominal directors, who established the statutory legal body known as The Actual Freedom Trust, were well aware that they, and any other directors who may take their place one day, live in a litigious society ... but it mainly means that a statutory legal body facilitates all the legal processes and bookkeeping details that are involved in publishing (in order to have an internet domain, for just one instance, there must be a registered business name and number).
It is all just standard business practice’. [emphasis added]. (October 25 2003).

RESPONDENT: ... [however and as you are the founder] and CEO ...

RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is not a CEO (Chief Executive Officer/Chairperson and Executive Officer) of any legal body ... as has been explained before:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... [there is] only 4 million words that you (the trust, which I believe you are the CEO) wants to make known.
[Richard]: ‘First of all, in regards to this ‘CEO’ belief of yours, what part of the following did you not comprehend? Vis.: [Richard]: ‘... there are no fees to pay or any clique to join ... there are no rules at all. *I have no plan whatsoever ... there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation*’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: ... [as you are the founder and CEO] the Aussie dollar stops with you ...

RICHARD: As there is no hierarchical organisation there is nowhere for any buck to stop (presuming that is what you mean).

RESPONDENT: ... [the Aussie dollar stops with you] ... take some responsibility for your employees.

RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body has no employees your unsolicited directive cannot be complied with.

RESPONDENT No 71: It is all quite pathetic, this hierarchy business.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps we should go into the business of selling Virtual and Actual Freedom Certificates. We could have them signed, dated, stamped and watermarked so that the owner can be in no doubt as to their freedom status. And they can prove it to anyone if challenged.

VINEETO: You are a few years too late, No 60 and No 71, because this issue has long been settled. Vis –

Vineeto (to Irene): As for ‘chief-disciples’ – there will be a draw from the hat for the chief of all chief-disciples and other disciples on January 1, 1999. Applications can be placed on this mailing list, deadline: December 31, 11.59 PM. Necessary qualifications: none. The elected chief disciple will then be sitting in the front row of the discourses that never happen.

Richard: What are simply marvellous idea! May I suggest? Could the draw be held at some particularly delightful restaurant ... like the ‘Pockets’, perhaps? First there could be a sumptuous feast on the balcony overlooking the tropical gardens ... followed by a post-prandial draw over coffee? Any suggestions?

Secondly ... why a draw? Maybe it could be done by vote like the cardinals in the Sistine Chapel? You know, get a bit of ritual going ... smoke up the chimney and all that? And would it be an annual thing? Biannual? How often could we get to dine out on this pretext?

Thirdly ... what badge of office should the chief disciple wear? Not a cloth badge like the Brownies or the Scouts ... maybe a hat? Or – now here’s a thought – why not a baton! The Field Marshals get a baton ... and a real fancy one at that. There may even be a baton lying around here some-place ... it was dropped in a hurry by the previous tenant and never passed on properly. I’ll have a look around and see what I can find, eh? And fourthly ... what are the duties of the chief disciple ... and what are the perks of office? Have you put much thought into all this? Perhaps a director’s meeting is called for?

We have been rather slack about this matter, have we not? Better get our act together ... and PDQ. Richard to Vineeto, 5.12.1998

And here is the acceptance speech from the unanimously elected Chief Disciple himself –

Alan: I am pleased to see the election was fair and democratic – I must have been drunk when I applied and obviously mislaid my voting paper! However as I have been elected, I may as well make a start on laying down some of the rules:

1. The chief disciple does not have to pay for meals and other disciples will regularly invite the chief disciple out for meals, as part of their spiritual growth programme.

2. All meetings with the guru will be arranged only with the permission of the chief disciple.

3. The chief disciple can be bribed to arrange personal meetings with the guru

4. All disciples will indulge the chief disciple’s sexual whims and desires – this is a very necessary lesson in surrender for all disciples.

5. A disciple’s spiritual progress will be directly proportional to the lavishness of the gifts bestowed on the chief disciple – this is important as a lesson in humility and charity.
   Well that seems to be enough for now – almost forgot an important one:

10. The chief disciple cannot be removed from office. Alan, Mon Feb 01 07:40:00 1999 EST

And here is the Edict from the unanimously elected Chief Disciple –

Alan: FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DISCIPLE

It has come to my attention that some members are in grave danger of realising that they are not responsible to anyone else, or for anyone else. Obviously, were this to occur, our whole organization would be in danger of collapse, with the resultant loss of livelihood and perks for myself and the guru. So, after long and hard consideration, I have found it necessary to lay down some ground rules, henceforth to be known as The Ten Commandments. These Commandments have been handed down from a higher power (i.e. my imagination) and compliance with them is therefore mandatory. Failure to obey will result in a life of suffering, misery and torment, the likes of which cannot be imagined. To get an inkling of the misery and torment which awaits find a mirror and place it 12 inches in front of your face.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. There may be more or less than ten commandments, at the Chief Disciple’s discretion.

2. Thou shall have no Gods – full stop. Unless you wish to be stupid, which is of course your right.

3. Thou shall not kill, unless you are willing to run the risk of death or imprisonment, according to local custom.

4. Thou shall not steal without being aware of the possible consequences.

5. Thou shall not commit adultery. If you are going to have sex with someone’s husband or wife, go at it with full gusto. Any notion that it is adultery will severely curtail your enjoyment.

6. Thou shall not covet, for it is such a waste of time.

7. Honour your father and mother if you wish to engage in useless emotional fantasy.

8. –

9. –

10. Thou shall not lie, especially to yourself – what’s the point?

Here endeth the ten commandments, for the time being, anyway. It is likely there will be additions and deletions in future according to my whim and fancy – sorry, I’ll read that again – according to the word of god. Alan, EDICT FROM THE CHIEF DISCIPLE, Fri Feb 05 15:08:02 1999 EST

All suggested changes to this democratically elected hierarchical structure have to be applied to the chief disciple in triplicate.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Design, Richard's & Vineeto’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.