|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Perfection
RESPONDENT: The universe is not predisposed to good or bad ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... what the universe is predisposed to (to use your phraseology) is perfection. RESPONDENT: ... there’s no reason to expect life to be happy. RICHARD: Happiness is not a product of good or bad ... it is inherent to perfection. RESPONDENT: If by perfection you mean ‘lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind’ ... RICHARD: The following exchange perhaps best encapsulates what I mean by perfection in this context:
RESPONDENT: ... why is happiness inherent to perfection? RICHARD: Simply because both the qualities (being pure and pristine) intrinsic to the properties (being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) of that perfection and the values (being benign and benevolent) inherent to those properties and qualities can only have a felicitous (and innocuous) effect ... here in this actual world lies complete felicity (and innocuity). * RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘... All this [an actual perfection and excellence as
in standing unadorned on one’s own and thus being free, clean and fresh; owing nothing to no one and thus being incorruptible and without
perversity; being unpolluted by any alien identity and thus automatically graceful, kindly/ amical, gentle and peaceful] comes as no surprise for
it is what humans have all long suspected to be the case. This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is too big in its grandeur, too
neatly complex in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery. (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#2] RICHARD: Why do you opine that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent as delineated in that quote? RESPONDENT: Why is the physical world ‘too big’, ‘too neatly complex’, and ‘too perfectly organised’ for miserable lives? RICHARD: That succinct sentence came out of a realisation the identity in residence had in 1980 when ‘he’ looked – really looked for the first time – at the natural world and just knew that it, and the universe itself, was not set up (a manner of speaking) for humans to be forever forlorn in, with only scant moments of reprieve, as it was such a truly enormous construct (another manner of speaking), inasmuch that humans with all their massive earth-moving equipment could beaver away industriously forever and a day and not even begin to come near to making a facsimile thereof, that it was not, never had been and never could be, some sick cosmic joke (yet another manner of speaking) which humans all had to endure and make the best of. Viz.:
In other words, it is nonsense to believe in some form of malism – ‘the doctrine that this world is an evil one’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as there is no way that something so big in its grandeur, so neatly complex in its arrangement, and so perfectly organised in its structure, could possibly be but a venue for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery in. RESPONDENT: If misery helped survival, having miserable humans would be blind nature’s perfection. RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you of the school of thought which holds that suffering is good for one? RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘Surely, no one can believe for a moment that it is all
fated to be forever wrong. (...)’. RICHARD: For the very reason which immediately followed on from that sentence you have quoted. Viz.:
Have you never seen the magnificence, to say the least, of this tremendous universe (such that you would be of the opinion it is foolish to have suspected perfection and excellence)? * RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘The reason why I said that [that life is not a random,
chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe] is because it is what materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds – that life
is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#3] RICHARD: As I do not know what [quote] ‘mini-PCE’s’ [endquote] are, be they short or otherwise, I am unable to comment upon your experience of being yet to see – as is readily seen in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – that life is not a chance, random event in an otherwise meaningless universe. RESPONDENT: Can you point me to something? RICHARD: Yes ... but it will require reading the full paragraph which you part-quoted from:
You will see that the entire meaningful/ meaningless and/or purposeful/ purposeless debate revolves around spiritualists contending that their god/ goddess (an immaterial creative being, force, or energy, by whatever name) provides meaning/ purpose and that, because materialists contend there is no such supernatural entity, life then (as a chance, random event in an otherwise empty universe) is a life devoid of meaning/ purpose ... so much so that life without such a god/ goddess is whatever one makes of it. Yet when pressed as to just what meaning/ purpose their god/ goddess provides the spiritualists become remarkably coy (they say that only their supernatural entity really knows and use words like inscrutable, enigmatic, recondite, paradoxical, and so on and so forth, plus further contending that all will be revealed after physical death in some timeless and spaceless and formless realm where all is bright and beautiful) ... so much so that life with such a god/ goddess is, in effect, whatever one makes of it. RESPONDENT: Am I restricting the options when I say that either the universe is meaningless or there was a designer ‘God’ with a meaning in mind? RICHARD: You are not so much restricting yourself (with those meaningful/ purposeful or meaningless/ purposeless options) but are, rather, being sucked into a teleological discussion about a dichotomy which has no existence in actuality ... as is made clear further on in that exchange you part-quoted from:
Which is why I said to you yesterday that I have no interest in getting into a teleological discussion – and that suffice is it to say I only use the term ‘the meaning of life’ (or ‘the purpose of universe’ or ‘the riddle of existence’ or whatever other way one’s quest may be worded) to refer to the where-do-we-come-from/ what-are-we-here-for/ where-are-we-going type of query which is endemic to most, if not all, thinking, reflective beings – as the answer to those types of queries/ quests lies open all about here in this actual world. Needless is it to add that it is an experiential answer (which personal experiencing is the only answer worthy of the name)? * RESPONDENT: What I do understand now is that the universe ‘can be’ felicitous (for all we know). Gone is the block thinking the universe can’t be a happy or perfect one. RICHARD: Good ... we can now revisit your third e-mail in this thread. Viz.:
This is indeed what humans have suspected, in my opinion foolishly.
Are you still of the opinion that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent? RESPONDENT: It is clear to me that the universe is perfect (as are humans in their actual state).... RICHARD: In what way is it clear to you that the universe is perfect ... and what perfect state are you referring to? RESPONDENT: Why does that imply excellence though? RICHARD: As I am not yet cognisant of what way it is clear to you that the universe is perfect/ what perfect state you are referring to I will await your clarification before proceeding. RESPONDENT: What I was really opposing was the statement: ‘This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is *too big* in its grandeur, *too neatly complex* in its arrangement, and *too perfectly organised* in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery’. Most humans have a similar suspicion because of a belief in a god that wouldn’t allow them to suffer forever. What do the size of the universe, its complexity and its organisation have to do with whether or not humans will be eternally doomed to perpetual misery? RICHARD: That succinct sentence came out of a realisation the identity in residence had in 1980 when ‘he’ looked – really looked for the first time – at the natural world and just knew that it, and the universe itself, was not set up (a manner of speaking) for humans to be forever forlorn in, with only scant moments of reprieve, as it was such a truly enormous construct (another manner of speaking), inasmuch that humans with all their massive earth-moving equipment could beaver away industriously forever and a day and not even begin to come near to making a facsimile thereof, that it was not, never had been and never could be, some sick cosmic joke (yet another manner of speaking) which humans all had to endure and make the best of. Viz.:
In other words, it is nonsense to believe in some form of miserabilism RESPONDENT: The view I have is that happiness and all ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings are sourced in the brain ... RICHARD: More specifically ... the affective faculty is the source of all feelings. RESPONDENT: ... while the universe is a perfect but ‘neutral’ one. It seems anthropomorphic to say that happiness – an animal phenomenon – is inherent to perfection. RICHARD: As I have made it abundantly clear, on more than one occasion, that I am not referring to an
affective feeling of happiness, and that to be apperceptive is to be the universe’s experiencing of itself, there is nothing
anthropomorphic about what I have to report/ describe/ explain. RESPONDENT: There are both pleasant and unpleasant qualities for the senses which arise out of the properties of some-thing, some person or some event. Actualism is about being as happy & harmless as one can be, enjoying one’s life here on Earth as much as it is possible, appraising these actual qualities, dismissing the fictional or ‘self’ generated ones and making sensible choices in regard to these qualities. One’s life here consists of meetings with people, partaking in the available pleasures offered by one’s environment and participating in various activities and events. But what if one’s environment is as polluted, as filthy, as ‘hideous’ as one can imagine? Should one get used to it and ‘make the best of a bad situation’ or just leave? RICHARD: The following may be of assistance:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: I ask this as the central point of spirituality is ‘acceptance’ and separation. To be more precise, acceptance in the sense of dissociation: whatever happens ‘I’ cannot be affected by and if I am affected then it is not the real ‘me’ who suffers/ enjoys. So, whatever happens with the world around doesn’t matter to ‘me’, it cannot have a real impact, ‘I’ can only ‘at best’ use it as a ‘shock’ for my spiritual development but I’m not interested in improving or developing my earthly life ... and on the other hand I must not try to change the circumstances as they are given to ‘me’ by God. No wonder these are unliveable teachings. What I want to point out is that actualism is not ‘practice-able’ for a vast majority of people, especially in third world countries, where even the basic body requirements are not met. And even if these requirements are met, the lifestyle of that particular place makes it almost impossible for someone to actually start and do something about their condition. RICHARD: Hmm ... actualism is ‘practice-able’ by anyone, anywhere, anytime, no matter the situation and circumstances (as expressed in the ‘living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are’ phrase you quoted in your previous e-mail). * RESPONDENT: How can one say that a certain wished-for lifestyle (things to do and places to be) is part of somebody’s unique characteristics or bodily wants and not an identity imagined paradise? e.g. somebody likes and is attracted to the misty, cold and snowy Scotland Highlands yet he lives near the tropics or vice-versa. RICHARD: As the entire globe is an actual paradise it is simply a matter of feasibility (availability of water, food, and shelter), ease of lifestyle (access to various creature comforts) and preference (the aesthetic appeal of particular scenic attributes for example) as to which part of paradise one lives in ... speaking personally it is a matter of sensibility to live in a warmer clime, rather than a colder one, and a matter of utility to live in the particular country of which I not only speak the language fluently but am very familiar with the legal laws and social protocols its citizens conduct and comport themselves by. RESPONDENT: ‘Preference (the aesthetic appeal of particular scenic attributes for example)’ – is this akin to enjoying more the sight of a palm tree compared to a pine or that of a mountain compared to a sea-view or the life in a city to that in a village? What’s the difference between ‘aesthetic appeal’ and beauty? Are there any preferences and bodily senses likes/ dislikes that are common to all people and some that are character specific? The website is pleasurable to the eye, all these images of boats, stars, flowers, this is much better than just a black-and-white presentation. Is the website a good example of ‘aesthetic appeal’? RICHARD: I have written on these matters before ... I would suggest accessing this URL: As the exchange extends through three e-mails it is too much to re-post here. RESPONDENT: The proposition of Actualism is that the earth is perfect; despite tornadoes, draughts, the various whims of nature; animals starving, people starving. Its perfect. RICHARD: No, the ‘proposition’ is, rather, that it is possible to experience perfection despite all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on. RESPONDENT: Yet in terms of humans a grave mistake was made and we were given emotions. RICHARD: ‘Twas not a ‘grave mistake’ at all ... it is blind nature’s instinctual survival program that is under investigation (a survival mechanism that was once essential for life in the wild but is now redundant and working against both personal and communal salubrity). RESPONDENT: The whole area of the brain was thereby imperfect and flawed. It needs to be destroyed. Not perfect according to the tenets of Actualism. Am I mistaken? RICHARD: Yes, you are mistaken in your appraisal of what actualism is on about. RESPONDENT: Please correct me if I am. Perhaps I have the meaning of the word perfect wrong? RICHARD: It would appear so. RESPONDENT: You guys are proposing that there is a major imperfection built into the blueprint of humanity! RICHARD: Not at all ... that is what you have made of it. RESPONDENT: I myself use the word perfection very judiciously. Could you please comment on these things? RICHARD: Certainly ... I am speaking of the experience of the perfection of being alive as a flesh and blood body, as
evidenced in a PCE, whereas you are speaking of a perfect physical world (a world without ‘tornadoes, draughts, the various whims of nature;
animals starving, people starving’). RICHARD: When I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day ... and I know that I will wake up to yet another day of perfection. This has been going on, day-after-day, for years now ... it is so ‘normal’ that I take it for granted that there is only perfection. Plus I can easily put it all into words so as to unambiguously share my experience with my fellow human beings. Thus I can easily describe how this already always existing peace-on-earth became apparent: It was through the complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ as an irrevocable event. RESPONDENT: What do you mean by a ‘perfect day’? RICHARD: I mean a faultless day; a flawless day; a spotless day; an impeccable day; an immaculate day; an unflawed day; an unblemished day; an unimpeachable day; an unsullied day; an unfaultable day; an untarnished day; a pure day; a salubrious day; a blameless day; an irreproachable day; an unassailable day; an unadulterated day; an uncontaminated day; an unpolluted day; a clean day; a wholesome day; an innocent day; a guiltless day; an irreprehensible day; an untouched day; an unmodified day; a fresh day; a clear day; a sparkling day; an unsoiled day; a bright day; a new, lucid day; a scintillating day; an original day; a brilliant day; an excellent day; a novel day; a superb day; a wonderful day; a terrific day; a splendid day; a fabulous day; a fantastic day; a marvellous day; an amazing day; a thrilling day and so on. In other words: a magical day. RESPONDENT: Richard, if that [‘an uncontaminated day; an unpolluted day’] really is your definition of a ‘perfect day’ then I can only conclude that have not been living on this planet where there clearly is contamination and pollution. RICHARD: Of course there are two ways to read a paragraph (especially if it is isolated from the thread): the discussion is about consciousness being bereft of the invidious and pernicious identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... and a consciousness ‘unpolluted and uncontaminated’ by any feeling of ‘being’ whatsoever results in a perfect day in a perfect life in a perfect world day-after-day. The physical world is, of course, polluted and contaminated with by-products of both organic nature (bio-mass effluent, animal excrement, decaying bodies and so on) and inorganic nature (volcanoes, wild-fires, sun-spot activity and so on). The human inventiveness and ingeniousness, that has resulted in so many creature comforts, also produces by-products adjudged detrimental to both physical and emotional-mental well-being. In other words: the same azure and verdant planet (the third from the sun) that all we 6.0 billion fellow human beings live on. RESPONDENT: [Rajneesh quote]: ‘There is simply the rose. It is perfect in every moment of its existence’. RICHARD: This is so silly ... only sentient beings have feelings and only humans have thoughts. A rose has no sorrow or malice whatsoever ... nor love and compassion, either. RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Perfection is not a goal; it is already there’. RICHARD: Do you not find it a bit odd that he would say that perfection is ‘there’ ... rather than ‘here’? After all, he did say (further above) that ‘the only way is to be here. You cannot be there’. RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘You are born perfect’. RICHARD: This is a variation on the ‘Tabular Rasa’ theory so beloved of many philosophers down through the ages. It is false, however, as even a cursory study of genetic inheritance quickly demonstrates. RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Only perfection happens in this existence, nothing else’. RICHARD: Then what about all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide? I would not call that perfect ... would you? RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Out of god, how can imperfection happen? Only perfection is possible’. RICHARD: This is so puerile it is not even risible. RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘The idea that you have to be perfect makes you imperfect in the present, because the comparison arises’. RICHARD: May I ask? How does this gobbledegook pass for wisdom? RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘You go on comparing yourself with others. Somebody is more beautiful. Somebody is more intelligent. Somebody is more moral. Somebody is more sincere. Somebody is more healthy. Somebody is stronger. And you are crippled in these comparisons; such a dead weight falls on your head that you cannot move. But you have forgotten one thing – that you are you and you cannot be anybody else. Once you accept the fact that you are you and whatsoever you do you are not going to be anybody else, you are going to remain yourself ... once you accept it, a transfiguration happens’. RICHARD: In 1980 I had a PCE – wherein I experienced life as perfection personified – that lasted for four hours.
Then I reverted to normal. If I had not compared the one with the other I would still be normal today. RICHARD: It is very important to have confidence in your own ability to discriminate between current human knowledge and what you personally know from your own peak experiences. This will give you that optimism that is the ability to plough on regardless of whatever stands in your way until you evoke your destiny. It is not a matter of having faith or believing that it is possible; it is not a matter of trusting or hoping that it will happen to you; it is all to do with the solid knowing, born out of the peak experience, that it is here for you and anyone ... if only you will act upon your knowing. This ‘action’ amounts to – at times – ‘talking yourself into it’, for the other alternative is to let doubt and disbelief and distrust and despair eat away at your resolve. Only you can manifest your own freedom. However, once embarked upon the ‘wide and wondrous path’, you are not on your own: the perfection of the infinitude of this physical universe is with you all the way ... but if you waver, you are indeed on your own. It is a matter of having the courage of your convictions and letting nothing stand in your way; determination and perseverance are the essential prerequisites to ensure success ... coupled with application and diligence. Having the ‘courage of your convictions’ has nothing to do with believing, trusting, hoping or having faith that it be possible. I, for one, never believed, trusted, hoped or had faith that it was possible, for such an action of believing, trusting, hoping and having faith perpetuates the believer, the truster, the hoper and the faithful. On the contrary, I could no longer believe that it was not possible – which is a different action entirely to believing, trusting, hoping and having faith that it is possible – thus dispensing with the believer, the truster, the hoper and the faithful. Do you see this? For example: Doubt is believing it not to be possible ... doubt is actually an action of believing, which supports the believer. Faith is believing that it is possible ... which also supports the believer ... and thus, either way, the believer pushes freedom away into an ever elusive future. All this stemmed from my peak experience in which I experienced the purity and the perfection of life itself – here and now – and thus saw that what others had perceived as being our reward after physical death already existed ... at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus I ceased believing that life on earth was a grim business with only scant moments of reprieve ... yet I did not start believing in perfection. To repeat: I stopped believing, period. All sorrow and malice stems from the activity of believing ... which arises from the believer. ‘I’, as a psychological entity, can only believe – or disbelieve – in possibilities and impossibilities. In the peak experience ‘I’ temporarily abdicated the throne and I knew, by direct experience, that freedom was already actual. It was ‘I’ that was the problem, not the absence of perfection. When ‘I’ ceased to be, perfection became, as always, apparent. By believing perfection to be possible ‘I’ perpetuate ‘myself’. ‘I’, by ‘my’ very presence, inhibit that splendid perfection becoming apparent. Perfection is already always here. Yet ‘I’, by believing in a remembered perfection, chase an ever-elusive chimera into an ever-receding future. Thus one stands still and does nothing but watch the dust settle all around ... and perfection, which is only of the moment, becomes apparent. ‘I’ have ceased to be. By ‘doing nothing’ I mean neither believing nor disbelieving; neither having faith nor having doubt; neither trusting nor distrusting; neither hoping nor despairing. In short, one’s superb confidence and overweening optimism precipitates ‘my’ demise ... ‘I’ do not make freedom happen ... ‘I’ allow the universe to ‘disappear’ the ‘me’ that I was ... and perfection has become apparent. ‘I’ did not invoke perfection, for it already is here ... and it is here now, not off into the future. It may have taken some time to eventuate, as ‘I’ got whittled away, yet when that time came, it was already here ... because it is always now. To sum up: ‘I’ do not make perfection happen because it is already always here. What ‘I’ do is to ‘stand still’ and unreservedly allow ‘my’ eventual demise to occur. To do this, ‘I’ cease believing, hoping, trusting and having faith ... without falling into disbelief, despair, distrust or doubt. ‘I’, having the courage of ‘my’ convictions – which is the confidence born out of the solid knowing as evidenced in the peak experience – thus developing a superb confidence and an overweening optimism. Thus nothing can stand in ‘my’ way in this, the adventure of a life-time. It is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee ... but pure intent, born out of the connection between one’s inherent naiveté and the perfection of the infinitude of this physical universe, will provide one with the necessary intestinal fortitude. Private Correspondence RICHARD: Actual perfection and excellence can best be described as being organic in the sensate meaning of the word ... it differs from Classical and Romantic perfection and excellence in that it is not an invention. It is not a product of the culturally programmed mind and heart. The trees, the flowers, a sunset or a sunrise, the stars in the night sky, and so on, all convey the flavour of it ... unless beauty obscures clarity Actual perfection and excellence is what is already here – when the false is stripped away – without striving for The True. It exists of its own accord and has always been harmless. It is authentic – self-generating – and thus requires no extraneous support. With one’s mind no longer trapped by the heart’s longings and the mind’s beliefs, it is a sensual delight to walk freely in this, the actual world. This actual – this sensate and organic – experience of being here now, living my life so happily and harmlessly, remains unsurpassed in the annals of the history of humankind ... and I am sitting here, watching television. The wind rattles the windows, the rain beats against the glass. All is snug and cosy as I sit at ease, watching the comedy come to an end. The studio audience laugh uproariously at the last mother-in-law joke and the scene fades as the credits appear on the screen. It is all so pathetic, actually, to be caught up in the socialised world of ‘human’ one-upmanship. It is an abysmal state of affairs to be ‘me’, living in the real world. Especially when this, the actual world, is right here under one’s nose, as it were, just waiting to be discovered. Nobody has to create this actual world, as people do when they ‘realise’ the Divine World. The Divine World is an archetype buried deep in the Collective Unconscious, and has beguiled humankind for aeons. It promises Deliverance but never produces the desired and promised result ... Peace On Earth. Actualism does not promise … it delivers a virtual freedom. Then one has a distinct opportunity of becoming actually free. One of the charming characteristics of actual freedom – apart from the highly desirable perfection and excellence – is the instant bestowal of universal peace upon the one who dares to be me. With peace comes benignity and benevolence. I simply have no desire, no urge, no compulsion – and no need – to hurt the other, or anyone else. I have discovered that it is possible to be free. I have found the joy of being me. Freed by pure intent from the very necessary social constraints – designed to control a wayward ego and a compliant soul – I can have generosity of character without striving. Pleasingly, I can take no credit for being kind, for it comes automatically. Thus I do not suffer from hubris, with its consequential need for practising humility. Altogether, it is an entirely new way of living, never before discovered, never before spoken of. It was sitting here, all of this time. My life is now carefree ... and full of genuine fun. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Twelve KONRAD: And since the essential nature of existence is a movement from indeterminateness to determinateness, or, to say it in other words, the emergence of information, this causes a mind who goes into that to absorb every form of information that exists. RICHARD: If you say so, Konrad ... but that is not my experience. Existence is already always perfect as-it-is and is
not moving from ‘indeterminateness to determinateness’ at all. Also, I only gather enough information to suit my requirements ... like
writing to a logician, for example. I have no intention of spending years studying logic ... male logic is as useless as female intuition when it
comes to uncovering the ‘mystery of life’. The only understanding worthy of the name is an experiential understanding ... which means actually
living what is being spoken each moment again. JAMES: Yes, two things stand out: pure intent and don’t possess it. I am looking at pure intent to see if I have it and I am on guard to not pursue it or possess it. RICHARD: You say that ‘two things stand out’ ... yet you slip in a third thing as if I had said it (‘to not pursue it’) when it is really ‘ancient wisdom’ that promotes that view. Speaking personally, the ‘I’ that was pursued it like ‘he’ had never pursued anything before ... ‘he’ made it the number one priority in ‘his’ life. ‘He’ was a married man, with four children, running ‘his’ own business, with a house mortgage to pay off and a car on hire purchase ... in other words: normal. And all the while that ‘he’ pursued it, ‘he’ was working twelve-fourteen hour days, six-seven days a week ... yet ‘his’ pursuit of peace-on-earth took absolute precedence over all other matters and dominated ‘his’ every moment (‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’). RESPONDENT No. 3: Eido Rochi of Dai Bosatsu Zendo once said to us (mid 80s) that if we want enlightenment, we must want it as a drowning man wants air; that the closer we come to it, the more compelling it will be, of itself. JAMES: I experienced the actual today and it is so clear that it is always right here right now because it is what actually is. The closest description I can give is that it was a direct experience of everything as it was happening. Everything was perfect as it is and I was where I should be. There was perfect clarity. RICHARD: Excellent ... I take particular note of where you say ‘everything was perfect as it is and I was where I
should be’ because it indicates that perfection is already always here at this place in space at this moment in time ... it is, as it always
has been, already consummate. Which means, peace-on-earth already is here – here in this actual world – and no one needs to invent it. It is
all a matter of entering into it; enabling it to become apparent; allowing it to emerge; watching it unfold; giving oneself permission to have it
happen ... or whatever description. Everyone is either rushing about trying to make an imitation peace (either the secular ‘peace-time’ truce
between warring parties or the spurious supernatural after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’) ... or sitting back moaning and
groaning about the inequity of it all. Nobody has devised, concocted or contrived this peace-on-earth ... it was already here as it always has been
and always will be. RESPONDENT: What is happening right now is second-best as compared to what? RICHARD: The pristine perfection of the PCE. RESPONDENT: Pristine perfection is an illusion. RICHARD: Okay ... yet as there is no lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity (who born of the
instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire and who is epitomised by malice and sorrow and the antidotal love and compassion) here in
this actual world, then if the pristine perfection I am living in is the illusion that you say it is, it is infinitely superior to the illusion
that 6.0 billion people say they are living in. RESPONDENT No. 27: Maybe you can use this post as another attempt to flog a dead horse. RICHARD: No thank you ... because you have closed the door on the possibility of perfection and
peace-on-earth when you write: ‘Enlightenment can only be from moment to moment. Which does not imply that because one moment
was clear, that the next moment will be clear’. RESPONDENT: What do we do with that state of perfection that No. 27 is alleged to ignore? RICHARD: Enjoy it, of course. Delight in being here doing this business called being alive. Luxuriate in the pleasure of doing it now. Drink in the nectar of being here at this moment in time and this place in space and breathe the ambrosial air of peace and harmony. RESPONDENT: Is this goal that you are aiming for is likely to be of any use? If so, how? RICHARD: The goal is that you will become happy and harmless. The goal is that you will be free of sorrow and malice. The goal is that you will become blithesome and benign. The goal is that you will be free of fear and aggression. The goal is that you will become carefree and considerate. The goal is that you will be free from nurture and desire. The goal is that you will become gay and benevolent. The goal is that you will be free from anguish and animosity. The goal is that, by being free of the Human Condition you will experience peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body. And you ask: ‘Is this any use’ ? I would say yes, most definitely it is useful. It means the end of all the wars, the murders, the tortures, the rapes, the domestic violence, the corruptions, the sadness, the loneliness, the sorrows, the depressions and the suicides. Then we can truly work together to turn this earth into a paradise garden. RESPONDENT: What would you do with it if you are as perfect as you wished to be and the rest of the universe continues to be neither perfect nor imperfect? RICHARD: The universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect. The infinitude of this physical universe, being all that there is, has no opposite ... and that which has no beginning or end is perfect. RESPONDENT: How would you exist? RICHARD: That is just it ... there is no egoistic ‘I’ here. Nor an affective ‘me’. Psychological death and psychic extinction are the only doorways to an actual freedom. RESPONDENT: If ‘peace-on-earth’ has never been achieved, what does then give you this understanding that with your perfection ‘peace’ will begin to unfold? RICHARD: Global peace can only come about when there are five point eight billion individual ‘outbreaks’ of peace-on-earth. Do not hold your breath waiting for global peace. RESPONDENT: Isn’t that another wishful thinking? Another concept like ‘perfection’? Another goal? RICHARD: If you do not want peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this body ... then you will never get it. Please, whatever you do, throw faith, belief, trust and hope right out of the window ... along with doubt, disbelief, distrust and despair ... and go for the actuality of peace and perfection ‘boots and all’. Use all of your determination – gather up all the intent you can muster and more – and jump in the deep end without a life-jacket. Desire it like you have never desired anything before. RESPONDENT: Are you perfect? If not, how would you ever know what perfection is, what perfection can or cannot do, what it is good for? RICHARD: Perfection can be found via the pure consciousness experience (PCE) which happens during a peak experience ... which all humans have had at some stage in their life. A peak experience is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’, temporarily, and this moment is. Everything is seen and understood to be already always perfect as-it-is. Perfection can thus be known by anyone with apperceptive awareness ... which is this body being conscious without an ‘I’ in any way, shape or form. It is just that most people either forget about their PCE – for there is no emotional ‘I’ present to record the moment on its affective ‘tape-recorder’ – or they interpret the experience according to their culture’s icons. Apperception has a global occurrence ... it is universal in its scope. The freedom of enlightenment is not an actual freedom ... it is a solution found within the human condition, for there is still an identity; be it as a self or a being or a presence or a spirit. Speaking personally, I am none of these ... I am this body being apperceptively aware. An actual freedom means freedom from the human condition. This what I experience twenty four hours a day is the same as is experienced in a PCE. This is the perfection and the purity of the infinitude of this physical universe personified. I am the universe – this material universe – experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. This is the on-going experience that is ambrosial. RESPONDENT: If you are perfect, why do we still lack this state of ‘peace-on-earth’? RICHARD: Because – I presume – people lack the gumption to proceed poste-haste to their destiny. ‘I’ saw perfect purity and peace-on-earth and ‘I’ went for it boots and all ... the requisite intestinal fortitude came to ‘me’ along the way. RESPONDENT: What are you waiting for? RICHARD: Once again, speaking personally, I am not waiting for anything. Everything I could wish for – and more – is already always here. What are you waiting for? * RESPONDENT: You say: ‘The universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect’. If so, what is your problem? Don’t you trust existence? RICHARD: No. ‘Existence’ (a nom de guerre for God) is notoriously untrustworthy. I can rely totally on this universe, however, because it is physical ... whereas ‘Existence’ is metaphysical. RESPONDENT: How could that which is always perfect can ever become imperfect? And if it is really perfect as an ensemble with all in it, you too are already perfect. You cannot be imperfect and the universe would continue in its merry way in its state of perfection, can it? Either the existence is ever ‘perfect’ or it is not. The existence didn’t knock on your door and told you that it was imperfect – but you, the observer, put this label on the existence based on what you see. You are so disturbed by the existence that you think you could change its state by ‘doing’ something about it. Could it be that this sense of mitigation that you carry on your shoulder may be the root cause for what you observe? You really don’t believe the existence to be ever perfect because you are always attempting to mend it. So out of this conflict arise murder, mayhem, rapes, indifference, the chaos all around you and you become more riled up, become more intense for perfection which no one ever denied you. Instead of trusting the existence to take care of it, you are taking charge to mitigate it and thereby causing more chaos. RICHARD: Wow, what a mouthful ... look, what happened was that ‘I’ disappeared and I found myself here in this already existing peace-on-earth. It is not as complicated as you make it out to be, above. You are trying to understand the ‘riddle of life’ whilst remaining in existence as a ‘being’. It is only when ‘I’ become extinct that the actual becomes apparent ... permanently. It can be glimpsed in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Instead of formulating theories, just go for it. You can make up a story about it afterwards. RICHARD: The thinker is forever divided from ‘the fullness of that’ ... the thinker is false, an illusion. The only constructive thing the thinker can do is allow itself to be disappeared (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). RESPONDENT: Yes, but do you think that such an occurrence is the result of a direct action by thought (‘allowing itself to disappear’), or is it triggered by the proactive perception of that fullness? RICHARD: It is the result of a ‘direct action by thought’ inasmuch as it is the thinker thinking a seminal thought which is directly inspired by the ‘perception of that fullness’ (and not through reading about it). That inspired thought which the thinker thinks is the very thought that paves the way for such an occurrence. To wit: ‘I’, the thinker, joyfully agree 100% to allowing ‘myself’ to be ‘taken away by the utter fullness of it!’ . It is a conscious decision. RESPONDENT: So the thinker can align/ be in harmony with that. That is so simple. And here ‘I’ was looking for a situation where the thinker was at odds with harmony, hence my predicament. You seem to be pointing to the actual possibility for order, yes? RICHARD: Yes ... order is concordance. Now that ‘I’ know, via direct experience, that ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection ... then the only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). So when ‘I’ ask (as an open question) ‘what am I here for?’ ... the essential character of the perfection of the infinitude of this universe which born me, is living me and will die me in due course, is enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. ‘I’ give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) ... and let go the controls. * RESPONDENT: It is like thought casts a one dimensional shadow over the much fuller than 3-D actual universe. RICHARD: Yet when the thinker is not ... much fuller than 3-D thought is free to operate episodically as required by the circumstances. RESPONDENT: Even then thought is limited, is it not, though there is no division between it and the unlimited fullness of that? RICHARD: Thought is functional (operating in the domain of making sense of what is happening and in the area of commonsense cause and effect) ... if that is what you mean by ‘limited’? When ‘the unlimited fullness of that’ is allowed free rein thought functions at its optimum ... a much fuller than 3-D thought. Thoughts are sparkling ... coruscating. RESPONDENT: Infused/ steeped/ in harmony with – the fullness that is, eh? RICHARD: Oh yes ... fully immersed in an amazing, marvellous, wondrous and magical happening: the meaning of life is
brilliantly obvious all around and throughout. RESPONDENT: The state that I name ‘stasis’ if you allow me, as ‘perfect’? RICHARD: Sure ... although most people I have used the word ‘stasis’ with, as being a word describing the motile equanimity that ensues in arriving at perfection, initially comprehend ‘stasis’ as being either a static equipollence or a stagnant immobility ... rather the dynamic, scintillating vitality of the perfection wherein everything is the vivid, sparkling and lustrous purity that is coming from nowhere nor going anywhere. Consequently I rarely, if ever, use the word ... too much explaining involved. RESPONDENT: I think I understand this. And I agree. But do you believe that at the level of human beings lives, this equilibrium is altered, or do you find it as much perfect? RICHARD: The people I meet face-to-face and the people I read about in books, journals, newspapers, magazines and the people I watch on films, TV, videos and so on all report, in one way or another, that they do not experience their own life, or the lives of others and life in general, as being perfect. Whereas every body (and I do mean ‘body’) is already walking around in paradise ... which is why I advise people to come to their senses (both figuratively and literally). * RESPONDENT: If I am not wrong due to physics the world is going toward an atrophy. Disorder. You perceive what is and call it perfect. RICHARD: In physics, atrophy applies only in a closed system, whereas this universe is perpetually arranging and
rearranging itself in myriads of countless form (nebulae, stars, planets and so on) all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the
limitless extent of eternal time. This infinitude is perfection (infinitude has no opposite) and as infinitude cannot atrophy (infinitude is
perpetuus mobilis) there is no disorder whatsoever. RICHARD: I never have private thoughts about these matters discussed here ... I take the pristine perfection of this already always existing peace-on-earth for granted. RESPONDENT: What do you mean by never having private thoughts? RICHARD: For large chunks of my daily life there is no thought, thoughts or thinking at all ... thought, thoughts or thinking only happens, episodically, as required by the circumstances (such as writing this sentence) and ceases happening as soon as the sentence is written. What the other person has to say initiates thought, thoughts or thinking about these matters ... it is their interest that occasions these words. RESPONDENT: Or that you take it for granted? RICHARD: Just like I take gravity, for an example, for granted ... it is commonplace; it is the norm; it is the given;
it is the status-quo; it is what is already always happening. RESPONDENT: OSHO’s perspective is valuable to me; as is Veeresh’s and Krishnamurti’s (sic) and Raman Maharshi’s, and Hellmut wolf’s and yours Richard. Please hear that. RICHARD: I have been hearing you all along. RESPONDENT: I attack you because you deride and negate and slander against the names of people ... RICHARD: Where is the ‘slander’ ? The saints and sages and seers are hanging themselves by their own words as I always provide annotated quotes from accredited sources. For example, perfection is not possible here on earth, according to one self-acknowledged enlightened master:
And thus all over the world sannyasins, ex-sannyasins, non-sannyasins, friends of osho, or whatever name they go by these days, are dutifully loving their imperfections, rejoicing in their imperfections ... and sitting in cafes, for example, telling their fellow human beings to ‘fuck off’. Viz.:
This reality is in marked contrast to your recently stated idealism. Viz.:
As these are your very own words that are hanging you I again ask: where is the ‘slander’? RESPONDENT № 4: I actually do have an active connection to pure intent ... RICHARD: A rule-of-the-thumb check as to whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is of the
quality of the consummate nature inherent to pure intent, as reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site Viz.:
In other words, it is the consummate nature (i.e., the impeccable quality) of the overarching benevolence and benignity inherent to the utter purity of the pristine perfection welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude which informs, experientially, that a global spread of this completely original consciousness (a totally new way of being conscious) would, ipso facto, be both a non-destructive and non-disruptive transition. Furthermore, there would also be the capacity at-that-moment to similarly apprehend, experientially, how it can now be said
– as I happened to mention on a couple of occasions during the pre-arranged foregathering here, earlier this year, of half-a-dozen subscribers to
this forum – that due to the overarching benevolence and benignity being demonstrably available immanently In general, however, the usual way of verifying whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is indeed pure
intent as reported/ described/ explained is to find oneself being sincerely naïve, at the very least, if not to be naïveté itself (i.e.,
naïveté embodied as ‘me’) – and to be naïveté itself is to be the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’
(innocence is where ‘self’ is not) whereby one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness, sweetness and togetherness, closeness
– whereupon one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement, simply marvelling at the magnificence of this physical
universe’s absoluteness and delighting in its beneficence, its largesse, as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous), with a
blitheness and a gaiety yet with adult sensibilities (whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable), such
that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure planet actually is, becoming ever-so-sweetly apparent is
almost always imminent. RICHARD: “(...). The ultimate source of an actualist’s pure intent is, of course, the pristine purity of the
innocence which prevails in the pure consciousness experience (PCE). For those who are unable to recall/ unable to trigger a PCE there is the
near-purity of the sincerity !Open Sesame! Incidentally, just before/ just as the PCE starts to wear off, if one unravels (metaphorically) a ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’ At least, that is the way it worked for the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, inasmuch ‘his’
recall of PCE’s was a naïve remembrance [i.e., rememoration Being a ‘fatal attraction’, so to speak, it rendered the entire process virtually effortless”.
[emphasis added].
JAMES: Does the experiencing of the vastness and stillness of the universe bring on the ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ which then brings on the ‘sweetness’? Iow, does ‘experiencing the vastness and stillness’ of the universe come first? RICHARD: G’day James, My response (above) was both in the context of your query as to whether a PCE is necessary for pure intent and your follow-up explanation to [No. 24] (Richard, List D, No. 24, 23 January 2012) about the last paragraph of ‘Addendum No. 7’ (that to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent). Prior to the physical death of my second wife (de jure) Devika/ Irene a PCE was indeed necessary for pure intent; since then it has no longer been a vital factor in the process of becoming actually free of the instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof as the impenetrable psychic force-field which Devika had established to protect Richard from other people, and which Irene had transmuted into protecting other people from Richard, is no longer in existence (in existence psychically, that is, in the real-world). Consequentially, that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’, which the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood
body all those years ago experienced [via a PCE] and named ‘pure intent’, became It was also accessible at-a-distance (hence the thirty-day trial at that time), as a rather remarkable man on another continent has amply demonstrated, and has been described by him upon meeting in person as a ‘gentle energy’ and a ‘harmless energy’ which is ‘emanating all around (not directional, like a guru to a devotee, and not at all coarse)’. Thus to answer your first question: the direct (as in, immediate or unmediated) experiencing of the vast stillness of this physical universe’s infinitude – where the word stillness refers to there being no movement of time whatsoever (as in ‘this moment has no duration’) – is the way in which the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago became consciously aware of pure intent [via a PCE] because, back in those days, there had not yet been someone of sufficient naïveté to enable that immaculate perfection to become purity personified. Which means that, these days, when that ‘palpable sweetness’ (for instance) is experienced it is that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ being experienced, by virtue of that immaculate perfection having become manifest in the everyday world as a flesh-and-blood body only, as they are both one and the same thing in essence. Thus to answer your second question: it is the experiencing of that ‘palpable sweetness’ (for instance) which comes first. * JAMES: My understanding of this is that pure intent is the connection to the perfection and purity. Pure intent is not the perfection and purity. RICHARD: G’day James, (I re-inserted the text you quoted back into its context, above, simply for ease of reference and with your selection highlighted). As I have previously likened the connection, betwixt naïve intimacy and that benedictive perfection and purity, to a
metaphorical ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’ – which I both commented on (parenthetically) and quoted in this very email you are responding to
– does it not strike you as a trifle odd, upon considered reflection, that the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago
(who coined that term) would call an allegorical ball of yarn In other words, and keeping with the allegory for the nonce, unless that ‘clew’ be imbued/ suffused with the overarching benevolence and benignity (i.e., pure intent) it will remain but a lowly ball of yarn and etcetera and not attain to the status of ‘golden thread’. Put simply, it may be as much a function of the way sentences are structured – containing as they do both a grammatical subject and object with various types of joining words betwixt the two – that it apparently can be read by some peoples as if it be the connective (i.e., “a thing that connects” ~ Collins English Dictionary) which is the pure intent. JAMES: Others here seem to be misinterpreting this and saying that pure intent is perfection and purity. Am I correct about this? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: to be connected to the perfection and purity, which is the essential
character of the universe itself, by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naïveté – as that 1998 online extract And, as that extract goes on to convey, it is that benedictive perfection and purity which endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society, without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience (being thus reliably rendered virtually innocent and relatively harmless by the continuance of that benefactive pure intent), in a way in which intellection/ mentation/ cerebration can never effect ... namely: experientially. In other words, the living experience, the moment-to-moment experiential ‘tapping-into’ or ‘locking-onto’ the pristine purity of an actual innocence – which the flesh-and-blood body known generically as James (albeit forever invisible to feeling-being ‘[James’ Nickname]’ and all ‘his’ feeling-being interlocutors) is already living anyway – is to be ‘tapping-into’ or ‘locking-onto’ that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, already personified as flesh-and-blood bodies only (i.e., sans identities in toto/ their entire affective faculties) in actuality. Viz.:
The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust expressed it all quite succinctly, in the following manner several years ago, when
it became known that a certain closet-spiritualist who, having taken the connective (i.e., the thing that connects) to be pure intent, had publicly
declared to all and sundry on the ...um... the Drama Overboard phantasy-phoresy Ha ... ‘tis just as well pure intent itself forfends that scenario ever coming to pass, eh? * Simply as a matter of chronologically-related interest: as that 1998 online extract, in the now much further above Footnote
№ 4 The reason why I mention these dates is because, on page 38, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 1st. Ed. (page 40, 2nd. Ed.), in
Article 4, ‘Pure Intent produces Total Dedication’, the following text appears (written two years earlier in late 1994).
Thus up-front and out-in-the-open as soon as the term pure intent is introduced it is defined thataway. Then, shortly afterwards on page 55, 1st. Ed. (page 57, 2nd. Ed.), in Article 7, ‘The Social Identity is a Belief not a Fact’, the following text appears. Viz.:
All-up there are eleven reports/ descriptions/ explanations as to what pure intent is And, as a related addendum, so as to assist in ‘joining the dots’: around 16 months or so after Devika (my de jure second wife) transmogrified into Irene (since deceased, leaving me a widower; nowadays a widower twice-over) she commenced a brief email exchange with feeling-being ‘Peter’ and feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ and I responded to the sections they either did not know the day-to-day truth of or, at that stage, have the requisite on-going experiential knowledge of (such as what extended and full-blown PCE’s provide). The following section is particularly apposite in regards the key to success in attaining an out-from-control/
different-way-of-being virtual freedom
To summarise: perhaps if you were to think of pure intent as being both (simultaneously) the palpable life-force and that
(experiential) “state of being connected” it might make more sense, to start off with, as the experience is of them being
one-and-the-same-thing ... to wit: an indistinguishable composite; as in, no such grammatically-induced subject-object connective
dichotomy. CLAUDIU: [...]. Another related thing i’m not sure of is from the transcript of one of the audio taped dialogues. On a phone now so no link handy. But Richard was saying how the nature of infinitude is that it is always here and now. Thus to be here now is to be everywhere at once. I’m not sure what to make of this ‘everywhere’. China for example is pretty far away so how can I be in China if I am here? It makes sense that on the way to china I would also be here. But not that everywhere at once includes china right now. This train of thought already seems silly as I’m typing it out but I’m left without an answer. Ah well! Something to reflect on next PCE. [...]. RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, You are, presumably, referring to this:
It is better explained in ‘Richard’s Journal’. Viz.:
Thus if you think of it, initially, as the vast stillness which is ‘everywhere all at once’ (as in, there is no centre to physical infinitude) then, when following a train of thought about the audio-taped dialogue regarding the actual experiencing of that vast stillness – where matter-as-energy is the source of everything apparent (i.e., matter-as-mass) – as being a flesh-and-blood body’s essential disposition it will make more sense. Incidentally, Vineeto affirmed this experience of being, in essence, that vast stillness in another way, during the period in which she was becoming essentially the same as me (how I have been, on my own, all these years), inasmuch she was able to detect four distinct properties of that ‘everywhere all at once’ matter-as-energy source ... to wit: ageless, genderless, shapeless, and limitless. Here, in part, is how she wrote about it in an email to another back in February 2011:
Thus, whenever we interacted intensively over the months after writing that, she inexorably came ever-closer to experiencing herself as each of those four distinct properties, one after the other, until only the last one – being limitless as an actuality – remained unconsummated. And that is what took place between 3:30 and 4:00 AM, on the 28th August, 2011, which I wrote to you about in February last year on this forum. Viz.:
Interestingly enough, nerve impulses, more technically called ‘action potentials Also, speaking of ‘matter-as-energy’, a ‘magnetic field’, an ‘electric current’, and ‘very strong electric forces within the cell membrane’ (aka ‘action potentials’) I am reminded of having written the following brief note back in 2004:
This is all such fun!
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The
Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
