Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: Okay, I will go in the other direction then. Love – both secular and sacred – has been revered as the ‘cure-all’ for just about everything. So why has it not done its job? To understand this, one needs to comprehend that for love to exist at all there must be separation between ‘me’ and the person, the persons, the object or the god that ‘I’ am to love. Not for nothing is the statement ‘Love is a bridge’ promoted abroad for all and sundry to take in. My question is: A ‘bridge’ between what two shores? Who are the two ‘I’s that are separate? Do ‘I’ exist, actually exist? ‘I’ may be real, but am ‘I’ actual? If ‘I’ am an illusion then any ‘bridge’ will only reinforce ‘my’ existence ... my very real existence. If a person is said to be ‘egotistic’ or ‘ego-driven’, then a goodly dose of love is advised to ameliorate the phenomenon. Yet the persona is still in existence ... a loving and lovable persona, of course, but still here. ‘I’ am the ‘spanner in the works’ and to cover my ‘self’ over with a coating of love is to gild the lily. ‘I’ still lurk around, shielded now by love, wreaking my mischief in disguise.

Also, intrinsic to the nature of love is its – always unfulfilled – promise of eternity. One’s life here is here on earth now ... what use is a spurious Eternal Bliss in some conjectured After-Life? Love has produced wars, murders, rapes and aggression since time immemorial ... it staggers me that it still retains its credibility. To kill for ‘Love of Country’ or ‘Love of God’ is surely proof enough for any discerning person. Then there are those ‘Crimes of Passion’ that are brought about by love’s constant companions: possessiveness, jealousy and envy. If these examples are considered too extreme then what about the heartache, the longing, the pining and the yearning that all peoples report as accompanying love’s bliss? This leads to the search for True Love which, supposedly, does not induce these unpleasant characteristics so common to everybody’s experience of love. True Love is simply a fiction ... it is impossible to manifest it here on earth, hence the notion of an After-Life to encompass it. To repeat: Love never delivers on its implied promise. It never has done nor ever will. Its days are numbered, as more and more people are beginning to notice that love itself – not the sensate human body – is failing to live up to its ill-deserved curative reputation again and again.

*

RESPONDENT: One who tried and failed to discover Love has said that love has failed.

RICHARD: Oh really? Who was that fool? Was it someone on this List?

RESPONDENT: Someone ... has said that love has failed because hundreds (thousands?) (millions?) of ‘seekers’ have failed to find a certain state they were looking for, which they titled ‘love’. Of course, they did not find love because a self cannot find love.

RICHARD: Then there is not much chance that all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides will ever cease then is there? They will go on and on ad infinitum unless these ‘seekers’ can begin to understand that love perpetuates all the ills of humankind and stop seeking what you say is impossible to find (only .000001 of the population reach these lofty heights anyway) and start looking for the cause of the problem rather than being seduced into a band-aid solution that just does not work.

RESPONDENT: They can find actuality, and it is a good bet that in that actuality there will no be love.

RICHARD: I can assure you that there is no love in actuality ... it is more than a ‘good bet’. This is because the soul ‘me’ must expire for actuality to become apparent ... and this soul ‘me’ is love.

RESPONDENT: Because one can neither ‘find’ nor ‘try’ Love. Love comes of its volition, not because one has sought after it.

RICHARD: Yea verily ... and, as I have said before, it has come to only .000001 of the population. Hardly a recipe for success, now, is it?

RESPONDENT: Richard, it is not love that failed, it was the ones looking for love who failed.

RICHARD: How can you possibly know this as a fact? Is this your experience talking ... or just something that you have read somewhere and are parroting for my benefit.

RESPONDENT: Only one who vows that he knows even the unknowable would state that there is no such thing as Love if he himself had looked and failed to find it.

RICHARD: Who is this ‘one’ that you are referring to again? No one called Richard has said that ‘there is no such thing as Love’. Speaking personally, I am on record as saying, over and over again, that Love is a feeling – born out of the affective faculties of the psyche – and is very real. It is not actual, like a human body is, or a tree, or an ashtray, but it is very, very real indeed. Why, it is as real as god is.

RESPONDENT: The fact that this person never found Love doesn’t mean that love was ‘tried’. It has never been tried because it was never found and never will be.

RICHARD: I wonder just who ‘this person’ is? Speaking personally again, for eleven years, when there was no ‘I’ as ego in this body, Love lived on earth as a human being. However, the native intelligence of this body operated well enough to find the Source of Love. Lo and behold! it was ‘me’ as soul ... coyly hiding in the heart and being as humble as all get-out in the hope that it would remain undiscovered. This exposure was the ending of ‘me’ ... and Love disappeared simultaneously. So did the Absolute. Instantaneously, I was here in this actual world ... this ambrosial paradise.

RESPONDENT: I have looked under just as many rocks as you, Richard, but the rocks I have looked under were the rocks of the self ... it is not there. If it’s not under my individual rock, it certainly isn’t under other’s rocks, either – the holy, enlightened men whom you have read and remember with such conformity to correctness.

RICHARD: Then if ‘the holy, enlightened men’ have never lived as Love then who has? Or are you – like another person – now saying that Love has never been on earth yet?

RESPONDENT: Love is not anywhere to be found. It is a game of hide and seek where Love is the only player.

RICHARD: This must be so frustrating for you.

RESPONDENT: In the first paragraph of the introduction is the line: ‘No-one dares to question the Teaching itself’. What do you mean by that, exactly? Do you mean to examine Love or Compassion or The Truth, etc.? The really tricky one to examine of all of these is ‘The Truth’ ... not to speak of ‘No-Mind’, ‘The Void’, ‘Emptiness’, ‘Silence’, ‘That’, etc. How would you suggest questioning their Teachings, specifically?

RICHARD: The Teachings themselves definitely need to be questioned – and questioned thoroughly. Even a brief study of history would show that the Teachings – which have been around for at least three thousand years – simply have not worked. There is as much war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption now as then. If Love Agapé and Divine Compassion are going to ‘fix things up’ then the question needs to be asked: Why is it taking so long? Is not three thousand plus years long enough to test the efficacy of these Divine solutions to humankind’s plight? The proof of anything lies in the practical working out of it physically, here on earth. It is of no use to propose that fulfilment lies only on the other side of physical death ... there is simply no way to verify this. I have always been concerned about our lot here on earth and am only interested in a practical solution to the Human Condition. How many millions of well-meaning peoples have assiduously put these Teachings into practice only to fail – and then blame themselves for not ‘doing them properly’? I maintain that they have indeed ‘done them properly’ and that it is the Teachings that are lacking, not the diligent devotees. Of course, there are many, many disciples who do not pursue their Spiritual Practice with sufficient diligence, but to suggest that everybody who has ever lived, and those who are still living, are all lazy when it comes to putting the Teachings into practice is stretching credulity too much. Therefore it behoves one to question ... and question deeply.

(i) Love: Love – both secular and divine – has been revered as the ‘cure-all’ for just about everything. So why has it not done its job? To understand this, one needs to comprehend that for love to exist at all there must be separation between ‘me’ and the person, the persons, the object or the god that ‘I’ am to love. Not for nothing is the statement ‘Love is a bridge’ promoted abroad for all and sundry to take in. My question is: A ‘bridge’ between what two shores? Who are the two ‘I’s that are separate? Do ‘I’ exist, actually exist? ‘I’ may be real, but am ‘I’ actual? If ‘I’ am an illusion then any ‘bridge’ will only reinforce ‘my’ existence ... my very ‘real’ existence. If a person is said to be ‘egotistic’ or ‘ego-driven’, then a goodly dose of love is advised to ameliorate the phenomenon. Yet the persona – the identity, the self – is still in existence ... a loving and lovable persona, of course, but still here. ‘I’ am the ‘spanner in the works’ and to cover my ‘self’ over with a coating of love is to gild the lily. ‘I’ still lurk around, shielded now by love, wreaking my mischief in disguise.

Also, intrinsic to the nature of love is its – always unfulfilled – promise of eternity. Our life here on earth has a time-span, so what use is a spurious Eternal Bliss in some conjectured After-Life? Love has produced wars, murders, rapes and violence since time immemorial ... it staggers me that it still retains its credibility. To kill for ‘Love of Country’ or ‘Love of God’ is surely proof enough for any discerning person. Then there are those ‘Crimes of Passion’ that are brought about by love’s constant companions: possessiveness, jealousy and envy. If these examples are too extreme then what about the heartache, the longing, the pining and the yearning that all peoples report as accompanying love’s bliss? This leads to the search for ‘True Love’ which, supposedly, does not induce these unpleasant characteristics so common to everybody’s experience of love. ‘True Love’ is simply a fiction ... it is impossible to manifest it here on earth, hence the notion of an After-Life to encompass it. To repeat: Love never delivers on its implied promise. It never has done nor ever will. Its days are numbered, as more and more people are beginning to notice that love itself – not the human being – is failing to live up to its reputation again and again.

RESPONDENT: A relationship without love seems so empty, why be together if there is no love?

RICHARD: As your question – ‘why be together if there is no love’ – is predicated upon both a surmise (being together without love seems so empty) and its implied assumption (being together with love will be so full) it would surely be to your advantage to find out, before formulating a query out of it, whether either that surmisal or its implied assumption have any basis in fact.

Be that as it may ... here is a radical notion: were there to be no emptiness in the first place there would not be any need for love to (assumedly) make being together so full.

RESPONDENT: Why stay committed to one person?

RICHARD: As your follow-up query, about steadfastness in pairing with only one mate, stems from a question based upon a presupposed emptiness, needing love to make it so full, it is a forgone conclusion that it would be rather pointless to stay committed to being together with one person where there is no love (not that polygamy, also without love, would make one iota of difference to such emptiness, though).

Howsoever, were there not any need for love, to (assumedly) make being together so full, then staying committed to one person would take on a whole new light.

RESPONDENT: If you are unconditional happy and pleased, why hold on to something?

RICHARD: As to correlate a commitment to being together monogamously with holding on to something is to attribute a clinging onto, a grasping for, or an attachment to that, it would surely be to your advantage to find out, before formulating a query out of it, whether your attribution has any basis in fact.

For it certainly it stands to reason, if nothing else, that were there to be unconditional happiness and pleasaunce there could not be an attachment to conditional happiness and pleasaunce (as in there being nothing essential for salubrity in the committed monogamous association to hold on to).

RESPONDENT: A comparison between a relationship with love and a relationship with ‘actual freedom’, would be appreciated.

RICHARD: Okay ... first and foremost I am assuming you mean the word in a way more or less similar to this:

• ‘relationship: a connection, an association, spec. an emotional (esp. sexual) association between two people’ (Oxford Dictionary).

As a relationship is *specifically* described as being an emotional association between two people – as in an affective connection, union, bond (as in ‘the bonds of friendship’) or tie (as in ‘family ties’) – it confuses the issue somewhat to call being together monogamously with another, when actually free from the human condition, ‘a relationship’ ... indeed, in the first edition of ‘Richard’s Journal’, where I used that very word (albeit as a modern-day substitute for the word ‘marriage’), it caused enough confusion for some readers as to occasion my replacement of it with the term ‘an association’ when preparing the second edition.

Having said all that ... there actually is no comparison between a relationship (either with or without love) and an association where there is an actual freedom from the human condition because the former, being within the human condition, is essentially an association with another identity whereas the latter is an association with another flesh and blood body.

The need for a relationship with love is an urge for an affectuous connection based upon separation ... an identity is alone and/or lonely and longs for the union that is evidenced in a loving relationship. When identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul/ spirit) become extinct there is no need – and no capacity – for such unity as there is no separation: the expression ‘life is a movement in relationship’ applies only to a psychological and/or psychic entity who wants the feeling of oneness – a synthetic intimacy per favour the bridge of love – which manifests the deception that separation has ended.

And if human relationship does not produce the desired result, then one will project a god or a goddess – a ‘super-friend’ not dissimilar to the imaginary playmates of childhood – to love and be loved by.

The ridiculous part in all this is that we are fellow human beings anyway (like species recognise like species) and to seek to impose relationship (either with or without love) over the top of fellowship is, as someone once said in another context, like painting red ink on a red rose ... a garish redundancy.

RESPONDENT: I guess the most common and accepted reason why people commit to each other is because they feel attraction to the person and want to give himself/ herself to the other person, what reason if you are ‘free’?

RICHARD: Quite simply: it is both a delight and a privilege being together.

To explain: to be with/ live with the one person who, out of over 3.0+ billion such peoples, wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) being with me/ living with me, twenty four hours a day/ seven days a week, for the remainder of their life is something special as it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time (hence ‘privilege’) ... and the delight is, of course, in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation of being with/ living with such a person.

Ain’t life grand!

RICHARD: Who else can be enticed to come out and play – to join me here in this actual world – and live life where all is fun yet where everything which needs to be done does get done (albeit playfully) because of those oh-so-vital adult sensibilities? ‘Tis yours for the asking, so to speak, as no one is stopping you but yourself; no time is the right time to make it all happen as the right time only comes about when you have it happen; it is not a case of being ready for it as being ready only occurs when you have it occur; all you get by waiting is more waiting as now is the moment where it all happens; everything which happens only ever happens now. Actuality is where more than your fancy dreams can come true – much, much more – as life itself, here, is beyond even any of your most absolutely wild fantasies.

This is what is actually better than best.

RESPONDENT No. 7: I appreciate this Richard... and I know that, with the little credibility I have left ...

RESPONDENT: Hey, what’s all this then? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but it looks like one of those times when, instead of beating yourself up for whatever’s wrong, you could pat yourself on the back for noticing it... and not feel sheepish about doing so.

RESPONDENT No. 7: Thanks No. 4, but at the moment ‘I’ Love you, and I’m still crying, and my girlfriend is laughing (calling herself a ‘large vagina’), and I am really really happy that (despite the pain) somebody finally had the sense to put a stop to ‘me’... don’t know where ‘I’ heading, but it’s a lot better than where ‘I’ was at.

RICHARD: G’day No. 4, I am choosing to respond to you thisaway as No. 7’s response to you is necessary for clearing up your [quote] ‘misunderstanding’ [endquote] of him. (I will just talk about him, in front of him, as if he were not there).

Your response was fine – right on the ball in fact – had you been interacting with a practising actualist (for it is indeed the best way forward to pat oneself on the back for noticing it).

If you were to back-track through No. 7’s posts – even of just recent times – you would find out how you are not interacting with a practicing actualist but an upstart, a challenger, instead ... albeit couched in the guise of the forum’s resident humorist. (It is quite okay to talk about him, in front of him as if he were not there, as No. 7 knows full well what he is doing; what is more, he knows that I know that he knows what he is doing).

Now, whilst one can get away with quite a lot under the guise of humour – to say one’s agenda is [quote] ‘to first become actually free, and then advise Richard on what he’s doing wrong’ (8140, 11.12.09) is damn’ good humour – but to not just snip my words (which is entirely acceptable to make an in-sentence comment) but to replace them completely with [quote] ‘...bla, bla, bla’ (8088, see) is to be crossing the line. And No. 7 not only knew he crossed that line he also knew, when I did precisely the same (in-kind) to this crossing the line of his, that I knew that he knew that he had crossed that line.

Thereafter, whatever I wrote probably would have had the result ‘he’ desired; that I chose to say [quote] ‘Oh, look ... there’s a unicorn over there! was of particular effect as I had already used the example of a (non-existent) unicorn in an earlier post to another.

And what No. 7 knew all along was actually non-existent – as evidenced in the world of the PCE – was none other than the love ‘he’ wanted so desperately to be there. Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 7]: ‘‘I’ sometimes still hope that Richard will one day realize, ‘Hey, Irene was right, there is room for love after all!’ (7984, 6.12.09).

No. 7, however, with his eagle eye could not help but make the connection betwixt Devika (as my de facto wife) wanting the sequel to fairy stories being the ‘and they lived happily ever after’ part and how Irene (as my de jure wife) ‘died a lonesome spinster’.

And what happened next was, as they say, a matter of history: ‘his’ whole world of love started to ‘self’-destruct before our very eyes. Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 7]: ‘... I have been crying, and crying, and my heart is swollen with pain, something is happening and ‘I’ can’t grab on to anything... for the historical fuckin’ record, eh No. 4? No ‘masks’ here, No. 6 ... Richard, you’re dangerous... (8165, 13.12.09).

As to why love was so important – nay, so vital, in fact – then look no further than this:

• [Respondent No. 7]: ‘I went from dabbling in what actualists call a virtual freedom straight into feelings/ passions of grandeur (probably because ‘I’, still experiencing a damaged ‘ego’, was absolutely terrified when faced with the possibility of psychic death – which is, in my experience, ‘scarier’ than physical death). (7984, 6.12.09).

And therein lies the whole point of me writing about sexuality and intimacy (and having no choice but to reveal something about my wives in order to do so despite usually being so circumspect about others): the extinction of ‘being’ itself can evoke a fear so vast it best be called dread (whereas physical death usually does not).

Lastly, and to explain why I can talk about him, in front of him as if he were not there, the following is quite self-explanatory:

• [Respondent No. 7]: ‘To put it bluntly... it is unlikely that I would be alive today if not for actualism (which I discovered about 7 years ago). (7967, 5.12.09).

Thus it should all play itself out as per the script ‘he’ is improvising as it happens.

RESPONDENT: Don’t be deluded by this seemingly soooo suggestive header ‘popcorn anyone’ such as to draw the attention of gullible readers, who may be left with the impression that s/he is just merely watching somekind of freak show (aka fun soapy).

And...frankly i’m looking forward to material that indeed will disclose the malicious intentions that this women (who obviously operates from a long kept grudge to Richard) had in mind when she made up all that stuff.

RICHARD: G’day No. 3, Just a quick note as I am still in the process of composing my next post (being of epic proportions, as befits this stage of the melodrama, it is taking a while to collect all the quotes, links, URLs, &c.).

Although terms such as ‘fun soapy’ (#14112) and ‘live, unscripted soap-opera drama’ (#13929) and ‘soap opera’ (#138xx) are all entirely applicable I personally prefer the word melodrama as it better describes the character and temperament of the lead actress around whom this current scene (??Act Three; Scene Two??) all revolves.

Viz.:

Although the excerpt provided above is sufficient for the purpose (explaining why the word melodrama) it is, of course, best read in context at the URL just above.

If you do read that context – the entire post – then it will be of supplementary benefit to read what Claudiu had to say at the following URL.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/13341

‘Tis best not to access that second URL before the first, though, as all of the further above context is essential for comprehension.

Regards, Richard.

JAMES: My partnership with [name deleted] is going fantastic. We met at a cabin in the Ozarks for a week and it couldn’t have been better. We planned to enjoy and appreciate and have fun and if any issues come up to speak them out and investigate them. However, no issues to speak of came up. The sex was great and my ed seems to be cured so we just enjoyed the whole time.
She is coming here this week to spend a week with me here which will also be great and we will take it from there as to what’s next.
However, there is one thing which I still consider. Is it better to live alone? I don’t really know the answer to that so I have decided that I don’t have to do a thing. If she is here do that and if I am alone do that. I can enjoy and appreciate and investigate whatever issues come up either way. (Message 198xx)

JAMES: I visited her at her home in Florida for a week and it was great. This time I won’t see her again for a month. However, something has been bothering me about it and I have finally realized what it is. Love has reared its ugly head again. I miss her and it is because I love her that I have pain and suffering about it.
The partnership is doomed and I am doomed as long as love is involved. I want to have a partnership without love so that she is free to do what she wants and I am free to do what I want. I don’t know how this will play out but I do know that I will not continue down the love road. (Message 203xx)

RICHARD: G’day James,

This is quite an apt place to refer you to the last paragraph of my June 21st email to Alan on this very topic.
Viz.:

• [Richard]: “(...) I well recall the period when feeling-being ‘Peter’ first began putting what he was then reading in ‘The Actualism Journal’ into practice with a newly-found female companion – which ‘he’ wrote about in ‘Peter’s Journal’ – as it soon became obvious to both Grace and myself that the first flush of male-female attraction was self-evidently having ‘him’ under the impression that the sublime oneness-intimacy ‘he’ was experiencing (as in an ASC) was an actual intimacy (as in a PCE) and so we bided our time, until that (affectively-induced) ‘chemistry’ began to wear off and ‘he’ came to ‘his’ senses of ‘his’ own accord, as the heightened rush of blind-nature’s mating passions are too powerful a force to be reckoned with. (Richard, List D, Alan, 21 June 2015)

Not only did feeling-being ‘Peter’ write about being in love, in ‘Peter’s Journal’, feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ did as well (in a chapter entitled “A Bit of Vineeto”). At the following URL ‘she’ quotes from both chapters: (Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, James2, 13.3.2004)

The relevant portions of what feeling-being ‘Peter’ wrote, in ‘Peter’s Journal’, are available online in “Peter’s Selected Writing”.
Viz.:

• [Peter]: “(...). Over the next few days something continued to nag me. Why was it that this relationship seemed to be going off the rails? Why, increasingly, were there misunderstandings, petty conflicts and difficulties between us? Why was I becoming more and more obsessed about what Vineeto was doing when we weren’t together, and what she was thinking about when we were together? Over the next days I contemplated on what was wrong and suddenly it dawned on me that, despite our matter-of-fact contract and investigations, we had *fallen in love!* We were both exhibiting the classic symptoms, emotions and feelings associated with *being in love*. I was battling her and trying to force my opinions on her. I realized that I had been *jealous, possessive, pushy, demanding and obsessive* with her. And, most appallingly, I saw how when *the impossible demands of love* are not fulfilled then it can all so quickly turn to *disappointment, resentment, withdrawal, spite and eventually hate*. It had got to the stage where it was obvious to me that, unless something changed, this relationship was heading exactly the same way as all my previous ones – doomed to failure ...”. [emphases added]. (Peter, Selected Writings. Love, #4).

And again:

• [Peter]: “(...). What happened in the ensuing week was quite remarkable. I found that the strength of my intention for peace and harmony made me able to completely drop *this destructive behaviour*. Somehow I knew this was the only course of action I could take to make this relationship work and I knew it was my last chance. The *realizing and facing of the facts, coupled with a clear intent, left ‘me’ with no choice. It wasn’t that ‘I’ made a decision – there was actually no decision to make. Action happened by itself, exactly as it would in swerving to avoid hitting another car while driving*. (...).A week later, we both realized the full extent of the dramatic change that had occurred. *A certain excitement seemed to be missing, a passion and a bond in our lives. It was quite tangible, and a sense of loss overwhelmed us*. It was apparent I had fallen in love about three weeks after we met and had been in love for about six weeks until I had called a halt to the battle. I hadn’t recognized at the time that this behaviour of mine was really *love in operation*; I only saw it in the end as an emotional turmoil that *was destroying my enjoyment of being with Vineeto*. So, what we had seen was love in operation – *a practical demonstration in our lives, not just a theoretical concept*. As we sat down to talk about what had happened *we both had tears in our eyes* ...”. [emphases added]. (Peter, Selected Writings. Love, #5)

The relevant portions of what feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ wrote, in the chapter entitled “A Bit of Vineeto”, are also available online.

Viz.:

• [Vineeto]: “(...). One thing that I particularly didn’t like about falling in love was the pining. Whenever I was not with Peter I felt *I was tied to him on a long elastic cord and not able to fully enjoy whatever I was doing by myself*. Digging into what could be the reason for my pining, I discovered what I call the ‘Cinderella-syndrome’ – *the romantic dream that most women have* about the perfect and noble man. We are not only looking for someone who takes care of us when our own strength fails us, but also for someone who gives perspective, meaning, definition and identity to our lives, be it as father of our kids, provider of social status, security or a purpose for life. According to this dream Peter should be the answer to the question which I wasn’t willing to face myself: ‘What do I really want to do with my life?’ I remember a Monday evening after a weekend together, and I had been pining the whole day. I had not enjoyed work as I found myself struggling to get out of this exhausting dependency. Here I was, *44 years old and as silly as a teenager!* After work I took a long walk across rolling hills into a spectacular sunset, trying to work out what I wanted to do with my life. (...). That very evening the situation changed. My pining stopped. The fog in the head cleared. *My expectations disappeared. I could again stand on my own feet and equally enjoy the time when I was by myself.* I had *recovered my autonomy* – my autonomy in the sense that I am the only one in my life who is responsible for my happiness”. [emphases added]. (Vineeto, A Bit of Vineeto, #Love).

And again:

• [Vineeto]: “(...). Even after dismissing love as a concept or an option of relating, I still had to be watchful of my ‘love-attacks’, as I called them. They would *come through the backdoor, seduce me with a rose-colored mood and appear so nice and cosy* – such a temptation to surrender back into loving Peter instead of meeting him directly. However, I had understood and experienced often enough that any feeling for the other, howsoever sweet and soothing, would only make him *a projected imaginary figure on my own screen of emotions, which can so easily change at the slightest whim. It had nothing to do with the actual person* or situation. Being vigilant and persistently nibbling away at my habit of falling back into love proved to be a long process. After all, love and empathy are praised as woman’s greatest virtues! Later, *love changed into the subtler version* of feeling ‘connected’ to Peter, of having, through him, some kind of identity in my life. I caught myself wanting to use him as an outline for my own existence, as an anchor to define me as ‘person-in-relation’, a ‘self’. Examining it closer I discovered that this need for an anchor derives from the female instinct for protection. (...). I remember in the past whenever I had talked with girlfriends about the qualities of the future ‘perfect’ man, the worst and most terrible vision was to live with a man who was without feelings and emotions! The only option I could think of then was that he would repress his emotions and eventually explode, or that he would be a robot, a walking computer! At that time it was simply unimaginable that I would be able to relate to, let alone delight in living with such a man. And because *my only identity and power had been to feel and express emotions, it was also inconceivable for me to be without them myself*. Now living together is so simple, each of us minding our own business, down to details like money, car, sewing on a button or taking care of one’s health. And each of us is free to do it the way each prefers. Of course I enjoy making Peter a cup of coffee or he delights in cooking a meal for us. (...).
Applying Richard’s method has forced me to examine and eliminate the very issues and beliefs that are triggering those emotions. It revealed to me that *emotions are the crucial part of the ‘self’ – the very cause of my being unhappy and malicious*. It has enabled me to question the beliefs that *both defined and confined me as a woman*. Chiselling away my psychological and psychic entity has *made emotions and feelings redundant* and has left me increasingly free to enjoy every person I meet, every situation that happens and everything that this abundant universe offers. In my ‘role-play’ I am neither a ‘woman’ nor a ‘man’, but simply a human being ... a female, of course! [emphases added]. (Vineeto, A Bit of Vineeto, #Love2).

It is, of course, advisable to re-read the above sections in their context at those online URLs.

*

‘Tis unfortunate the wealth of experience obtained by Someone Uniquely Recognisable By Her Inglish is not available for the elucidation of all feeling-beings – I am reluctant to make public knowledge of the details of an experiment unique in human experience/ human history, wherein a rather daring feeling-being deliberately and with knowledge aforethought fell deeply in love with a resident of the actual world (a process she publicly declared to be “a viable course” in becoming actually free via the ‘fusion’ aspect of love), due to the entire five-month experience having afterwards left her hurt, hurting and hurtful; e.g.: vindictive and vengeful – as considerable light was thrown, for instance, on the fundamental necessity of possessiveness (a non-negotiable insistence on exclusivity) being an integral part of love’s maintenance.

Howsoever, despite this unfortunate lack of detail the outcome of that rather daring experiment has already been made public in the most melodramatic manner possible (i.e., via that seditious attempt to stop the global spread of peace-on-earth dead in its tracks – via the dissemination of all manner of made-up stuff about “Richard & Associates” until the outright ridiculousness those salacious fabulations brought about its ignominious melt-down – recently referred to in Message № 20220. Richard, List D, No. 48a, #Richard&Associates).

Nevertheless, back in 1997 when Devika was in the process of transmogrifying into being Irene, where she would flip back-and-forth betwixt the two personae, I recorded a conversation we had about love’s possessive nature one delightful morning in early winter (the weather at this latitude is such that winter-time is the dry season wherein the days are warm and sunny, mostly with brilliant blue skies and a clear atmosphere, and the nights are crisp to cold) as a feeling-being’s memory of apperceptive awareness is notoriously unreliable when it comes to the allure of love.

Viz.:

• [Richard: “(...). After all these delicious years of living together and exploring together, a rather salient and curiously unforeseen event has taken place. She has fallen in love ... and has spent the last six weeks endeavouring to come to terms with the shifting kaleidoscope of passions that swing her from one point of view to another. All the experiential understanding of a virtual freedom gets tossed aside in the twinkling of an eye ... only to come back solidly when she is able to come to her senses once again. We recorded one of our conversations only two weeks ago in order to have something factual – other than one’s notoriously unreliable memory – to fall back upon in the times of love’s stress.
*
“Is actual intimacy still vastly superior to love?”
“Oh yes, because love spoils it; love is actually a great spoiler of intimacy. Love is incredibly self-centred, demanding, wanting, needing ... it must have. It is an unfortunate force that comes into one’s life”.
“An unfortunate force?”
“Because when there is actual intimacy there is a pleasure that is more substantial, more of the earth, of me – of my body – and all of my body is intimate. It is that orgastic sensation”.
“And as you are now, there is no yearning, pining, longing ... which is the down-side of love”.
“And the disappointment ... none of that operates in actual intimacy. In love there can be a bruising going on”.
“Bruising?”
“Because of the emotion. After the emotion has gone there is a bruising feeling; I don’t want that emotion because it bruises me again and again. I don’t want the love of another person to ‘fill me up’”.
“What is that ‘bruising’?”
“You can either feel tired or you can have a whingeing pressure pain around the heart and diaphragm... and that is what I would call a bruising. It’s after the emotion has already gone”.
“Oh, you do not mean bruised emotionally?”
“No, it’s physical. The emotion is an onslaught on my physical body ... that’s how I would experience an emotion. It’s like ... you are feeling great and your heart starts pounding and you ...”.
“Are you saying that emotions are unhealthy for the body?”
“Yes, it’s good to have as little of them as possible ... rather none at all. This does not mean that therefore one should repress them. When an emotion is there, take it in hand ... put it in the middle of the table, as it were, and walk around it, have a good look at it and feel every aspect of it. Become aware of it and ask: ‘What is so good about this emotion’?”
“Some people would say to let go of it ...”.
“No, no, no. I don’t ‘let go of it’. By looking at it, it goes. This looking and feeling is looking and feeling with total awareness ... all of me is aware of what this emotion is doing to me as this body. Where, in the body, do I feel it the most? Does it really feel good? Is it one hundred per cent good? No, it is not ... there is always a ‘Yes, but ...’. Even the good emotions can never live up to what they promise. By looking at them they disappear; you see how unnecessary they are. That is with hindsight of course, for you cannot see that they are unnecessary – that there is ‘life after emotions’ – when you are in the grip of the emotion. This is getting to the ‘nitty-gritty’ of me. It is so fascinating ... all these emotions have always kept me in existence. The ‘Good’ emotions are also me. This is my self”.
“This is what you are. It is often said ‘We are emotional beings’. It is excellent to be rid of this for one can see clearly, understand cleanly and act appropriately. For example, love puts a gloss on people ... one sees only the best in the other and is blind to the worst”.
“Now I can look at a person and see such a normal person and I wonder how can such a person be so attractive to one who is in love. This is something I would never see when I was in love; I would never see that aspect”.
“Love covers up what the person actually is like and presents them in a good light”.
“Oh yes a fantastic light ... not just fantastic; love can make that man into the most perfect human being. Into a god”.
*
“Now what about actual intimacy? In intimacy you see the other as they actually are ... ‘warts and all’ is the expression”.
“That is not only better ... it is far more interesting”.
“It does not make you repulsed. One is neither attracted nor repulsed”.
“Exactly”.
“How are you with the other, then?”
“One hundred per cent. They get the all of me”.
“In actual intimacy, when you are with another person one hundred per cent – and there is neither attraction or repulsion – and you see clearly what other people would call attractive or repulsive ... what does that do?”
“Oh, that’s delicious! That’s delicious because that is freedom. Then I’m free from the grip of emotions”.
“So, seeing the other for what they actually are, do you see the ‘Good’ in them? The potential?”
“There is good and bad in everybody. I am aware of what humans call good or bad. I can see them with either eye, as it were; I can see them with intimate eyes or ‘human’ eyes. I am aware of that and I don’t take much notice of the ‘human’ measurement. In actual intimacy this whole moment, everything, is magnificent”.
“In the orthodox way, people who are described as ‘Goody-goodies’, see the good in somebody and try to draw out the good and make them a better person. What do you do, in actual intimacy, when you see both good and bad?”
“I don’t feel like interfering at all. I stay in myself”.
“And you talk from that?”
“I talk from here, yes. I respond according to the circumstance, whereas my identity would react. In intimacy I can respond, taking the whole scenario, the whole situation, into consideration. Whilst the identity goes from identity to identity. In intimacy I can easily sit here ...there is me as I think I am; there is me as I feel I am; there is me as I assert myself and there is me as I actually am. I am this body ... I have given way for the universe to live this body and with that I go anonymous. There are ripples of pleasure going through the body”.
“So you are like that, in virtual freedom there are ripples of pleasure, and being like that, what are you doing with the other person? What do you want, for them?”
“I want the very best. I would wish this upon them”.
“What do you say, then? Seeing the attractive and the repulsive ... and you do not try to draw out the good ...”.
“I’ve stopped doing that ... and I’ve also stopped stopping the bad. I sit with this totality of what is happening in the moment; this moment gives all this and this person is in front of me and there is this strange atmosphere between us and we both are trying – for I see that the other also wants the best – and I want for the other to be also here”.
“Ah! You want for the other to be here, where this moment is happening”.
“Oh yes, of course. What else could I want ... that is the very best I can want”.
“Would you say, then, that you brush aside the potential for good or bad in the other and – simply because they are a human being they have all the qualifications necessary to be here – it does not matter where they come from? They are a physical body and you want them to be here where their body is? You invite them to partake in intimacy. You are able to do it, for everyone has the capacity to be here ... they are just unaware that it exists”.
“Yes, and that is all what I could want, too. Then they can experience it for themselves”.
“Then you can talk directly”.
“Yes. Then we can all have fantastic fun. In intimacy”.
“Which is the direct experience of the other and the world about. No need for love?”
“No need for love. It is all so incredibly good; I am so pleased with everything ... I am enjoying this all so much ... and the self is still here. This is so ... so ... what a relief ... to have finally arrived. How can there be something better than this?”
“Virtual freedom is beyond normal human expectations, anyway. Yet there is more to come. Much, much more. In actual freedom one is the universe’s experience of itself. One experiences the infinite purity and perfection of the vast stillness that is the essential nature of everything”.
*
But it has all been to no avail, the power of love surging through the bloodstream is too strong to deny ... the body can be persuaded to produce quite an array of chemicals; a veritable cocktail is available to the insidious entity that has a psychological and psychic residence within ...”.
(from pp. 235-239, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 1st. Ed. (pp. 256-259, 2nd. Ed.), in Article 36, ‘There comes a Time when one must Leave the Nest and Fly’).

Regards,
Richard.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Footnote:

[1]leaving her hurt, hurting and hurtful; e.g.: vindictive and vengeful:

Viz.:

• [Richard to No. 15]: [...] Indeed, that is the very reason for my ‘just a quick note’ to [No. 3] (#14174) wherein I made it abundantly clear that it was indeed a real-life drama (aka melodrama) and provided textual evidence which demonstrates the primary reasons as to why it is all taking place before our eyes as we all type out our respective words ... namely: love and its failure to deliver the goods (with its resultant blaming of the ‘love-object’, in lieu of facing the fact that love itself failed, along with its attendant resentment/ hatred and/or jealousy/ envy and/or bitterness/ vindictiveness and so on and so forth). [...]. (Richard, List D, No. 15, 24 June 2013) [return]

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless