# An Actual Freedom From the Human Condition

## A Long-Awaited Public Announcement

(Please make sure java-scripting is enabled.) [08 January 2010]: The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust take great pleasure in making public knowledge of a direct route at the end of the wide and wondrous path (now both gentrified and rendered secure) to an actual freedom from the human condition – a down-to-earth manumission hitherto only available dangerously via spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment – which has been pioneered by Peter, on the 30th of December 2009, thus making him the first person to become actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof after Richard’s paradigm-shattering breakthrough in 1992. The directors are also as equally pleased in making public knowledge of how Vineeto experientially confirmed the accessibility, safety and utter simplicity of this direct route, on the 4th of January 2010, thus making her the first woman to become actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof. As such, these two once-in-a-lifetime altruistic actions have ushered in a brand new era in human experience/ human history. Richard has advised, with his left ear pressed very close to the pristine ground, that at least one more person, or maybe even two (or, perhaps, three by now), are very close by and whose arrival is imminent ... although not guaranteed (his informed opinions/ educated guesses are nowadays being tempered with the caution which being more than a few times mistaken so readily brings forth). [...]. Addendum 1: Since then (five days ago) two of the three persons have communicated with Richard by regular means – the third, being incommunicado, is beyond reach – to advise him not to postpone the long-awaited public announcement on their account. Hence the ending of the delay in making public the long-awaited knowledge that Richard’s condition is replicable (and by both male and female alike). The following post from Richard, to Mailing List ‘D’, provided a concise summation of the situational setting, whereby the above epoch-changing actions took place (and without which peculiar set of circumstances they could not have happened in the manner they did), and served well as being the initiator of the proceedings leading up to the necessity for both the direct route to, and for more peoples to be eventually living their lives in, the immaculate perfection and pristine purity of the actual world (the world of sensorial delight) becoming patently obvious to the persons concerned. Vis.: (Click Here). Addendum 2: The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust take great pleasure in announcing that Pamela became actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof on the 27th of January 2010. Addendum 3: The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust take great pleasure in announcing that Justine became actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof, on the 4th of January 2010, without ever having either met Richard prior to then or being in his physical presence at that instant. Addendum 4: The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust take great pleasure in announcing that Grace became actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof on the 30th of January 2010. Addendum 5: The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust take great pleasure in announcing that Tom has confirmed that he became actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof on the 31st of January 2010. (See tool tip for more details). [Editor’s Note: Tom withdrew his claim for being actually free in 2011]. Addendum 6: [Please Note: This public announcement advising of Tarin having *confirmed* the assessment he had made of having become actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof, on the 1st of February 2010, has been removed at his specific request]. Addendum 7: The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust hereby draw attention to the following excerpts found in the midst of a larger body of text Tarin had posted to an online forum on the 19th of January 2012 (the full text is at the referenced URL): • [Tarin]: ‘(...) i do not find it suitable for me to make a claim of a condition which i cannot recognise. for this reason, i am relinquishing any claim of an actual freedom, whether on my behalf or the behalf of any other. (...) i have written to the af trust suggesting that my announcement be removed from their website’s ‘announcements’ page’. (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/2733454#_19_message_2733454). The directors can only presume Tarin is referring to a private email Richard had received from him at 5:38 PM on Friday 21st October, 2011, advising how he thought it best that Addendum 6 (further above) be removed from the ‘A Long-Awaited Public Announcement’ webpage on The Actual Freedom Trust website, as he did not wish for his past and future judgements and actions/ inactions to further confusion and controversy, which they would do, he wrote, were he to remain associated with The Actual Freedom Trust website, and that he would be shortly making changes to the category then entitled ‘Actualism/ Actual Freedom’, on the buddhistic forum ‘Dharma Overground’ where he had been both discussing and moderating discussions about the practical aspects of (purportedly) both actualism and an actual freedom from the human condition for the past 20+ months, into something more fitting to those aforementioned judgements and actions/ inactions. (Nowhere in that private email, which he sent to Richard three months ago, did Tarin advise he had relinquished his claim of having become actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof on the 1st of February 2010, and neither did he then, nor has he since, written to The Actual Freedom Trust in regards to this matter; indeed, the directors’ attention had to be drawn to the above excerpts by a (critical) third party commentary on an entirely different online forum ... hence the delay in announcing Tarin’s radical reassessment of his well-publicised claim). Anyway, without waiting for a reply from Richard, less than 5 hours later – at 10:22 PM on Friday 21st October, 2011 (4:22 AM in the USA) – Tarin accordingly made those category changes he saw fitting and, whilst doing so, unambiguously dissociated the [quote] ‘aims, and approaches found and developed’ [endquote] by those buddhistic forum participants from the [quote] ‘aims and approaches’ [endquote] meticulously conveyed, with precise meaning given to terminology, by the extensive writings on The Actual Freedom Trust website. Here is the most relevant portion of his public statement to this effect (the full text is at the referenced URL): • [Tarin]: ‘(...) i have changed the category title accordingly to ‘Practices inspired by Actualism’ (...) what this action effectively does is: 1- protect the integrity of the af trust website’s writings (including *their aims and approaches*) by dissociating from them the writings, *aims, and approaches found and developed* by dho participants ...’. [emphases added]. (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/2354530). Just so there is no misunderstanding: 1. It is patently obvious that the [quote] ‘aims’ [endquote] explicitly expressed on The Actual Freedom Trust website – achieving both a virtual and an actual freedom from the human condition – were discovered (that is, ‘found’) by Richard. 2. It is equally clear that the [quote] ‘approaches’ [endquote] to achieving both a virtual and an actual freedom from the human condition – those which have become known as (1) the actualism method and (2) the actualism process – were devised (that is, ‘developed’) by Richard. 3. It has been unequivocally made evident that those other [quote] ‘aims’ [endquote] being referred to by Tarin – those which were [quote] ‘found’ [endquote] by the participants of that buddhistic forum – are not those of achieving either or both a virtual and an actual freedom from the human condition (else there be no point in publicly dissociating from them so as to protect their integrity). 4. It has been similarly made apparent that those other [quote] ‘approaches’ [endquote] being referred to by Tarin – those which have been [quote] ‘developed’ [endquote] by the participants of that buddhistic forum – are not those which have become known as the actualism method and the actualism process (else there be no point in publicly dissociating from them so as to protect their integrity). 5. It has therefore been implicitly made manifest that none of those buddhistic forum participants[*] – including those participating on any associated ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’ forum or the ilk – are neither aiming to become either virtually or actually free from the human condition nor have achieved either a virtual or an actual freedom from the human condition. [*]Provisional Disclaimer (based solely on the rather scanty written word): despite all the confusion and controversy engendered by the distinctions numbered 1-to-4 above being heedlessly blurred almost beyond recognition on that buddhistic forum there is the possible exception of a male, in Germany, plus the probable exception of a female, in America, having become (newly) free of the instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof (in August and September, 2010, respectively). 6. It is also demonstrably observable that those other [quote] ‘aims’ [endquote] being referred to by Tarin – those which were [quote] ‘found’ [endquote] by the participants of that buddhistic forum – are not in accord with the aims of the buddhānasāsanaṃ (‘The Message/ Dispensation of all the Buddhas). as those aims, which are known in Pāli as arahataṃ (arahantship) and buddhānaṃ (buddhahood), were found (or, rather, rediscovered) by the anabhisambuddho bodhisattova Mr. Siddhattho Gotama nearly two and a half millennia ago. 7. It is equally self-evident that those other [quote] ‘approaches’ [endquote] being referred to by Tarin – those which have been [quote] ‘developed’ [endquote] by the participants of that buddhistic forum – are not those of the buddhavacana (‘The Word/ Teaching of the Buddha’) as those approaches were developed by the sammāsambuddho Mr. Gotama the Sakyan nearly two and a half millennia ago. 8. It has therefore been implicitly made manifest that none of those buddhistic forum participants – including those participating on any associated ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’ forum or the ilk – are neither aiming at amatogadha/ sambodhiparāyaṇa (diving into the deathless/ ending in supreme knowledge (gnosis) or, put generically, becoming spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened) nor have attained amata/ sambodhi (immortality/ gnosis or, put generically, have achieved spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment). In view of the fact there are, nowadays, millions of words on The Actual Freedom Trust website and, literally, trillions of words extant world-wide about Buddhism, per favour the many and various sects formed over more than two millennia, the most simplest way of illustrating the fundamental difference betwixt Actualism and Buddhism is with the following quotes. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘... as I am *this flesh and blood body only*, and as this flesh and blood body being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, being sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is what consciousness is (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition), I am most assuredly not disenchanted with the body/ disenchanted with consciousness ... let alone fully released from same (and thus) discerning there is nothing further for this world’. [emphasis added]. (Richard Actual Freedom List, No. 78, 6 November 2004). That quote is but one example of the many reports/ descriptions/ explanations wherein Richard unmistakably states that he is the flesh and blood body/that the flesh and blood body is what he is. Whereas, for instance, in the Anuradha Sutta (SN III.116; PTS: SN iv.381), in the Pāli Canon, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes it abundantly clear that he is not the flesh and blood body/ that the flesh and blood body is not what he is. Here is the relevant portion of a regular online translation of the Anuradha Sutta (with the operative words emphasised and key Pāli words, sourced from the online text it was translated from and thus still in their grammatical form, added in square brackets): • [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘What do you think, Anuradha: Is form [rūpa] constant [niccaṃ] or inconstant [aniccaṃ]?’ • [Mr. Anuraddha]: ‘Inconstant, lord’. • [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is that which is inconstant easeful [sukhaṃ] or stressful [dukkhaṃ]?’ • [Mr. Anuraddha]: ‘Stressful, lord’. • [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change [vipariṇāmadhammaṃ] as: ‘This is mine [etaṃ mama]. This is my self [eso me attā]. This is *what I am*‘ [eso’hamasmi]?’ • [Mr. Anuraddha]: ‘No, lord’. [...]. • [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form [rūpasmiṃ=this body here] as the Tathagata [tathāgato]?’ • [Mr. Anuraddha]: ‘No, lord’. [...]. • [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Very good [sādhu], Anuradha. Very good ...’. (www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html). In that exchange Mr. Gotama the Sakyan is unmistakably stating that he [tathāgato] is not the flesh and blood body/that the flesh and blood body is not what he [tathāgato] is. So, as Mr. Gotama the Sakyan is not the flesh and blood body/as the flesh and blood body is not what he is, then just what, exactly, is he (according to the suttas)? In the Vakkali Sutta (SN 22.87; PTS: SN iii.119), after first making it again abundantly clear that he not the flesh and blood body – which he characterises as pūti (meaning ‘rotten, putrid, foul’) – Mr. Gotama the Sakyan then goes on to state that anyone who sees dhammaṃ (‘Dhamma/ Dharma’) sees him and whoever sees him sees dhammaṃ (‘Dhamma/ Dharma’). Viz.: • ‘Yo kho, vakkali, dhammaṃ passati so maṃ passati; yo maṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati’. (SN 22.87; PTS: SN iii.119). [yo=whoever, anyone; kho=indeed, surely; passati=sees; so=he; maṃ=1st person pronoun, me]. (‘Anyone who sees dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees dhamma’). Some background information, which emphasises the import of that above statement in the Vakkali Sutta, is provided in the ‘Vakkali Thera Vatthu’ (the ‘Story of the Elder Vakkali’), in the Dhammapada Atthakatha (DhA 25.11/4:118 f), where it is explained how Mr. Vakkali was captivated by the physical beauty/ perfection of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and became a Bhikkhu so as to be able to gaze at him (at his bodily appearance). Viz.: • It is said that, one day, after Vakkali, born of a brahmin family, had reached manhood, he saw the Teacher enter Sāvatthī for alms and was at once captivated by his physical perfection. Desiring to be near the Teacher so as to be able to constantly gaze at his beauty, Vakkali became a monk. Neglecting to recite the teachings or to meditate, he spent his whole time standing near the Teacher so that he could gaze at him ...’. (DhA 25.11/4:118 f); http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/8.8-Vakkali-S-s22.87-piya.pdf). Now, at one time when Mr. Gotama the Sakyan was staying at the Squirrels’ Feeding Ground, in the Bamboo Grove near Rājagaha, Mr. Vakkali fell sick, suffering, gravely ill, whilst staying in a potter’s shed and asked that the bhagavant (‘Blessed One/ Exalted One’) come and visit him out of compassion ... which he did. Viz.: • Then the Blessed One, having dressed himself and taking robe and bowl, visited the venerable Vakkali. The venerable Vakkali saw the Blessed One coming in the distance and stirred on his bed. Then the Blessed One said this to him: ‘Enough, Vakkali. do not stir on your bed. There are these seats spread and ready, I will sit down there’. The Blessed One then sat down on the spread seat. (Vakkali Sutta; SN 22.87; PTS: SN iii.119; http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/8.8-Vakkali-S-s22.87-piya.pdf). After some preliminary discussion Mr. Vakkali expressed how he had wanted to come and see Mr. Gotama the Sakyan (‘bhagavantaṃ dassanāya upasaṅkamitukāmo’) but had not enough strength to do so. Here is the relevant portion of the Vakkali Sutta (with key Pāli words, still in their grammatical form, added in square brackets): • ‘For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come [upasaṅkamitukāmo] and see [dassanāya] the Blessed One [bhagavantaṃ], but I do not have enough strength in my body to visit the Blessed One to see him.’ ‘Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see [diṭṭhena] of this foul body [pūtikāyena]? One who sees the Dharma [dhammaṃ] sees me; one who sees me [maṃ passati], sees the Dharma. For in seeing the Dharma, Vakkali, one sees me, and in seeing me [maṃ passanto], one sees the Dharma. What do you think, Vakkali: is form [rūpaṃ] permanent or impermanent [niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā]?’ ‘Impermanent [aniccaṃ], venerable sir [bhante].’ ‘Is the impermanent suffering or happiness [dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā]?’ ‘Suffering [dukkhaṃ], venerable sir [bhante].’ ‘Is what is impermanent, suffering and subject to change [vipariṇāmaṃ] fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine [etaṃ mama]; this I am [esohamasmi]; this is my self [eso me attā]’?’ ‘No, venerable sir [no hetaṃ, bhante]’. (Vakkali Sutta; SN 22.87; PTS: SN iii.119; http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/8.8-Vakkali-S-s22.87-piya.pdf). It is unambiguously evident, then, that dhammaṃ (‘Dhamma/ Dharma’) is that which, by virtue of being niccaṃ, sukhaṃ and avipariṇāmaṃ, is surely fit to be regarded thus: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā [this is mine; this I am; this is my self]’. (Both that particular phrase and its obverse – ‘netaṃ mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attā [this is not mine; I am not this; this is not my self]’ conveys the direct opposite to ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me’ [this is mine; I am this; this is my self]’ – appear so many times in the Pāli Canon as to have become known as pericopes; as such they are, quite evidently, fundamental to what the text is conveying). Now, all that remains to be illustrated, in regards the fundamental difference betwixt Actualism and Buddhism, is just what, exactly, dhammaṃ (‘Dhamma/ Dharma’) is. In the Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18; PTS: M i 108), for instance, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes it abundantly clear that not only is he dhammaṃ (the Pāli dhammabhūto, in that sutta, translates as ‘has become dhamma’) but is also the eye of wisdom/ gnosis [cakkhubhūto], is knowledge/ gnosis itself [ñāṇabhūto], is brahman [brahmabhūto] and is the bringer, the giver of the deathless [ninnetā amatassa dātā], or immortality, as well. Viz.: • ‘bhagavā jānaṃ jānāti passaṃ passati, cakkhubhūto ñāṇabhūto dhammabhūto brahmabhūto vattā pavattā atthassa ninnetā amatassa dātā dhammassāmī tathāgato’. (jānaṃ jānāti = knowing, he knows; passaṃ passati = seeing, he sees; vattā pavattā atthass = the guide, the elucidator of meaning; dhammassāmī = master of dhamma). Please note that the Pāli word brahma, in the word brahmabhūto (which means ‘become brahma’), is a neuter word, grammatically, not a masculine word (as is the Pāli word brahmā, which translates as the creator god, the world creator, who is not himself immortal) and refers to brahman, the impersonal ground of being, out of which all gods (and, thus, worlds) arise. That the *sectarian* Theravādan school of Buddhism – which is itself an offshoot (via the earlier Vibhajjavāda school) of the much earlier sectarian Sthaviravāda school – dogmatically maintains that the (neuter) word brahma refers instead to the supreme good, or a state like that of brahmā (as in incorporating the highest and best qualities of the divine without being that), is beside the point as sectarian disputes are a matter for the sectarians to debate. The point being, of course, that Richard unmistakably reports that he is the flesh and blood body only. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘The whole point of actualism is the direct experience of actuality: as *this flesh and blood body only* what one is (what not ‘who’) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/‘me’) means no separation – whereas ‘I’/‘me’, a psychological/ psychic entity, am inside the body busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose ... plus adding all kinds of emotional/ psychological baggage to what is otherwise the bare sensory experience of the flesh and blood body. This identity (‘I’/‘me’) is forever cut-off from the actual ... from the world as-it-is’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44, 6 June 2003). That quote is but one example of the many reports/ descriptions/ explanations wherein Richard meticulously conveys, with precise meaning given to terminology, that he is the flesh and blood body only. So, having thus illustrated with those above quotes the fundamental difference betwixt Actualism and Buddhism (they are indeed 180 degrees opposite), the question remains as to just what those [quote] ‘aims and approaches’ [endquote] are, which were [quote] ‘found and developed’ [endquote] by the participants on the buddhistic ‘Dharma Overground’ forum (and on other ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’ forums or the ilk), and how they came about. The answer to that question involves tracing back, over the past two years and more, through the many and various pieces of text written, and posted in the public domain, by those buddhistic participants. As such, all of what follows is a very lengthy read, requiring as it does many and various (properly referenced) quotes, with explanatory text interspersed as appropriate, and thus sectioned into several parts. Given that the key participants have made definitive claims about themselves, in regards attaining certain states, the names by which they identify publicly (be they ‘screen names’/ ‘internet aliases’ or not is beside the point) have been left intact for that very reason of being thus publicly identifiable with the text they published for the purpose of reference. To start off with, the following quote particularly caught Richard’s eye when it was first posted. Vis.: • [Nikolai]: I remember Tarin telling me that one had to get one’s whole being on board to walk towards oblivion. He referred to the sense of ‘being’ being the pure intent to move in that direction (self-immolation). (...). I remember somewhere Tarin also saying that impure intent was anytime ‘I’ stopped moving towards the goal of complete oblivion (...). That is how I saw and recognized pure intent. I took on the notion that ‘I’ was pure intent and pure intent was ‘me’. I also took on the notion that ‘I’ was impure intent and impure intent was ‘me’ every time my practiced waned. (...). This is how I saw and used the term ‘pure intent’. Even if it isn’t what Richard meant by it, it worked for me. (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/2216342#_19_message_2216180). The reason why it particularly caught Richard’s eye is the clear recollection he has of having spoken and written words such as these on many an occasion: • [Richard]: ‘(...) by ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am defiled; by ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am corrupt through and through; by ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am perversity itself. No matter how sincerely and earnestly one tries to purify oneself, one can never succeed completely. The last little bit always eludes perfecting. By ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am rotten at the innermost core’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 7, 22 August 1999). Being rotten to the core, by ‘my’ very nature, any notion that ‘I’ could be pure (let alone be pure intent) and that pure intent could be ‘me’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself), dependent solely upon whether ‘I’ am walking towards oblivion or not, is such a bizarre notion that Richard could only presume Nikolai had misheard/ misread Tarin ... especially so as Nikolai declared it worked for him (as in illuding himself that he was actually free from the human condition when, by virtue of his very own reports of his experience, he was so evidently not). Thus, given that it was a second-hand report (about what Nikolai remembered from Tarin telling him/from Tarin saying somewhere), Richard conducted a 4-hour computer search of every instance in which the words ‘pure intent’ appeared on the buddhistic ‘Dharma Overground’ forum. The following, which he found within the first hour, was too vague (in regards to what pure intent actually is) for Nikolai to have gained that notion from: • [Tarin]: what guides a feeling being who seeks experience of the actual world is pure intent, which is most readily engendered by the memory of a pure consciousness experience (and thus direct knowledge of its possibility). (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/500608#_19_message_487808). That advice from Tarin reads as pure intent being *engendered* by the memory of the direct knowledge of a pure consciousness experience’s possibility ... not what pure intent actually is. At best, this next one only partly confirms what Nikolai remembered from Tarin telling him/from Tarin saying somewhere: • [Tarin]: (...) what everyone i know who has done this has had in common was the pure intent (to arrive to such a state). this - pure intent - is clearly the most determining factor. (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/460472#_19_message_460472). That advice from Tarin reads as pure intent being *the intent to arrive* at such a state (a pure consciousness experience) ... not what it actually is. This next instance also only partly confirms what Nikolai remembered from Tarin telling him/from Tarin saying somewhere: • [Tarin]: though feelings are ephemeral and elusive (and illusory), and though it takes significant investigation to understand your own thoughts, feelings, and impulses (what it is that makes ‘you’ tick), it is possible, given the requisite sincerity, to understand if you want to live right now as well as is humanly possible. this is pure intent. (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/500608#_19_message_492029). That advice from Tarin reads as though pure intent is *wanting to live, right now, as well as is humanly possible* ... fortunately, however, another forum participant enquired of Tarin as to just what that pure intent was (the ‘this’ in Tarin’s above ‘this is pure intent’ words): • [Tarin]: it is possible, given the requisite sincerity, to understand if you want to live right now as well as is humanly possible. this is pure intent. • [Participant]: What ‘this’ is pure intent, a desire to live well? Then I have to ask you what the reason for this desire is, why you want to live in this way and why it’s important. • [Tarin]: the exact reasons given to the desire to live well will likely vary between various people who feel this desire (yet are, based on what i’ve gathered, likely to revolve around common themes such as being drawn to experiencing the optimum of what is possible, being keen to cease suffering, being inclined to stop harming others and enabling their harm of themselves), ‘i’ wanted to live in this way for all the above reasons, and it was important to ‘me’ because the benefits of having a very palpable and concrete peace-on-earth in this very lifetime were obvious.. nothing else could have been more important (...). (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/500608#_19_message_500608). That forum participant was not satisfied with Tarin’s generalised response – that pure intent was *the desire to live well* – and wanted to know just what this pure intent is which Tarin was writing about: • [Participant]: What is this pure intent? What is this intent being driven by, in the absence of all feelings? • [Tarin]: pure intent is the intent a feeling being has to, above all else, live this moment as best as is humanly possible, which standard has been set by the knowledge (the memory) of a pure consciousness experience, and which is enabled by the knowledge that ‘i’ am nothing more and nothing less than ‘my intent’ (...). (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/500608#_19_message_492029). That response from Tarin depicts pure intent as a feeling being’s above-all-else intent – enabled by somehow acquiring the knowledge (and despite having just had it confirmed that ‘I’ am a feeling being) that ‘my intent’ is all ‘I’ am – to live this moment *as best as is humanly possible* (wherein ‘best’ is determined by the remembered knowledge of a pure consciousness experience). Somewhat bemused by that inexplicable transmogrification (the grotesque transformation of a rotten-to-the-core feeling being into pure intent via an abstruse knowledge of being nothing more and nothing less than its above-all-else intent) Richard searched for three more hours, reading every instance in which the words ‘pure intent’ appeared on the buddhistic ‘Dharma Overground’ forum, but there was nothing more from Tarin about what it was, exactly, which he had specified further above as being [quote] ‘clearly the most determining factor’ [endquote] in becoming actually free. Nevertheless, when read in its context that nothing-more-and-nothing-less description is somewhat similar to what Nikolai remembered from Tarin telling him/from Tarin saying somewhere just what pure intent is. Here they are juxtaposed for comparison: • [Tarin]: ‘i’ am nothing more and nothing less than ‘my intent’. • [Nikolai]: I took on the notion that ‘I’ was pure intent and pure intent was ‘me’. Because of it being only somewhat similar a search was conducted through the ‘Actual Freedom’ forum on Google Groups ... where the following text was found: • [Tarin]: something that may also be useful to see: as ‘i’ am ‘my passions’ - which means my emotions, my drives, my desires, *i am thus also my intent*. what you want to have running is this: *‘i’ am pure intent*. [emphases added]. (www.groups.google.com/group/actualism/browse_thread/thread/0beb7f80dd4ca93b/11cd80a11248da87#). And thus, as Tarin unambiguously told his co-respondent there that his [quote] ‘i’ am pure intent [endquote] advice was what they [quote] ‘want to have running’ [endquote] the question, as to whether that second-hand report (about what Nikolai remembered from Tarin telling him/from Tarin saying somewhere) was a case of having misheard/ misread him, or not, is conclusively resolved ... he had not misheard/ misread him. So, here it is again, from much further above, heavily edited for brevity: • [Nikolai]: I remember Tarin telling me (...). I took on the notion that *‘I’ was pure intent* (...). This is how I saw and used the term ‘pure intent’. Even if it isn’t what Richard meant by it, it worked for me. [emphasis added]. Here are the operative portions of both quotes, juxtaposed so that there be no misunderstanding, and edited for emphasis: • [Tarin]: ‘(...) what you want to have running is this: ‘i’ am pure intent’. • [Nikolai]: ‘(...) I took on the notion that ‘I’ was pure intent (...)’. [emphases added]. Now, here is a timely reminder as to the nature of this ‘I’ who is (presumably) considered to be pure enough, for both Tarin and Nikolai, to be nothing more and nothing less than pure intent. Vis.: • [Richard]: ‘In regards to your ‘rotten to the core’ observation: it is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) residing parasitically in all human beings who is rotten to the core; and it is this entity who stuffs up any lifestyle practice and/or political system – be it hunter-gather, agrarian, industrial or socialist, communist, capitalist and so on – no matter what ideals are propagated. Arguing one culture’s ideals over another culture’s ideals is a distraction away from the real culprit’. (Richard, List B, James2, 13 October 2002). At this stage it is worthwhile having a second look at that text where Tarin depicts pure intent as a feeling being’s above-all-else intent – enabled by somehow acquiring the knowledge (and despite having just had it confirmed that ‘I’ am a feeling being) that ‘my intent’ is all ‘I’ am – to live this moment as best as is humanly possible (wherein ‘best’ is determined by the remembered knowledge of a pure consciousness experience). Vis.: • [Tarin]: pure intent is the intent a feeling being has to, above all else, live this moment as best as is humanly possible, which standard has been set by the knowledge (the memory) of a pure consciousness experience, and which is enabled by the knowledge that ‘i’ am nothing more and nothing less than ‘my intent’ (...). (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/500608#_19_message_492029). Now, that transmogrification (as in, a grotesque transformation) of a rotten-to-the-core feeling being into pure intent, via an abstruse knowledge of being nothing more and nothing less than its above-all-else intent, is inexplicable because affective possession is implicit in the words ‘my intent’ – as per Tarin’s ‘the knowledge that ‘i’ am nothing more and nothing less than ‘my intent’ (...)’ phrasing – and affective possession implies, of course, an affective possessor ... namely: ‘me’. So, having successfully infiltrated ‘pure intent’ the outcome of whatever unfolds for ‘me’ thereafter is entirely predictable. For instance, during that 4-hour search on the buddhistic ‘Dharma Overground’ forum these words from Tarin had also come to light: • [Tarin]: (...) by the way, not being an identity, i don’t experience pure intent (it has been fulfilled/ *been extinguished*). [emphasis added] (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/500608#_19_message_500608). Just to drive the point home, that he does not have pure intent, Tarin wrote this as well: • [Tarin]: (...) in the absence of being (and resultingly, all feelings), this intent no longer exists to be driven by anything (it has already been fulfilled and *is now gone - extinguished*). [emphasis added] (www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/500608#_19_message_492029). This is an apt place to draw attention to the following text (representative of what appears in various places on The Actual Freedom Trust website and in ‘Richard’s Journal’) ... a text which is to be found in the online ‘This Moment Of Being Alive’ article which Tarin sought and gained permission from the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust to copy-paste six paragraphs plus one sentence from it into the wiki at the buddhistic ‘Dharma Overground’ forum. Vis.: • [Richard]: ‘(...) ‘I’ am not alone in this endeavour because ‘I’ can tap into the purity and perfection of the infinitude of this physical universal with a pure intent born out of the PCE that one has during a peak experience. *Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself*. Once set in motion, it is no longer a matter of choice: it is an irresistible pull. It is the adventure of a lifetime to embark upon a voyage of exploration and discovery; to not only seek but to find. And once found, it is here for the term of one’s natural life ... it is an irreversible mutation in consciousness. Once launched it is impossible to turn back and resume one’s normal life ... one has to be absolutely sure that this is what one truly wants’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Articles, This Moment of Being Alive). It is patently obvious that Tarin never had pure intent in the first place (otherwise, what he would have been saying in those last two quotes further above is, in effect, that this actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, that palpable life-force which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself, *is now gone – has been extinguished*). Here again is what pure intent actually is ... with that all-important sentence stripped of its context purely for effect: • [Richard]: ‘Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself. (Richard, Articles, This Moment of Being Alive). And here is how an intimate connection is established whereby one is sensitive to and receptive of that over-arching benignity and benevolence: • [Respondent]: ‘The ‘strongest’ part of the experience probably lasted only about 15 seconds – it seemed like I had been taken into another world, though it was obviously the same world, but yet it was in sharp detail that I hadn’t completely noticed before. And it did have a benevolence about it. I remember feeling a bit overwhelmed by the wonder of it all’. • [Richard]: ‘Life is truly this simple: the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent, as evidenced in the pure consciousness experience (PCE), is activated with the nourishment of one’s innate naiveté via ‘the wonder of it all’ ... whereupon an intimate connection, a golden thread or clew as it were, is thus established whereby one is sensitive to and receptive of the over-arching benignity and benevolence of the ‘another world’ of the PCE – which is already always just here right now anyway – and one is not on one’s own, in this, the adventure of a lifetime. And sincerity works to awaken one’s dormant naiveté’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27d, 6 December 2002). And here are some step-by-step instructions: • [Richard]: ‘Perhaps the following summary of the way the actualism method works in practice may be of assistance: 1. Activate sincerity so as to make possible a pure intent to bring about peace and harmony sooner rather than later. 2. Set the standard of experiencing, each moment again, as feeling felicitous/ innocuous to whatever degree humanly possible come-what-may. 3. Where felicity/ innocuity is not occurring find out why not. 4. Seeing the silliness at having those felicitous/ innocuous feelings be usurped, by either the negative or positive feelings, for whatever reason that might be automatically restores felicity/ innocuity. 5. Repeated occurrences of the same reason for felicity/ innocuity loss alerts pre-recognition of impending dissipation which enables pre-emption and ensures a more persistent felicity/ innocuity through habituation. 6. Habitual felicity/ innocuity, and its concomitant enjoyment and appreciation, facilitates naïve sensuosity ... a consistent state of wide-eyed wonder, amazement, marvel, and delight. 7. That naiveté, in conjunction with felicitous/ innocuous sensuosity, being the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence, allows *the overarching benignity and benevolence* inherent to the infinitude this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is *to operate more and more freely*. 8. With this intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with ‘me’ and ‘my’ doings, *freely operating* one is the experiencing of what is happening ... and the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure earth actually is, is sweetly apparent in all its scintillating brilliance. 9. But refrain from possessing it and making it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 118, 16 June 2006). Note well how Point No. 8 specifies that this overarching benignity and benevolence has [quote] ‘ nothing to do with ‘me’ and ‘my’ doings’ [endquote] ... meaning that no rotten-to-the-core feeling being can ever infiltrate (bona fide) pure intent. For instance: • [Richard]: ‘It is life in the real-world (being normal) which has the dark underbelly – and thus, albeit sublimated and transcended, so too has life in the unreal-world (being abnormal) – not life here in this actual world; the pristine perfection of the peerless purity the infinitude this universe actually is ensures *nothing dirty (‘being’ or ‘presence’) can get in*. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27f, 24 October 2005). There really is no substitute for taking notice of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website. And, speaking of which, the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust hereby recommend, publicly, that Tarin taps into that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself, because to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent ... as in, to be that benevolence and benignity *as a flesh-and-blood body only*. Put succinctly: there is no other way, than to be that, because there is no other actual freedom from the human condition (than being that). *** There was more published on the subject of Buddhism as it is practiced as compared with Buddhism in the Pali text at the following links – (Richard, Articles, Pali Studies) and (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Buddhism, Pages 1-6) and (Richard’s Personal Webpage, Examen, The Rise of Buddhism).. A Long-Awaited Public Announcement The Actual Freedom Trust Home Page Richard’s & Peter’s & Vineeto’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity