# Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections Commonly Raised Objections ## Richard is not the First to be Free from the Human Condition RESPONDENT No. 90: What I don’t comprehend is how entering the great beyond informs you of whether anyone, alive or dead, having left a record or not, has ever been actually free from the human condition. RICHARD: Because no-one has been able to enter into the ‘Great Beyond’ before – into ‘That’ which was previously considered to be only attainable at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ (which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ in Hinduism or ‘Parinirvana’ in Buddhism and so on) – as physical death is the end, finish ... kaput. Which is why I said it is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key to grasping my ‘thus’ in the quote you provided as being an answer in particular which you would have me clarify. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90c, 4 August 2005). RESPONDENT No. 90: This seems to me to be this; Me: How does entering the great beyond equal knowing that nobody had been there before. Richard; Entering into the great beyond equals knowing that nobody had been there before because nobody had been there before. RESPONDENT: I am interested in the answer to the gist of what I think No. 90 is asking. RICHARD: Sure ... here is the answer to the gist – ‘the substance, essence, or main part of a matter’ (Oxford Dictionary) – of what my co-respondent is asking when put sequentially: 1. In order for that which had previously been considered as unattainable before death (a dimension, by whatever name, where there is no suffering) to become apparent, whilst the flesh and blood body is still alive, ‘Being’ itself ceases. 2. That ‘Being’ is what was previously considered to be that which ‘quits the body’, at the physical death of an Enlightened Being/ Awakened One, and which attains to that dimension, by whatever name, where there is no suffering. 3. As there is no such ‘Being’ in actuality it is patently obvious that physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. 4. Thus no Enlightened Being/ Awakened One has ever ‘quit the body’ at physical death and attained to that dimension, by whatever name, where there is no suffering – indeed there is no after-life – as all what has ever happened is that they were interred/ were cremated just like anybody else. 5. Ergo, an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90c, 6 August 2005). RESPONDENT: If you are willing, I would like (with your help) to try to fill in the gap between what I think No. 90 is asking and the answer(s) you are providing. If you were able to enter the ‘Great Beyond’ without dying, then it is clearly within the realm of human experience to enter the ‘Great Beyond’ while still alive. Is the gist of your previous answer(s) to categorically state that no one has ever entered the ‘Great Beyond’ without dying previous to 1992? RICHARD: The substance, the essence, or the main part, of my previous answers (now re-inserted above) is that physical death is the end, finish, kaput – there is no after-life in actuality – and, as the terms ‘Mahasamadhi’ and ‘Parinirvana’ and so on explicitly refer to a bodiless state of being in a timeless and spaceless and formless dimension only attainable at physical death when an Enlightened Being/Awakened One ‘quits the body’, it is patently obvious they have never attained to that dimension ... indeed all what has ever happened is that they were interred/were cremated just like anybody else. RESPONDENT: Although you did not state such specifically, it seems to me that it is the gist of what you have been stating, and it also seems to fit with the issue others on the mailing list are having with your reply. I will continue to assume for now that it is the gist of what you are stating. The problem I have with such a categorical (in the sense of ‘being without exception or qualification; absolute’) statement is that you do not have factual knowledge of all people prior to 1992. RICHARD: I do not have to have factual knowledge of all people prior to 1992 to know that the (estimated) 0.00001 of them who become spiritually enlightened/mystically awakened have never attained to a bodiless state of being in a timeless and spaceless and formless dimension after they physically died ... because physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. RESPONDENT: Also, recorded human history tends to be a subjective record rather than a factual one, and it is by no means a complete record at that. RICHARD: I do not have to have recourse to recorded human history to know that no Enlightened Being/ Awakened One has ever ‘quit the body’ at physical death. RESPONDENT: Based on the incomplete set of facts available, it remains entirely possible that before 1992 people entered the ‘Great Beyond’ prior to their physical death by employing the same or a similar method to your own previous identity’s. RICHARD: What you are doing is shifting away from the above discussion and introducing a variation on what is known as an agnostic argument (that nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty) such as what Mr. Karl Popper made popular and stems, as I understand it, from the occasion wherein, prior to the exploration of Australia’s west coast, all (European) swans were white ... meaning that, somewhere, somewhen, in an infinite and eternal universe a purple swan may very well exist. Or not, of course, which is why, by and large, Mr. Karl Popper’s logic has been discarded as merely abstract and/or irrelevant and/or useless by many thoughtful human beings. RESPONDENT: To my knowledge, it is impossible to prove, and therefore an opinion (not fact) to state categorically whether or not this is the case. I agree, it is a reasonable opinion to hold ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on to throw in a red-herring)? For something like twenty five years, back when I was a normal person, I would say that nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in – maybe it makes one feel intellectually comfortable – until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ about consciousness under the rug and going around deftly cutting other people down to size (which is all so easy to do simply by saying ‘well that is your opinion/ belief/ truth/ idea/ philosophy/ whatever’). But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than a ‘it is impossible to prove’ agnosticism – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. I now know. RESPONDENT: ... with the possible exception of the case of Bernadette Roberts, although that’s another topic entirely. But getting back to the topic at hand, would you agree that it is not a statement of fact for anyone to state categorically that no people prior to 1992 entered the ‘Great Beyond’ prior to their physical death by employing the same or a similar method to your own previous identity’s? RICHARD: Not for [quote] ‘anyone’ [endquote] to state categorically ... no. Viz.: • [Respondent No. 90] ‘Lots of people have existed who left no trace of their existence. Lots of them. As they were all humans like you (to the extent that you are a human) and me, I assume they were all capable of being actually free of the human condition, like you and me. • [Richard] ‘Whether they were capable or not is beside the point ... the point is that, *as experientially determined by the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago* (and verified for as far as is possible to ascertain by regular research), no flesh and blood body either living or dead prior to 1992 has ever been actually free of the human condition’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90b, 20 July 2005). RESPONDENT: Do you agree that it is possible (while remaining purely theoretical on the basis that it’s impossible to verify) that people prior to 1992 had entered the ‘Great Beyond’ prior to their physical death by employing the same or a similar method to your own previous identity’s? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: if you wish to have a purely theoretical discussion why not address your abstract question (and your reasoning immediately below) to a theorist? RESPONDENT: My reasoning is given that (1) your previous identity was able to come up with the method simply by devising it (2) the set of recorded human history, while large, is partly subjective, partly erroneous (due to translation) and definitely incomplete (3) the set of all human history not recorded factually is likely to be far more vast in depth if not breadth than the set of human history recorded factually (4) the number of practitioners of actualism is still quite small despite global communications, it is not inconceivable to me that someone, somewhere devised the same or a similar method which could allow them to enter the ‘Great Beyond’ prior to their physical death, but which did not enter into recorded human history. Would you agree? RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that where you say that it is [quote] ‘impossible to verify’ [endquote] you are making a categorical (in the sense of ‘being without exception or qualification; absolute’) statement? Do you also realise that the problem with [quote] ‘remaining purely theoretical’ [endquote] is that, other than usually getting hoist by one’s own petard, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on continue on unabated? Just curious. * RESPONDENT (to Vineeto): I f you look at the wording of what Richard is saying through each of these sequential points, [quote] ‘In order for that which had previously been considered as unattainable before death <snip>‘ [endquote]. Who previously considered it unattainable? RICHARD: The enlightened beings/ awakened ones who (supposedly) ‘quit the body’ at physical death, of course. Here (from the top of this page) • [Richard]: ‘In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death *when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’* ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism)’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Articles, A Brief Personal History). RESPONDENT: It is no fact to say that everyone considered it unattainable. RICHARD: I am none too sure I said that [quote] ‘everyone’ [endquote] considered it unattainable ... I am, quite obviously, speaking of the experience of being enlightened/awakened and what that experience informs is that the solution to all the ills of humankind (aka the human condition) lies in a timeless and spaceless and formless realm (a non-material dimension by whatever name). RESPONDENT: Richard is not everyone, he does not know the mind of anyone except himself. RICHARD: I am not saying I am everyone – that is what the enlightened/awakened identity parasitically inhabiting this body all those years ago experienced – nor am I saying I know the mind of anyone else. RESPONDENT: All he can say factually is that he previously considered it unattainable. RICHARD: Not at all ... it is the enlightened/awakened experience which informs that it (the end of suffering) is not of this world. For just one (modern-day) example: • [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’. (page 94, ‘Krishnamurti – His Life And Death’; Mary Lutyens; Avon Books: New York 1991). RESPONDENT: So given that he previously considered it unattainable, how does this relate to No. 90’s question:- [quote] ‘How does that reveal that nobody had been there before?’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Given that it is really the enlightened/awakened experience which informs that the end of suffering is unattainable before physical death it relates inasmuch that no enlightened being/ awakened one has, in fact, ended suffering before physical death ... indeed the enlightened/awakened state itself is, in its entirety, nothing other than an affective state of being (which, by the way, is something my co-respondent has allowed on more than one occasion). RESPONDENT: The short answer (which I am providing) is, it does not. RICHARD: It is this simple: it is not possible to be actually free from the human condition whilst there be an enlightened/awakened identity still in residence (still parasitically inhabiting the body). RESPONDENT: For me, as a practicing actualist, I have to wonder if Richard is wrong about this, what else is he wrong about? RICHARD: Ha ... and does the obverse (if Richard is not wrong about this then what else is he not wrong about) also apply? RESPONDENT: The end result is that it discourages faith in any cosmology whilst on the path to an actual freedom. RICHARD: As cosmology is about the structure of the universe – as distinct from cosmogony which is about the (supposed) origins of the universe – the fact that peace-on-earth is not on the enlightened beings’/ awakened ones’ agenda hardly falls under that category. Perhaps a word like ‘mythology’ (for example) might be a more suitable classification? RESPONDENT to Richard: Thank you for your response. After reading No 59’s commentary and starting to pay attention to your exchanges with No 86 [No. 90(R)], I had grown concerned that might be making a categorical statement on a topic which, as far as I understand, can only be theoretical. My concern is not so great having read your response to my previous email, eg from your unwillingness to be drawn into a theoretical discussion, and your statement of an entirely different gist to the one I was interpreting from your diary. But in the quote below, you have stated that it was an experiential determination, which I am interested in exploring if you are willing. RICHARD: ‘Whether they were capable or not is beside the point ... the point is that, as experientially determined by the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago (and verified for as far as is possible to ascertain by regular research), no flesh and blood body either living or dead prior to 1992 has ever been actually free of the human condition’. [emphasis added]. Richard to Respondent, 8.8.2005 (see excerpt directly above) PETER: I thought to make a comment on what seems to be a reoccurring theme on this mailing list – the fourth word on the first page of the Actual Freedom website. Given that the first two words are ‘Actual Freedom’ followed by ‘A new and non-spiritual, down-to earth freedom’ the word that many people seem to object to is the word ‘new’. When I first came across Richard I quite naturally associated what he was saying with what I had known before – after all the human condition has an inherent duality, either the meaning of life is to be found in material pursuits or the meaning of life is to be found in spiritual pursuits. After a few months of listening and reading however, I eventually twigged to the fact that what Richard was talking about was diametrically opposite to what all of the spiritual teachers were teaching and the world that Richard was living in was diametrically opposite to the imaginary world that all of the revered Enlightened Beings felt themselves to be living in. Previously to meeting Richard I had spent 17 years on the spiritual path and was no novice to the spiritual world. My experience wasn’t merely intellectual – my experience was lived experience – I had after all turned my back on the real world and had fully immersed myself in the spiritual world, even to the point of wearing the robes and living in spiritual communes. The experience of meeting and talking with Richard was 180 degrees opposite to the meetings and discussions I had with any of the spiritual teachers or revered masters I had met in my spiritual years – no psychic power plays, no pompous air of superiority and/or feigned humility, on the contrary, a genuine willingness and an ability to provide clear and consistent answers to any questions I raised and above all, an utter down-to-earthness that was refreshing to say the least. So to sum up, at this stage I had the intellectual understanding that actualism was utterly non-spiritual – one only needs to read what Richard writes and take the words at face value to establish this as a prima face case – but I also had first hand experience that there was not a skerrick of spiritualism in Richard himself and I suspect that the video conversations will enable others to make their own judgement as to the latter point. The point I am making is that even before I recalled having had a pure consciousness experience I had satisfied myself that an actual freedom from the human condition was indeed non-spiritual, which in turn meant that it was brand new – there being no evidence whatsoever of it ever having being a lived experience in any of spiritual teachings, any of the ancient folklores or any of the secular consciousness studies. One of the most telling experiences that actualism – the method by which Richard became actually free from the human condition – is brand new to human experience were the psychic ‘warning signs’ I had when deciding to devote my life to becoming happy and harmless. I have written about it before but it was as though I was entering a dark tunnel that had a big warning sign saying ‘DO NOT ENTER HERE’ written over it. I knew that entering this path would be the end of ‘me’ and I also knew this was a path that only Richard had trodden before – although by a somewhat circuitous route. This experience is diametrically opposite to the entry to the spiritual path with its welcoming sign, its feel good seductive lure, the welcoming arms of others, the feeling of belonging and of being specially chosen, not to mention the promise of the fame and the glory of Self-aggrandizement awaiting at the other end. The other experiential evidence I had of the fact that actualism is diametrically opposite to spiritualism is that not only were there psychic warning signs about doing something so radical as devoting my life to becoming happy and harmless but that there were also actual and psychic (as in emotionally-transmitted) warnings from those who had a vested interest in spiritualism telling me not to go down this path under any circumstances. Not only did I have a few direct warnings from teachers and practitioners of spiritualism but I also had a few psychic visitations whilst sleeping warning me off my intended course of action. The other issue that I had to contend with at the time was the very real issue that spiritualists have a long and gory history of dealing with and disposing of heretics in most gruesome ways, in other words the psychic vibes I perceived had the backing of very real acts of retribution should I dare to openly turn my back on spiritualism and be so bold as to blithely head off in the opposite direction. All of the events I am recalling happened fairly early on and my recollection of a substantial pure consciousness experience that I had some 10 years earlier combined with PCEs I had subsequent to taking up actualism meant that the psychic warning experiences soon became weaker and weaker – my experience is that once you set off on the actualism path with gusto, the fears that you first encounter are rapidly overcome by the thrill and excitement of the many discoveries that soon unfold. One event that happened about 3 or 4 years ago again confronted me with the fact that nobody but Richard – ‘Richard’ the identity, not Richard the flesh and blood body sans identity – had ever become actually free of the human condition. I awoke one morning amazed to find myself in the fairy-tale like perfection that this actual world is and it being so early I headed off for a stroll down to the beach. In the early dawning light I sat down on a grassy bank overlooking the ocean and all of a sudden realized that if ‘I’ were to die it would literally be like disappearing over the horizon, never ever to be seen or heard of again – in short, ‘I’ would go into oblivion and not only that but no one would miss ‘me’. I then became aware that there were tentacles holding ‘me’ back from doing so and that these tentacles were the many psychic tentacles that bound ‘me’ to Humanity at large. This experience once again confirmed for me that actualism is brand new to human experience because such an oblivion is not only the end of ‘me’ as a ‘being’ but it also means the end of the eons-old world-wide fantasy of ‘me’ as a spiritual ‘Being’. Well that’s about it. I just thought to pass on my experience that it is possible for an identity to experientially know that an actual freedom from the human condition is brand new to human experience. Any identity who explores the human psyche deeply enough can experience not only the psychic barriers and warning signs that have no doubt prevented others from treading this path before but ‘he’ or ‘she’ can also verify for themselves that, despite the fact that everybody has had glimpses of the perfection and purity of the actual world, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone prior to Richard has managed to become actually free from the human condition in toto. Experiential information about the human psyche can only be had by observing the human psyche in action, in oneself, as one’s ‘self’ – which is precisely what the actualism method involves. The trick to being able to make such observations is to dare to go beyond the psychic warnings that attempt to deter you from doing so – after all, it stands to reason that you can’t study something that you are scared to look at. RESPONDENT: ... you say you have no identity, yet you insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person ... RICHARD: I have never even said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insisted upon it as an identity. RESPONDENT: Are you not the first? Are there others? You may come clean here and now. RICHARD: You have omitted the central query [Are you not the last?] ... RESPONDENT: You are avoiding the questions. You are being evasive. RICHARD: Golly ... I have come clean (to use your phrasing) from the very first moment of going public on-line in 1997 – it is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history – and even only a few days ago reiterated same right up-front and out in the open. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I’m new to this site and to ‘Actual Freedom’ (...). • [Richard]: ‘It is not at all surprising that an actual freedom from the human condition be new to you as it is entirely new to human experience/ human history’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 112, 26 April 2006). As I have never said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person – let alone insisted upon it as an identity – your selective questions about that egocentric phraseology of yours, which you have repeatedly used on this mailing list, are not only redundant but are besides the point as well. RESPONDENT: Of course; you are so clever with your word games & word play. RICHARD: The only word games/ word play to be found in the above exchange come from your keyboard ... to wit: your maladroit play on the word identity and your selective questions game. RESPONDENT No. 53: ... you say you have no identity, yet you insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person ... RICHARD: I have never even said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insisted upon it as an identity. RESPONDENT No. 53: Are you not the first? Are there others? You may come clean here and now. (...) (Richard, Actual Freedom List , No. 53k, 29 April 2006a). RESPONDENT: I’m guessing here, but I think what No. 53 is trying to ask is ‘are you the first and only flesh and blood human body to be without any identity whatsoever?’ RICHARD: Yet what my co-respondent asserted is that I [quote] ‘insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person’ [endquote]. This may be an apt place for some background information: in the middle of October 2003 several people, most of whom were also writing to a Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti forum, began writing to this mailing list with a similar theme – with a sceptical and/or cynical focus upon what the very first words on the homepage of The Actual Freedom Trust web site (immediately below the logo) convey – and yet even now, two and a half years later and after having written more than eleven hundred e-mails, one of them has still not been able to move on from those few strategically placed words. RESPONDENT: ... and I thought its already clear that you’ve said ‘yes’ about that. RICHARD: What is already abundantly clear is that I have said ‘yes’ about being the first and, as far as is ascertainable since 1992, the only one so far to be actually free from the human condition (as in being a flesh and blood human body without any identity whatsoever). More to the point, however, is that it matters not one jot who discovered an actual freedom from the human condition – somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any area of human endeavour as a matter of course (such as discovering the cure for cancer for instance) – and why some peoples would want to turn that prosaic fact into being an egocentric issue is anybody’s guess. RESPONDENT: How he thinks ‘first and only’ also implies ‘last’ though, I have no idea. RICHARD: Perhaps by conveniently leaving-off the ‘so far’ (as in ‘the only one so far’) it might be possible that thoughts about singularity could begin to take root and grow ... the phrase ‘the only one’ might start to sound like ‘the one and only’ (as in ‘the only one of its kind’ or, more likely, as in ‘a never-to-be-repeated freak of nature’) if given the appropriate motivation. Speaking of which ... the following will give you some idea as to how such thoughts may very well have been planted: • [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... [the actualism method can be considered] perhaps even a sport of nature that worked but once for one person. • [Richard]: ‘As the term ‘a sport of nature’ is synonymous with ‘a freak of nature’ the following is worth quoting (as you would be on a hiding to nowhere to pursue that theme with this flesh and blood body): U.G.: (...) I maintain that whatever has happened to me happened despite everything I did. But you are interested in finding out how and why that particular thing I am talking about has happened to me and not to everybody. You want to establish a cause and effect relationship and make it possible for everybody to stumble into this kind of thing. That is something which cannot be produced or reproduced on an assembly line. It is a freak of nature. Q: But we would be interested in knowing what the freak of nature was in U.G. U.G.: Even wanting to understand that has no meaning to you. You just leave it there. There are so many freakish things there in nature. If you try to copy them, you are lost. You are in the same situation as before. Even nature has no use for this body (pointing to his body). It has discarded it because it cannot reproduce something like this either physically or otherwise. Q: So you have been discarded by nature? U.G.: Yes, discarded by nature. How can you turn this into a model? That is what we have done to all those discarded people whom we should have discarded for good. [from Chapter 11: ‘A Freak of Nature’, in the book ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’, published in 1991 by Sowmya Publishers]. • [Respondent No. 53]: ‘And this little excerpt illustrates that I am on a hiding to nowhere because he uses the same term ‘freak of nature’? • [Richard]: ‘No ... it is because of this: • [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... whatever has happened to me happened *despite everything I did*’. [emphasis added]. And this: • [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘That [a cause and effect relationship] is something which *cannot be produced* ...’. [emphasis added]. And this: • [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... it [nature] *cannot reproduce* something like this [that happened to me] either physically or otherwise’. [emphasis added]. Whereas what happened for this flesh and blood body happened *because of everything the identity did* and, as a cause and effect relationship *can and has been produced*, there is every reason why more identities *can indeed reproduce this* that happened for this flesh and blood body. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 53h, 28 January 2005). RESPONDENT: This email is to no one in particular, however I do want to write to the readers here a truism I have found in life. That being that Richard is not the first nor the last ... RICHARD: As I have never said that I am [quote] ‘the last’ [endquote] that is as good an example as any how an out-and-out lie from a closet spiritualist can take on not only an aura of being truthful but can even become a truth if mindlessly repeated often enough. RESPONDENT: ... [Richard is not the first] to understand actualism ... RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential and not philosophical your truism is looking decidedly shakier the more you go on. RESPONDENT: ... [Richard is not the first to understand actualism], that being the knowledge that one has only this moment ... RICHARD: Whereas, where there is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive, time has no duration ... this moment is eternal. RESPONDENT: ... [Richard is not the first to understand actualism, that being the knowledge that one has only this moment] and that at death, the ceasing of brain function and heart pumping that indeed the individual who’s brain and heart I just referred to ceases to function that indeed that being will cease to be. RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘that being’ [endquote] you are referring to the identity within the body ceasing to be, at bodily death, then that understanding, that knowledge, is a feature of materialism ... whereas, where there is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive, that being has already ceased to be (as in experiential and not philosophical) whilst the flesh and blood body is still alive. RESPONDENT: It is as it always has been and always will be, our individual experiences of the eternal have no impact on the eternal. We are here but for a moment ... RICHARD: As that moment is, in actuality, eternal then there is all the time in the universe, so to speak, for it to be stunningly aware, as an apperceptive human being, of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: ... [We are here but for a moment], and if one looks around oneself and witnesses the absurdity of what we as a society have become ... RICHARD: There is no [quote] ‘become’ [endquote] about it ... given the human condition societies have always been the way they are. RESPONDENT: ... then hopefully it will fall on one to make a change. RICHARD: Quite frankly, you can be as hopeful as all get-out yet unless you get off your backside and actually start doing something about the situation you find yourself in no substantial change is ever likely to occur. RESPONDENT: The absurdity I am speaking of here is that which leads one to believe that he/she is so important, or more so than anyone one else. RICHARD: As you began by asserting that [quote] ‘Richard is not the first nor the last’ [endquote] then the impression conveyed is that, although you have couched that in general terms, if only Richard was to look around himself and witnesses the absurdity of what humans as a society have become then hopefully it will fall upon him to make a change inasmuch he will no longer believe that he is so important or more so than anyone one else. Am I comprehending correctly? RESPONDENT: We are but an experience, there really is no point but to enjoy oneself, it is that simple. RICHARD: If I may ask? Have you never experienced a deep black depression, an overwhelmingly hateful rage, a paralysing baleful dread, an overpowering destructive aggression, an obsessively jealous love, a fatiguing compulsive compassion (and so on and so forth)? RESPONDENT: No biggy man, kick back and relax, and don’t sweat it ... RICHARD: So your solution (and please correct me if I am in error) to all the ills of humankind is that they are not at all important/impressive so take it easy, stop worrying, and enjoy being alternatively fearful and aggressive and nurturing and desirous (and all the multiple offshoots thereof)? And the reason why I ask is because, only eleven days ago, you wrote that you are having troubles sustaining a vitalised interest, that you have isolated yourself from most people, that you are missing the zest for life, and that you are considering just ending it RICHARD: No longer plagued by petty arguments, pathetic one-upmanship. RESPONDENT: Including, of course, the pathetic one-upmanship of ‘I have discovered truths no one else knows’. What I would like to understand is why all the self-proclaimed enlightened (I use that term loosely to include you Richard, though you don’t use it yourself) folk on this list are so all-fired certain that they are the only ones on the surface of the earth who have ever experienced what they experience? And why are y’all so arrogant that you can say things like ‘nowhere in the revered and sacred scripts, anywhere in history’ – as if you personally had studied each one? It is actually your attitude of smug disdain that most convincingly argues against your having achieved anything resembling equanimity, never mind true understanding of reality. RICHARD: To clarify the situation: 1. I am not enlightened. 2. I do not want to be enlightened. 3. I never will become enlightened. 4. Enlightenment is worthless. If no-one was bold enough to say that the accepted ‘truth’ is a mistake, then the sun would still be revolving around the earth. In the face of public opinion, one needs to be intrepid to question the collective wisdom and find out for oneself the fact of the matter. One of the best ways of doing this is to see that something held to be true is not working. Instead of vainly trying to make it work through intellectual dishonesty, one takes stock and applies lateral thinking. One needs to be audacious to proceed where no-one has gone before ... and trail-blazers are often castigated for their effrontery. Fancy being ridiculed or ostracised for ascertaining the actuality of something ... for establishing a fact. To be forced to recant, by popular demand, is an outstanding act of dogmatic elitism born out of ignoring the facts. With this being the lot of the path-finder, no wonder humanity is in the mess that it is in, for who would run the gauntlet? But I am supremely blasé about the opinion of others, for their ‘truths’ do not work ... they do not live in peace and tranquillity. They do not experience the perpetual purity of this moment of being alive; a purity welling-up in all directions from the vast, immeasurable stillness of the infinitude of this universe. They remain ignorant of the excellence of the absence of ‘being’. In short, their ‘truths’, their philosophies on life, do not work. The criterion of a fact is that it works, it produces results. Because I live here, where the immediate is the ultimate, there is no sorrow or malice. All my thoughts are benign, for maleficence does not exist where time has no duration. By living the fact that ‘I’ am not actual, evil has ceased to be. With no evil in existence, I do not have to believe in and muster all my energies in order to be good. ‘Good’ is a psychic force created to combat the psychic force known as ‘Evil’. Similarly, in monotheistic cultures, a ‘God’ is invented to engage in an endless battle with a ‘Devil’. In polytheistic cultures Gods are opposed to Demons. Then there is ‘Heavens’, ‘Hells’, ‘Sin’, ‘Karma’, ‘Resurrection’, ‘Reincarnation’ ... the list goes on. Where is intelligence in all this? Are humans worthy of the title ‘Mature Adults’? This is worse than puerile ... this is primitive in the extreme. It all leads to such appalling brutality and unbearable suffering that it is a wonder that such nonsense can still be soberly entertained as even approximating truth. It is not only bizarre; this is insanity. GARDOL: Here we have a man retired and on a pension, living comfortably in Byron Bay, and he cannot understand why someone else experiencing actual freedom might not be able to get the word out. RICHARD: As such a person would have to be incapable of speech (as in dumb), incapable of sign language (as in quadriplegic), incapable of binary replies (as in yes/no gesturing), incapable of writing (as in illiterate), incapable of dictation (as in incommunicado), incapable of ghost writing (as in unintelligible) – in effect, incapable of any form of communication, whatsoever – that is a ludicrous accusation. For what it is worth: for all Gardol’s huff-and-puff about logic he has, apparently, overlooked the same thing as that logic-driven respondent did ... to wit: in order for Peter to have suggested a website, for the wider promulgation of an actual freedom from the human condition, the word must have, ipso facto, already got out (been communicated meaningfully to him, at the very least, if not to others). As it so happens, as is mentioned in ‘Peter’s Journal’ (which Gardol says, further on, he purchased and read), he become cognisant of the discovery through another informing him of it (who in turn heard about it from yet another) who also informed others at that time (most of whom, if not all, informed others) and then informed even more as time went on ... word-of-mouth is a very, very effective means of dissemination. And as Gardol also says, further on, that he purchased and read ‘Richard’s Journal’ as well he most certainly would have known that Richard was not at all reticent about sharing his experience with his fellow human being ... the articles numbered 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 all testify to this as they each contain the gist of the many and various discussions held, on that very topic, with many and various peoples. Here is a useful word: • ‘bull-artist: someone who speaks nonsense while trying to impress’. (Probert Encyclopaedia of Slang). • ‘bull-artist: a person who habitually exaggerates, flatters, or talks nonsense’. (American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms). Incidentally, the word bull, in this context, has nothing to do with either the male bovine animal, of popular usage, or its ordure. Viz.: • ‘bull [Old French boul, boule, bole: fraud, deceit, trickery; modern Icelandic bull: nonsense; also Middle English bull bul: falsehood; to befool, mock, cheat]: trivial, insincere, or untruthful talk or writing; nonsense’. (Oxford Dictionary). As a matter of related interest (and mainly because Gardol later on introduces the word spin as if the mere assertion that something is spin is a valid argument): a few years ago Mr. Harry Frankfurt (a professor emeritus at Princeton University) wrote, in a 67-page essay on the topic of bull, that it is impossible for a liar to lie unless they think they know the truth (meaning that a person who lies is thereby responding to the authority of truth) whereas the bull-artist cares nothing for either truth or falsity, inasmuch the only thing which concerns them is getting away with what they say (meaning that they do not reject the authority of truth, as a liar does by opposing themselves to it, but pay no attention to it at all), and that this makes them potentially more treacherous than any liar because a society where bull is rife is thus in danger of rejecting the possibility of ever knowing how things truly are (as it follows that any form of argument and/or analysis is only as legitimate, via being held to be true, as it is persuasive). GARDOL: Well, maybe someone achieved actual freedom but due to hardships of environment or circumstances, they had to spend most of their time working on food shelter and clothing, and did not have the spare time to get their book written. RICHARD: Ha ... so that is what a logical response looks like, eh? GARDOL: Maybe someone spent five years writing a book, and then got buried in an earthquake, book and all. RICHARD: What Gardol is doing there is (conveniently) overlooking the fact that there are other ways of communicating than only with a book. GARDOL: Shift happens, as they say. RICHARD: And thus does the logical response trail away into the vagary whence it came. GARDOL: Later he goes right back into asserting that he KNOWS he is the first, as you will see in subsequent emails on this subject. RICHARD: Hmm ... Richard is clearly reporting what he experientially knows and yet Gardol ... um ... spins it into him merely asserting that he does. Speaking of spin ... this is how the exchange Gardol quoted above began: • [Respondent No. 60]: ‘Another example of neo-solipsistic-like thinking in actualism: I know I am the first because I don’t know of any who might have been there before me. Absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one’. [endquote]. Now, that is what a real assertion looks like ... because actualism is neither neo-solipsistic-like nor has Richard ever said he knows he is the first because he does not know of any who might have been there before him (as in ‘absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one’). ‘Tis a mad, bad, and sad world whereupon Richard not only gets (falsely) accused of the very thing that particular respondent did but also wherein his wannnabe interlocutor (a cheap-trickster, a sneaky-snipper, a sly-deceiver, an ignorant-judger, a molehill-mountaineer, a fraudulent-justifier, a mud-slinger, a bull-artist and spin-doctor all rolled into one) also does that very same thing ... a double-spin, as it were, of such magnitude as to maybe occasion a shift in their brain in which they begin to see the respondents as more and more intelligent while Richard appears less and less so. For here are Gardol’s own words (from the latter part of his diatribe): • [Gardol]: ‘I spent so much time slogging through all the verbal quarrelling that I felt like I had gotten an addiction. I spent more and more time getting less and less reward. Then a shift occurred in my brain, in which I began to perceive the respondents on the list as more and more intelligent, while Richard appeared less and less so’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/1231). GARDOL: When a person KNOWS something, they don’t have to set a very high standard of proof. RICHARD: Richard set a remarkably high standard ... he reports: 1. That he already knew, from a four-hour PCE prior to the commencement of the path which would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, that such a freedom was entirely new to human experience ... and; 2. That because of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment, before becoming actually free from the human condition, he also knew this condition was entirely new to human experience ... and; 3. That he additionally knew, from penetration deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, that no one had ventured thus far before ... and; 4. That he conducted regular research (aka scouring the books), for 20+ years, to no avail ... and; 5. That he has advertised his discovery in books and on the world-wide web, for over a decade now (and latterly on high-definition video discs), yet nothing of that nature has been elicited ... nothing whatsoever. GARDOL: Why would they? Talk to any garden variety Christian or religious zealot who says they have some proof that God exists. Usually for their ‘proof’ they will just point out some flaws or gaps in evolutionary theory. It does not really prove the existence of God to anyone but the person who already wants to believe it. RICHARD: The following may be found edifying: • [Respondent]: ‘You just cannot prove, Richard, that there is nothing beyond the blood and bones body which may exist in another dimension. • [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... and as you cannot ‘prove’ that there is ‘another dimension’ then this is a ‘Mexican Stand-Off’, eh? Howsoever, I have responded to you before on this issue: [Respondent]: ‘As I’ve stated before, you have no proof that your brand of actuality is really all there is to life’. [Richard]: ‘I find variations of this line of debate on the Christian versus Rationalist discussion boards (where the Christians challenge the Rationalists to prove that their god does not exist). It is futile to take up a challenge wherein the challenger first proposes something (such as a god or a goddess or an other dimension) and then says: ‘prove me wrong’. *Needless to say, I do know for myself that there are no gods or goddesses or an after-life outside of passionate imagination*’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 19d, 12 August 2000a). Richard, List B, Respondent 19, 27 May 2001 Now contrast that highlighted sentence with the following highlighted response: • [Respondent]: ‘What scientific proof do you have that you can transmit information without the use of five senses? • [Gardol]: ‘I have no scientific proof. *I have proven it to myself, which is all I need*’. [emphasis added]. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/1239). ‘Nuff said? GARDOL: Same with Richard. He don’t need no stinkin’ proof! RICHARD: Given that Gardol imposes a different criterion upon Richard, than what he applies to himself, then here is a particularly useful word: • ‘double-standard: (the application of) a standard, principle, etc., applied more strictly to some people or situations than others’. (Oxford Dictionary). GARDOL: He already has his psychic footprints in the imaginary snow, as seen by his psychic eye, and he accepts this truth as discovered by the parasitic and cunning entity that inhabited his body all those years ago. RICHARD: As Gardol’s worse-than-cheap trick, of slyly shifting the focus onto the text which followed the word ‘furthermore’ – which means ‘in addition, additionally; moreover, esp. used when introducing a fresh consideration in an argument’ according to the Oxford Dictionary – so as to make out that it is the main extraordinary evidence, has already been exposed for the indescribable deceit it is then the following can only help to emphasise how the penetration deeper and deeper into spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment only served to reinforce what was already experientially known: • [Richard]: ‘This is really quite a simple matter to comprehend: prior to those experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment, whilst paddling a canoe around a group of uninhabited islands in the tropics off the north-eastern Australian seaboard for about three months in 1985, the end of suffering was universally considered to be only possible after physical death (peace on earth was just not possible); those experiences demonstrated just what was required to have that most salubrious condition come about (the extinction of identity in toto and not just ego dissolution); the experiential penetration deeper and deeper into the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself only served to reinforce what was already known from a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) six months prior to the commencement of the path that would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition (that such a freedom was entirely new to human experience)’. Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 90, 2 August 2005 GARDOL: How can people even ask for better proof than that? RICHARD: As the people quoted in this diatribe are (demonstrably) not asking for proof – let alone that fictitious ‘better proof’ Gardol has, by now, fabulated them as asking for – but are (demonstrably) asking how does Richard know/how can Richard know then that conclusion, albeit couched as a (rhetorical) question, is a non-sequitur. ANDREW: I remember reading on the AFT, Richard mentions the general mood of the 1960’s and has good things to say about it. The focus on peace, adventure, challenging social order, an optimistic view that change was possible. RICHARD: Yet what you remember reading on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is actually what feeling-being ‘Peter’ wrote – feeling-being ‘Richard’s focus in the 1960’s was, instead, on warfare, misadventure, upholding social order, an unenterprising view that change was impossible – which is neatly encapsulated in ‘Peter’s Journal’ via descriptions of then being a typically radicalised university student (per favour the subversive ‘Nouvelle Gauche’ socialistic-communistic propaganda, of Mr. Herbert Marcuse (a.k.a. ‘Father of the New Left’) and the ilk, which gripped the largely proto-revolutionary imagination of those socio-politically impressionable youths of the time). Viz.: • [Peter]: “University days were filled with a wonderful optimism and naivety as the sixties’ youth revolution gathered momentum. We were going to change the world! Socialism, peace, love, sexual freedom, environmentalism – anything was possible to have or to change. I marched to stop the Vietnam war, I poster-pasted to save the forests, I grooved to the Rolling Stones in Hyde Park in London, I hung around in Amsterdam, I travelled to the East, I became politically and socially concerned and involved. I’ve thought about these times during the last twelve months – what happened to the dreams, the enthusiasm of those times? Remember John Lennon singing ‘Imagine’ or ‘Give Peace a Chance’, or watching Woodstock? We were going to change the world! And then it all started to fade a bit – I got rather lost in the daily business of wife, two kids and two cars. And then, when that crashed, I was off to the East with thousands of others, seduced and fired up by the promise of a New Man, Peace, Love, Utopia and an end to my personal suffering. In fact, the whole of the revolution of the sixties was simply sucked into the mystery, confusion and ‘mindlessness’ of the Eastern religions. Of course spiritualism failed – there was nothing new in it at all, now that I look back (...)”. ~ (from Chapter Nine, ‘Peace’, ‘Peter’s Journal’; © The Actual Freedom Trust 1997). Incidentally, your comment on the 17th of Feb, 2016, about not sharing the opinion that there was anything special about that era – viz.: • [Respondent]: “For the record, I don’t share the opinion that there was anything special about that era. The hippies went on to run the corporations and fuck over the world in exactly the same way as the generations before and after them. Lennon and the Beatles not least of them” ~ (Message № 221xx) – could perhaps be said to typify a wholesale ignorement of just how successful that ‘Nouvelle Gauche’ propaganda against the then still-prevailing dextral individualism has been, as evidenced by the stranglehold sinistral statism has increasingly had on the ‘International Community’ in the decades since, insofar as the way in which politico-economic governance nowadays operates in developed nations is more or less in accord with what the sixties ‘student revolution’ was practicably on about. Put the other way around: as what those gullible university students protested about so vociferously, and marched en-masse in the streets for, has largely come to pass in the technologically advanced nation-states, then your usage of ‘exactly’ – in the above “in exactly the same way” characterisation – may very well stem more from a blanket ignoration of how deprived the bulk of the populace comprising those laissez faire states were, before the resultant expansion of the corporative ‘Welfare State’ (which ever-expanding bureaucratisation of governance, were it not largely funded by its correspondingly ever-expanding indebtedness, would ultimately become all-encompassing), than from an even-handed appraisal of the outcome those ‘New Left’ propagandists were agitating for. Ha ... it could even be a classic case of hoary adage “Be careful what is wished for [whilst the peasant-mentality prevails] lest it come true”, eh? ANDREW: Is it possible that [No. 49] indeed did practice a proto-version of “actualism” before Richard discovered just how far it can go, and as such, is non-plussed about labels and terminology for that reason? RICHARD: In a word: no. In a couple of hundred words: as he has evidentially never practised what he recently dismissed as the “glibly produced” and thus “quite unhelpful” way, manner or means on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – namely: the actualism method (as in, consciously and with knowledge aforethought imitating the actual by enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again, for as much as is humanly possible, until the actualism process, per favour the ‘golden clew’ pure intent, invokes an out-from-control different-way-of-being momentum conducive to going blessedly into oblivion prior to physical death, that is) – then the 1986 vintage “proto-version” of his post-1999 ‘on-going mindful action’ (as per the half-dozen quotes in Footnote № 3, of Message № 21923 (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 3 February 2016), from the ‘ListBot’ archives of The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing list) would surely be just as it is depicted therein ... to wit: a 1986 vintage ‘on-going mindful action’, promoted as working due to it having been in use for a full thirteen years prior to finding the actualism/ actual freedom writings in late 1999, and which he gradually came to refer to over the years with the same [quote] “haietmoba” [endquote] string of letters which quite a few persons were using back then to refer to the actualism method. * To summarise: as there is no textual evidence with which to substantially differentiate that 1986 vintage ‘on-going mindful action’ from any other regular mindful-of-the-moment practice – as per that (misnamed) ‘mindfulness’ regimen of buddhistic mispractice which has gained traction in large swathes of many and various societies and cultures around the world (with many and various secularised off-shoots) – this further “Is it possible...” speculation of yours is self-evidently demonstrative of the proliferative nature of speculation unrestrained by the anchored-in-fact effect all valid premises have. ANDREW: Richard makes the point of how much research he did to find a precedent of “an actual freedom from the human condition”, but not so much the actualism method itself ... RICHARD: As there is no such “precedent” (an actual freedom from the human condition is indeed entirely new to human experience/ human history) then it follows that the way, manner or means of having that unprecedented condition come about – consciously and with knowledge aforethought imitating the actual by enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again, for as much as is humanly possible, until the actualism process, per favour the ‘golden clew’ pure intent, invokes an out-from-control different-way-of-being momentum conducive to going blessedly into oblivion prior to physical death – is equally unprecedented. Otherwise – and given there are untold millions upon millions of malpractitioners of the many and various ways in which that mindful-of-the-moment buddhistic mispractice is practiced (plus equally innumerable practitioners practising a secularised version thereof as well) – how come none of them ever discovered Terra Actualis? What was it, about that naïve boy from the farm, which enabled ‘him’ to find what untold billions upon billions of peoples of any description and persuasion, in any culture and every age, never ever found (including the person you are defending through the invocation and proliferation of abstract possibilities)? Viz.: • [Respondent № 68]: “I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs”. • [Richard]: “There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation)”. • [Respondent № 68]: “Yes, I knew that, which is why I referred to Peter and Vineeto instead. To be objective, it has not been determined that you are not a freak of nature yet. [...elision...]. I’m sure you’re aware that certain folks have highly developed aptitudes that others don’t?” • [Richard]: “The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no highly developed aptitude for awareness-cum-attentiveness ... let alone to a degree that others do not. Look, ‘he’ was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about”. • [Respondent № 68]: “Oh I don’t doubt others can do this your way, but it seems others undoubtingly need something else”. • [Richard]: “I can say this much: the something else which those others you refer to *do not need* is a history of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) ... if anything *they need to unlearn/ discard* all of those tried and failed disciplines. And unless/ until that much is crystal-clear there is no point in discussing just what the something else was, which the identity in residence circa the ‘eighties decade had in abundance, which those others you refer to may very well be in need of”. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 68d, 30 October 2005). Have you never wondered, for instance, why the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté does not feature in dictionary listings of various forms of intimacy/ ways of being intimate? ANDREW: ...[the actualism method itself...] which when you separate it out, has many parallels with the types of naive optimism that spawned such phrases as “if it feels good, do it”, “make love, not war”, “give peace a chance”. RICHARD: And therein lies the rub: more than a few otherwise intelligent peoples do indeed “separate it out” (from an actual freedom itself) such as to instead practice some already extant method or modification thereof – being either too stupid to realise that doing what untold millions upon millions of practitioners have already done, without even a single success, is a totally unproductive enterprise, or being so arrogant as to think they can succeed despite untold millions upon millions of practitioners, without exception, having abjectly failed thereby – despite the way, manner or means of having such an unprecedented condition come about indubitably needing to be as unprecedented as it is. Is it just a case of that apocryphal ‘definition’ of insanity (i.e., doing the same thing over and again, ad infinitum, yet expecting a different result) or is it something else entirely? A primary reason to “separate it out” (from an actual freedom itself) is, of course, the arrant failure to appreciate how ground-breaking the millions of actualism/ actual freedom words actually are – as evidenced, for instance, by that egotistically-fuelled you-cannot-know-you’re-the-first fixation, which afflicted more than a few peoples upon coming across the website or, for another example, the inordinate lengths the ‘Pragmatic Dumber’ participants went to/ go to in order to incorporate gross distortions of them into their massively watered-down and westernised version of the already watered-down traditional buddhistic mispractice – as well as likewise failing to appreciate how truly epoch-changing a female replication of the ground-breaking male break-through into Terra Actualis actually is inasmuch that, for the first time in human history/ human experience, it is now possible, and demonstrably so, for man and woman to live together in peace and harmony with gladness and delight. And here is why that replication is truly epoch-changing: • [Richard]: “(...) man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family and thus *the very core of civilisation itself* ...”. [emphasis added]. ~ (Message № 20095 & Message № 14341 & Message № 11502 & Message № 8630 & Message № 8137 & Message № 7578 & Message № 7531). As the implications and ramifications of this epoch-changing replication not only directly relate back to your “make love, not war” and “give peace a chance” allusions to the idealistic 1960’s generational shake-up of the prevailing cultural ethos, of the post-World War II era, but directly impinge upon your failure to “share the opinion that there was anything special about that era” then this is an apt moment to spell-out just what the “naïve optimism” of the sixties generation (disparagingly referred to as ‘the boomers’ and the suchlike, by succeeding generations, when not latterly being called ‘old farts’) has managed to spawn. (In case it has escaped your notice: the first settlers to take up residence in Terra Actualis are all a product of that naïvely optimistic sixties generation, as contrasted to the cynically pessimistic generations who disenchantedly succeeded them, and it remains to be seen whether the latter can successfully retrieve their long-lost naïveté or not). To spell-it-out then: All through the ages, and throughout all cultures, one basic predicament exemplified the problem of human relationship and, thus, civilisation itself: man and woman had never been able to live together in peace and harmony – let alone with mutual gladness and delight – for the twenty-four hours of every day for the duration of their respective lives. Each and every person currently alive, and ever alive, on this otherwise verdant and azure paradise has or had entered this world of minera, flora and fauna via the only possible way – any and all peoples both alive and now dead are or were the progeny of man and woman – and the quality of the start of life is, to a considerable degree, dependent upon the quality of the relationship between each and every person’s progenitor and progenitrix. Any and all children can and could but blindly follow the examples – and the precepts – bequeathed, at best, with the all-too-human love and compassion of their parental providers and carers (not to mention their extended families). Obviously, what was required was an in-depth investigation and exploration, an existential uncovering and discovering, a salutary seeking and finding, of the pitfalls and problems which have beset and tormented both genders – difficulties which were, so had it been ordained, set in concrete and indisputable – as per the hoary “you can’t change human nature” maxim. That appalling status-quo was simply not acceptable to a handful of persons of a sufficiently naïve sensitivity. Thus the basic premise was, and is, as simplistic as this: if man and woman cannot or could not live together with nary a bicker or a squabble – let alone a quarrel or a wrangle – then forget about street-marches, assorted ‘love-ins’ and other public-demonstrations calling for world peace because man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family and thus the very core of civilisation itself. * Is it not high time ‘grown-ups’ began living-up to the title “mature adults” else the next generation, and those thereafter ever anon, also settle for a best which is less than the superlative best? ANDREW: This is only a possibility, [No. 49] though, seems to have implied such in the posts quoted by Richard. RICHARD: Not only is it not even “only a possibility” there is also no way he “seems to have implied such” (i.e., that he practiced a “proto-version” of the actualism method) in those quoted snippets, either, as that [quote] ‘on-going mindful action’ [endquote], which he promoted in that post on Saturday the 25th of November, 2000, as working because he had been using it [quote] ‘since 1986’ [endquote] cannot possibly be him implying that he practiced a proto-version of the actualism method “before Richard discovered just how far it can go” as [No. 49] not only *did not recognise* the actualism method – when critiquing Claudiu’s ‘scrolling banners’ post to Srid (albeit the Wiki version) – but he also methought-it-was-therefore-it-was quite unhelpful to glibly produce, or pronounce, what is printed on those banners as a method and, further, that in his opinion those banner words were *not describing a method at all*. Viz.: • [Claudiu to Srid]: Take a look at the ‘This Moment of Being Alive’ article. One banner says: “Consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is the actualism method”. The writers of that page felt it was important enough that they repeated it again, almost verbatim, in another banner: “Consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is what the actualism method is”. • [Respondent No. 49 to Claudiu]: “(...). To glibly produce, or pronounce, these banners as ‘a method’ is quite unhelpful, methinks because (...). IMO then, your banner words are not describing a method at all”. ~ (Message № 217xx). Having now read those quotes – readily available for all forum subscribers to access in the ‘Yahoo Groups’ archives – do you still consider [No. 49] “seems to have implied” in those quoted snippets from Saturday the 25th of November, 2000, that he practiced a “proto-version” of the actualism method since 1986? * Yet there is more: due, no doubt, to [No. 49] having called them “your banner words”, in the above post, Claudiu informed him, in a follow-up email, that the words on the banners were not written by him but, presumably, by Richard because of the copyright notice to that effect. What is of interest in [No. 49]’s response is what he has to say about those words on the banners, which unambiguously spell-out what the actualism method is, now that he undeniably knows who wrote them. As he opines how Richard wanted to emphasise that [quote] “the method” [endquote] – whatever that might be in [No. 49]’s mind – when properly applied should be enjoyable it is obvious that he still does not know what the actualism method is *despite* the scrolling banner words clearly and unambiguously stating that “consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive *is what the actualism method is*” sitting right there in front of his eyes, on his computer screen, as he types out his reply. Viz.: • [Claudiu to No. 49]: “It wasn’t me pronouncing these banners as a ‘method’... it says it right in the banners themselves – which, I presume, were written by Richard (the bottom of the page says ‘Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust’), but in any case were certainly not written by me. If you think it is unhelpful to pronounce ‘consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive’ as ‘a method’, then that criticism is best directed towards Richard”. [...elided...]. • [Respondent No. 49 to Claudiu]: “[...your banner words] are not describing a method at all”. • [Claudiu to No. 49]: “Why, then, does the banner say ‘Consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is what the actualism *method* is’?” [emphasis added in original]. • [Respondent No. 49 to Claudiu]: “IMO Richard wanted to emphasise that the method properly applied should be enjoyable”. [...elided...]. • [Claudiu to No. 49]: “This is all quite new to human history, is it not?” • [Respondent No. 49 to Claudiu]: “Yes, ‘consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive’ is indeed all quite new. Take care!” ~ (Message № 217xx). That last response of [No. 49]’s – agreeing that the phrase from the banners that he re-quotes right there as he types, and which clearly and unambiguously delineates just what the actualism method is, *“is indeed all quite new”* – is quite remarkable, in and of itself, given that he has purportedly been practicing precisely that for the last 30 years (since 1986). How could you have possibly considered for even a moment – let alone typed it out and posted it online – that [No. 49] “seems to have implied” in those quoted snippets from Saturday the 25th of November, 2000, that he practiced a “proto-version” of the actualism method since 1986? Moreover, do you see how not only is no third-party on-the-spot participant or witness needed – in order to attend to “a few possibilities that could do with the time and space to be answered” – but how no discussion between “those who were there” is required, either? * Whilst on the subject of those quoted snippets, in Footnote № 3, of Message № 21923 (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 3 February 2016) (and which came from the ‘ListBot’ archives of The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list), here are some more from those archives which will be of related interest. First, these two extracts from my keyboard in the year 2000: From: Richard <richard@...> To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...> Date: Mon 14/08/2000 8:20 AM Subject: Re: PCE’s • [Richard] [...]. I stress that it is the pure consciousness experience (PCE) that is *one’s guiding light – one’s authority or one’s teacher* – and not me or my description of a PCE. [...]. It is one’s destiny to be living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is. Regards, Richard. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Gary, 14 August 2000). * From: From: Richard <richard@...> To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...> Date: Tue 15/08/2000 8:30 AM Subject: Re: PCE’s • [Richard]: (...) I stress that it is the pure consciousness experience (PCE) that is *one’s guiding light – one’s authority or one’s teacher* – and not me or my description of a PCE. • [Gary]: Yes, with the PCE as one’s teacher, one has the very finest there is, an experience in which nothing is lacking and nothing can be added. It is already always here, awaiting discovery by those rudely bold enough to leave the Tried and True teachings of religion, ethicality, and morality behind. • [Richard]: And, what is more, it is one’s own experience wherein believing or taking on faith the words of another plays no part whatsoever. One’s own PCE demonstrably shows what is possible. It is both *lode-stone and benchmark* … a point of reference upon which all terms of reference can be reliably and confidently sourced. [...]. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Gary, 14 August 2000). And then the following post, a mere 15 emails and 23 days later, containing several references to reading, and absorbing, what is on both the website and the mailing list (with the latter freely acknowledged as being a valuable source of clarification) such as to convey the impression that the import of the highlighted portions of the above two posts would not have been overlooked. (Also, as there was so very little traffic on the mailing list, in these early days, it is hardly likely those two posts above would not be read through, anyway, as there was so very little else to read). Viz.: From: [Respondent No. 49] To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...> Date: Sat 9/09/2000 2:38 PM Subject: [No. 49]’s anniversary rave • [Respondent No. 49]: Hi all, Yes I’m still reading most of what is on offer...it is now 12 months since I discovered AF. [...]. [...] I have been absorbing the reading and living my life as only “I” can while still an identity inhabiting this flesh and blood. [...]. The list still however provides a valuable source of clarification... [...] When ‘my’ aim is to be actually free I don’t want to be dependent on a mailing list, person or anything else ... [...]. Altogether a thrilling and stimulating year with more twists and turns than an Alfred Hitchcock movie. Thanks again for the mailing list. Cheers [No. 49] Yet a little over four weeks later there is the following oddity (an oddity inasmuch it disregards the guiding light/ authority/ teacher/ lodestone/ benchmark attributes of the PCE and, in lieu of that impeccably-sourced certainty, ascribes a judge-and-jury rôle to the rotten-to-the-core identity vis-à-vis assessment of *the words* of those with expertise in the area of felicity and innocuity). Viz.: From: [Respondent No. 49] To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...> Date: Sat 14/10/2000 3:01 PM Subject: Sherlock Holmes methods... • [Respondent No. 49]: [...]. ‘I’ view afresh everything that is stopping me from breaking through to a happier and more harmless moment each moment again. Certainly ‘I’ listen to the experts but *‘I’ remain the judge and jury* till the end. [...]. [emphasis added]. And, less than two weeks later, the following email (already quoted twice before on this forum) encapsulates this self-ascribed ‘ultimate-fount’ rôle with unequivocal directness. Viz.: From: [Respondent No. 49] To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...> Date: Fri 27/10/2000 9:55 PM Subject: Mindfulness not spiritual • [Respondent No. 49]: [...]. You obviously object to the term “mindfulness”, Peter? Please...do not mistake the word for some ethical “right mind” controlled by some external authority...I am *my own highest authority* until I am actually free not enlightened. If you prefer I will use a word with which you are more comfortable? Bye for now, [No. 49] [emphasis added]. (see (Actualism, Peter, Actual Freedom List, No. 13b, 2.11.2000). So, here are the two pertinent lines of text juxtaposed for ease of comparison: • [Richard]: “...it is the PCE that is one’s guiding light – *one’s authority* or one’s teacher – and not me or my description of a PCE”. • [Respondent No. 49]: “...I am *my own highest authority* until I am actually free not enlightened”. And so it came to pass that it was still the case 14 years later as the following snippet evidences (with a superiority-aspiration feature highlighted as well). Viz.: #175xx From: [Respondent No. 49] To: <actualfreedom@...> Date: 14 Aug 2014 00:30:02 -0700 Subject: Re: Justine’s recent Mails to Richard [...]. • [Respondent No. 49]: Please remember that Richard never needed anothers words to forge his understanding of that which he identified as actual. ‘we’ must sort it all out on our own methinks....ever questioning *and possibly surpassing the master himself*. [...]. I am always indebted to all those teachers that have impacted my life in a myriad of different ways but *I was always the final arbiter and author* of my life. It was always in my hands as to what I sensibly accepted or rejected. [...]. [emphases added]. Also, a curious coincidence becomes evident, per favour all these snippets, inasmuch it just so happens that the inclusion of *benchmark* in that much further above Tue 15/08/2000 post of mine was a singular event – never repeated nor copy-pasted anywhere in any of my consequent emails [until now] – yet that very word features in more than just one of [No. 49]’s posts. For instance: From: [Respondent No. 49] To: <actualfreedom@... > Date: 23 Aug 2014 01:09:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Justine’s recent Mails to Richard [...]. • [Claudiu [!sic! - No. 40]]: Besides, I would be a fool, if I merely believed Richard’s or anyone words. • [Respondent No. 49]: OK...I know your no fool...this is a whole new paradigm... we pursue to experimentally discard and find ... *using haietmoba upping the bench mark as we go*. All the very best. [emphasis and square-bracketed insertion added]. * From: [Respondent No. 49] To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:41:52 +1100 Subject: Re: What is the difference? • [Respondent No. 49]: [...]. It should be remembered too, that the AF lingo, or narrative, (however well crafted), serves only to point one in the right direction, until one becomes ‘free’ (out from control) and lives expertly well. It can do no more. [...]. This can be dangerous territory, *if haietmoba is not reflectively benchmarked against ones life experiences*, in the market-place, to ascertain contemplatively and experientially what mutually works best. [...]. [emphasis added]. Thus, rather than the PCE being lodestone and benchmark – delineated as being a point of reference upon which all terms of reference can be reliably and confidently sourced (as per that singular Tue 15/08/2000 post of mine much further above) – it is his (renamed) ‘on-going mindful action’ of 1986 vintage which either ups the benchmark (whatever that means) or reflectively benchmarks against life experiences (however that mayhap) for ascertaining mutual benefit. * ANDREW: Here’s the thing, until the discussion happens, between those who where there, the facts are unclear. Addendum (Message № 22134): Hi Alan, when I said “those who were there”, I wasn’t referring to the 1960’s, but rather to [No. 49] and Richard’s interactions at art college and later when Richard was enlightened. RICHARD: Okay, for what it is worth then, my interactions with him at art-college (which, although a university in its own right, nowadays, was then but the lowly country college of a city university) were minimal at best – even though starting the three-year ‘Fine Arts’ course in the same year we majored in different subjects and thus our paths rarely crossed – as I was what was called a ‘mature-age student’ (in my mid-to-late twenties) and [No. 49] was either in his late-teens or early-twenties. Furthermore, I was a married man with a family and living in a family-household type setting whereas he was single and either living in the student’s quarters (at some stage) or rent-sharing regular accommodation with other students and the ilk. Moreover, my memory of the times is of him being a rather quiet, mild-mannered and/or reserved sort of youngster insofar as, on the few or scattered occasions of having a brief chat about matters relating to art, it was via him seeking me out rather than vice versa (as far as I recall). Although we both graduated at the same ceremonial event – only 7 or so of the original 70+ first-year students successfully graduated at the end of the three-year full-time course – [No. 49] went on to a further year or so of ‘State School Teacher Training’ (so as to qualify to teach in Government Schools) whereas I became a practising artist, and took to living way out in the rural countryside (about an 80 kilometre or so round-trip from the Art College). As for the enlightened years – not that I am about to provide extensive detail though – the main item of note was [No. 49] similarly illuding himself as having ‘arrived’ (i.e., to be enlightened when clearly not), circa 1990, such that I actually ceased speaking to him, literally, as yet more of my words, pointing out the incongruities, had only served to feed the illuding process as those words, too, were adjusted accordingly so as to be accommodated into the existing mind-set. Yet even such a drastic course of action as that was to no avail, either, and the wording of that further above ‘Fri 27/10/2000’ quote of his – viz.: [Respondent No. 49]: “I am my own highest authority until I am actually free *not enlightened*” [emphasis added] – is suggestive of still being illuded a decade later. * ANDREW: (Message № 22102). As far as I know/ remember this is the first time Richard has pointed out his concerns with [No. 49]’s way of going about actualism. RICHARD: Well now, that is because it was the first time [No. 49] was openly dismissive of the actualism method – as depicted on the third and last scrolling banners in the ‘This Moment of Being Alive’ article – inasmuch he methought-it-was-therefore-it-was quite unhelpful to glibly produce, or pronounce, what is printed on those banners as being a method and, further, that in his opinion those banner words were not describing a method at all. ’Twas the step too far – which left me with no choice but to ‘head it off at the pass’, so to speak, lest it gather momentum through finding favour with any other entities instinctually more cunning than the norm running with it – but true to form he doubled-down, and then doubled-down again and then again, until finally being hoist with his own petard (e.g., his self-appointed ‘cult-buster’ rôle). Just consider this for a moment: if (note ‘if’) his self-elevated “I am my own highest authority” status had not prevented him from backing-off, on that unsupportable methinks-it-is-therefore-it-is “glibly produced” & “quite unhelpful” reaction to the words on those “nifty banners scrolling across the screen” you reminded Srid of (vide: Message № 210xx), upon that reaction of his being queried by Claudiu, this particular Q&A email exchange would never have been written. * In finishing up, here is the salient point of this email: why did more than a few persons, upon reading the word ‘attentiveness’ and mentally substituting the word ‘mindfulness’ (as per the popular yet mistaken rendering of the Pāli ‘sati’/ the Vedic ‘smṛti’ as ‘mindful’ that is, not as in dictionaries, and thusly perpetuated throughout the secularised versions thereof), nevertheless still take that *tool for facilitating the actualism method* to be the actualism method in and of itself? For instance (from a 2004 email exchange): • [Respondent № 71]: “...[I am not able to see the silliness of feeling bad...] feeling bad seems to be the driving force for doing various things like laundry, which I am not interested in – and the only way feeling bad goes away is by doing it ... not by seeing the silliness of it ... am I missing something here?” • [Richard]: “Maybe an example will provide the clue: back in 1981, in the early days of starting on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition, I was standing in the kitchen of my ex-farmhouse, situated on a couple of acres of land in a remote countryside location, washing the breakfast dishes; I was not interested in washing the dishes/ I had never been interested in washing the dishes; I did not like washing the dishes/ I had never liked washing the dishes; washing the dishes was an uninteresting chore, an unlikeable task, that just had to be done (otherwise I would not be doing it/ would never had done it/ would never do it) ... and all the while the early-morning sun was streaming in through the large glass windows, in the eastern wall to my front, beckoning me, enticing me to hurry-up and get the uninteresting and unlikeable job over and done with so that I could scamper outside and get stuck into doing the interesting things I really liked doing/ wanted to do. Howsoever, *the tool for facilitating the actualism method* – asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) – had by now become a non-verbal approach to life, a wordless attitude towards being alive, and all-of-a-sudden, whilst standing there with my hands in the sink being anywhere but here, at anytime but now, *it was a delight and a joy to be doing exactly what it was I was already doing anyway* ... standing in the golden sunlight with hands immersed in delicious, tingling-to-the-touch, hot soapy water. I find myself looking at what the hands are feeling (the hot soapy water) and become aware I have never seen hot soapy water before – have never really seen hot soapy water before – and become fascinated with *the actuality of what is happening*: it is as if the hands know what to do without any input from me; they are reaching for a plate, they are applying the scourer appropriately, they are turning the plate over, they are applying the scourer appropriately, they are lifting the cleaned plate out of the washing sink; they are dipping it into the rinsing sink; they are placing it in the rack to drip ... and all this while they are *feeling the delicious tingling sensation of hot soapy water* as it strips-away the grease and other detritus ...”. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 71, 15 July 2004). The reason for my ‘salient point’ query is because whether one is attentive to the fact, each moment again, that this moment of being alive/ of being here is the only moment of ever being alive/ of ever being here (and taking action accordingly), or mindful of the fact, each moment again, that this moment of being alive/ of being here is the only moment of ever being alive/ of ever being here (and taking action thereby) is largely irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is not taking that *tool for facilitating the actualism method* to be the actualism method in and of itself. In my pre-internet days, due to it being largely irrelevant, I utilised either word – plus ‘conscious of the fact’ and ‘aware of the fact’ and ‘tuned-in to the fact’ and, maybe, even ‘awake to the fact’ and ‘alert to the fact’ as well – when explaining what helped in facilitating the way, manner or means (this is in the years before such formally became a method) whereby the resident identity enabled a paradisaical dimension to become apparent (nowadays known as the actual world). However during my early internet days (as explained in some detail, albeit in a different context, in Message № 20095 (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 15 July 2015), I gradually ceased using the word ‘mindful’ altogether as the all-pervasive nature of that (misnamed) buddhistic method became more and more apparent to me. And thus was it that ‘attentiveness’ became actualism’s designator for a particular *tool for facilitating the actualism method* – as distinct from and contrasted to ‘mindfulness’ being the buddhistic method, in and of itself, even unto secularised versions – so as to further distinguish the fact of the actualism method being so totally different to anything else (or, put another way, that the buddhistic ‘mindfulness’ method is another ball-game entirely). (Please note: once it becomes second-nature – a non-verbal attitude to life; a wordless approach to living – an intuitive awareness, as in an affective monitoring of mood and temperament, dispenses with that initial diligence and perseverance). * Now, and relating to the salient point of this Q&A exchange, there could be a possibility (as clearly distinct from a probability, let alone the likelihood, as the obverse is equally possible) that [No. 49] might have heard both me and my second wife interchangeably using either word circa 1986, when he first met Devika whilst a guest for a few weeks or so in the spare bedroom of our rented solid-brick apartment – or, more fittingly perhaps, circa 1990, when rent-sharing an old wooden house with the two of us, for more than a few months, along with <name withheld> (an occasional poster to this forum) and on the verandah of which he snapped that large colour photograph mentioned in Message № 21923 – and thus unthinkingly assumed, just as more than a few others have also mindlessly presumed, that this particular *tool for facilitating the actualism method* was, essentially, no different to his ‘on-going mindful action’ method of 1986 vintage, in and of itself, and thus adapted that particular *tool for facilitating the actualism method* into being that ‘on-going mindful action’ method, in and of itself, circa late-1999, which he gradually came to refer to thereafter by that [quote] “haietmoba” [endquote] string of letters. Hence, then, that reactionary “glibly produced” & “quite unhelpful” declaration upon taking issue with the scrolling banner words which, thereby, evidenced that what he had mindlessly assumed to be the actualism method since, ostensively, late-1999 was in fact not the actualism method which has been sitting there in plain view, on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, all the while. * Lastly, the ‘Summary of the Entire Path’ which Claudiu posted on the 31st of October, 2013, in Message № 15710 is well worth reading (or re-reading if applicable) as it lays out how he came to realise just what the actualism method actually is – as distinct from the tools (i.e., ‘techniques’ a.k.a. ‘technics’ or ‘techs’) for facilitating the actualism method – in a fresh, newly-discovered kind of way. Regards, Richard. RESPONDENT: The first actualists praised the iniciative of scientists like LeDoux. Me too. Anyway, sometimes I compare the ‘Reactive Mind’ experiences of Mr Hubbard (read Dianetics) with the ‘modern’ scientific approach and they are both similares: all in search for our biological ‘self/ Self’ to fix(?) it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_mind. And if you change ‘reactive mind’ by ‘human condition’, maybe Mr. Hubbard was a pioneer in this strange land inside our skulls... RESPONDENT No. 37: Hubbard was a science fiction author. [snip disinformation]. Nobody can claim to be a ‘pioneer’ in any field. All the ‘pioneers’ stand on the shoulder of giants. RESPONDENT: Of course ... RICHARD: G’day No. 14, Because you have, perhaps hastily, thereby endorsed a mere assertion that all pioneers are “nanos gigantum humeris insidentes” it will surely be to your advantage to be apprised of fact and not fancy. In mid-1980 I had an indelibly-imprinted-in-memory pure consciousness experience (PCE), which lasted for four hours, during which the pristine perfection of the significance of life itself was openly apparent in all its immaculate purity. Plus, of course, an individual peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as a flesh and blood body only. This four-hour PCE – in conjunction with many other thence-recalled similar perfection experiences stretching away back into my earliest childhood – is what initiated taking my first step on what is nowadays known as the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. (And only upon taking that first step did the next step became obvious; whereupon taking that second step revealed the third ... and so on, and so on, right through unto the last step). I knew perfectly well that I was standing on no shoulders whatsoever – be they those of giants or otherwise – as that PCE indubitably informed that living such a condition was entirely new to human experience/ human history. Indeed, I would say to anyone prepared to listen to me, at the time, how everyone has got it 180 degrees wrong and that nobody has to physically die to be in paradise (inasmuch eternity does not cease at birth only to then recommence at death after a 70+ year interregnum). As all the above information, and more, is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site there is no excuse for tamely acquiescing to any tendentious words to the contrary. Indeed, metaphysicist’s cherished giants (those many and various spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened ones) all had feet of clay. Had the venerated Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, for instance, gone all the way two and a half thousand years ago then peace-on-earth might very well have been a global occurrence by now. And that is quite something to bear in mind, eh? * RESPONDENT: Hello Richard, I agree with you: I don’t want frittering this vital opportunity to dissect the Actualism method. RICHARD: Good ... having spent the best part of a decade writing many millions of words in meticulous detail I have far better things to do than just reiterate what is already available free of charge on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. Because you have, perhaps hastily, thereby endorsed a mere assertion that all pioneers are “nanos gigantum humeris insidentes” it will surely be to your advantage to be apprised of fact and not fancy. RESPONDENT: If you was not the first and only one to experience PCE and to blame our obsolete Human Condition generated by blind Mother Nature – why your testimony are so special and exclusive? RICHARD: I am certainly not the first person – let alone the only one to have what is nowadays known as a pure consciousness experience (PCE) as it is something I spoke about with many and various peoples from many and various walks of life in the years before going public. Plus I have read accounts – and even seen some on television – of more than just a few people describing identical or similar-enough experiences ... which all go to demonstrate how it is common to all humans at some stage in their life (mostly in childhood). And I am also not the first person – let alone the only one – to make the connection between human beings’ instinctual urges, drives, impulses, and passions in general, and those of other animals. What makes my condition – living what the PCE’s provided evidence of as a permanent and thus irreversible condition – so special and exclusive (to use your phraseology) is that it is new to human experience/ human history. (What I have just written, and much more on this very topic, is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site). RESPONDENT: Why only you had an indelibly-imprinted-in-memory 4 hours PCE if others in past had days and months of PCE? RICHARD: As I never said that only I had a PCE (be it four hours or otherwise) which was indelibly-imprinted-in-memory then your query has no basis for me to reply sensibly to. Why none of the others ever acted upon those priceless opportunities is something only they could answer. RESPONDENT: In academic institutions, the first to register a scientific article are the owner (see Albert Einstein patents). Is it your case? RICHARD: No, of course not. RESPONDENT: And please, don’t put serendipity phenomenon in the cards. RICHARD: There is no way I would ascribe having acted upon that four hour PCE – in conjunction with many other thence – recalled similar perfection experiences stretching away back into my earliest childhood – to opportune happenstance. No way at all. If what you are looking for is why would it be me (and not one of all those other persons) to have acted thusly then the simple answer is that somebody always has to be the first to discover something new/ venture someplace different in any field of human endeavour/ human exploration. (In other words, had it been one of those other persons it would be them such a query would be directed to). As there was nothing peculiar to my constitution – I was a normal infant, child, youth, teenager, young man and adult it can only be put down to a combination of the many and various situations and circumstances which preceded it. * RICHARD: [...] Indeed, metaphysicians’ cherished giants (those many and various spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened ones) all had feet of clay. Had the venerated Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, for instance, gone all the way two and a half thousand years ago then peace-on-earth might very well have been a global occurrence by now. And that is quite something to bear in mind, eh? RESPONDENT: That time when you, I mean, the ‘old’ young Richard in the ‘Nam, saw that budist monk in fire, you shaved your head. Why if not a reaction behaviour in agreement with that bonzo ‘pacific’ (sic) protest? RICHARD: First of all, I did not see the physical self-immolation you refer to – it took place quite a few kilometres from the area where I was militarily engaged – but the news of it was no less compelling, in its effect, than had that been the case. Secondly, the ostensible reason (at the time) for shaving my head was quite prosaic: in those days I fancied a late-fifties/ early sixties rocker-style coiffure – complete with duck-tail and dangling forelock – and a superior officer had been on my case for quite some time to have my hair cut according to army regulations. So, rather than dutifully comply – and in quite a juvenile way – I up and shaved the whole damn’ lot off (only to be duly punished via the ‘conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline’ catch-all regulation). ‘Twas only many years later that the underlying reason – the fundamental cause for such an odd behaviour – came terrifyingly/ horrifyingly to the surface. Hence my aghastness at what we were both doing. Lastly, it was not being [quote] ‘in agreement’ [endquote] with the aims of the Buddhist community as they were quite zealously opposed to the Catholic government, at the time, and sought a political reunification of their country (via coming to an accommodation with the Communist regime which I was there to fight against). RESPONDENT: Secondly, What difference does it make whether Richard is the first to find actual freedom ... RICHARD: It makes no difference whatsoever who was the first to find an actual freedom from the human condition as it is what is found that makes a difference ... as expressed thisaway (also only a few weeks ago): • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Questioning your ‘priority’ of discovery is tantamount to rejecting ‘peace on earth’. • [Richard]: ‘It matters not one jot who discovered an actual freedom from the human condition – somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any area of human endeavour as a matter of course – as what does matter is the discovery that, in order for the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent, identity in toto becomes extinct’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 94, 5 August 2005). Actual Freedom Homepage
Commonly Raised Objections – Index | Frequently Flogged Misconceptions – Index | Frequently Asked Questions – Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Design, Richard's & Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity