# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On How To Become Free of the Human Condition RICK: Richard, in regards to the actualist method, is ‘... the only moment I’m ever alive’ phrase helpful after asking the ‘how am I experiencing ...’ question? Are there benefits to saying that statement along with the question? Or is ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ sufficient enough to become actually free? RICHARD: The reason why I draw attention to the fact that this moment is the only moment one is ever alive when responding to queries about the actualism method – asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) until it becomes a non-verbal attitude/ a wordless approach to life – is so as to provide for an undivided attention or exclusive focus upon what is currently occurring ... this moment being the very place, so to speak, where not only everything happens but where radical change can, and does, occur. If there be not this salient comprehension (that this moment is the only moment one is ever alive) then tacking that phrase onto the actualism question – until it too becomes a non-verbal attitude/ a wordless approach to life – would, presumably, be helpful in gaining that understanding. RESPONDENT: By saying ‘counter-frequency thought’ I mean the exactly right thought/ words that will someday do the trick. I’m thinking the exactly right thought/ idea will be the one that exactly duplicates the function/ purpose of the psyche/ identity, and because two things cannot occupy the same space, then, ZAP. RICHARD: Okay ... all I can say is that the notion of ‘frequency’ does not ring any bells for me (meaning I cannot relate to it). As for the right thought/ idea (or, rather, realisation/ thought): I have been asked, on occasion, about the significance of the realisation that occurred in an abandoned cow-paddock which preceded/ triggered the break-through into an actual freedom from the human condition (Richard, Articles, A Brief Personal History, #3). and by now I basically have a multiple-choice answer (you can take your pick). 1. It had no significance whatsoever (what was being realised/ thought about at that particular moment merely preceded the event) – hence the wording ‘idly mused’ in my report of the episode – as that moment just happened to be when the culmination of the seminal question asked 5-6 weeks prior (‘what am I in relation to other people?’), which had been kept running in the depths of the psyche so as to effect an experiential answer, came about. 2. It was the trigger which induced the culmination of the seminal question asked 5-6 weeks prior (‘what am I in relation to other people?’) which had been kept running in the depths of the psyche so as to effect an experiential answer – in regards to what I was engaged in at that period of my life – hence the wording, in my report of the event, ‘struck by the curious fact’ regarding what I was engaged in at that particular moment. As what I was ‘struck by the fact’ of had nothing whatsoever to do with the seminal question then No. 2 seems unlikely ... which leaves No. 1 as being the likely candidate. In other words, it was the seminal question which delivered the goods – when they were good and ready to be delivered so to speak – and being struck by a fact about something else entirely was simply what was happening when the experiential answer being asked for came about. However, as the fact which I was struck by was that clearing forests to plant grass was no longer valid – and that clearing grass to plant forests was – it would seem that No. 1 is unlikely ... which leaves No. 3 as the likely candidate. 3. The culmination of the seminal question asked 5-6 weeks prior (‘what am I in relation to other people?’), which had been kept running in the depths of the psyche so as to effect an experiential answer, was that the wisdom of yesteryear was no longer valid (meaning that being an enlightened being had reached its use-by date). Yet as the ancient wisdom of the spirit-ridden bronze-age peoples never was valid – whereas clearing forest to plant grass was – it would seem that No. 2 is the likely candidate as what I was actually struck by was that it had got to the stage that I did not actually know what the right thing to do was any longer ... meaning that I was, finally, ready and ripe to be the answer (which is what the word ‘experiential’ refers to when all is said and done). As I said: you can take your pick. * RESPONDENT: O.K. let’s forget the thought frequency thing. You answered my question about what the right thought was that caused AF in you. I’m saying because of the seminal question, you had to admit you had been fooling yourself when you realized your enlightened motivation (survive!) to plant trees was no different than your unenlightened motivation (survive!) to plant grass. RICHARD: Oh no, planting grass really was the right thing to do all those years ago – it is only modern-day peoples who castigate the pioneers for doing what was right then – just as planting trees is the right thing to do nowadays ... what is the right thing to do, in any era, changes into another right thing to do as changes caused by doing the previous right thing happen. What I really realised, at that moment and in that context, was that I no longer knew what the right thing to do was anymore ... and at that moment I was, finally, ripe and ready to be what I actually am. RESPONDENT: But how did you see the fallacy of passionate, identity-driven survival? It had to have been all those PCE’s you had. RICHARD: Yes, it was also all the PCE’s, but not only that (and not specifically that): it was the seminal question that did the trick and the situation and circumstances, peculiar to me and my context at that time, were but the trigger ... if I had been some other person in some other context I could have been washing the dishes, for example, or riding a bicycle. And if I had been some other person in some other context the seminal question would have been different too ... meaning that only you can know what you must do – and you will not know what that is until it happens – and when you do know what to do it will be too late to stop the happening. Hence all the procrastination – it means the end of ‘me’ – because it can, and will, happen now. * RESPONDENT: Does the psyche identify itself or is it identified by ... common sense? RICHARD: The psyche, being affectively-based, identifies itself intuitively – hence intuition is often held in high esteem – inasmuch as intuitively knowing means instinctively knowing (and not insightfully knowing as it is sometimes used to mean) ... and as one’s native intelligence can barely get a foot in the door to where the instinctual passions hold sway the psyche usually eludes being identified commonsensically. RESPONDENT: You say it doesn’t end itself, but pushes a button to make it happen. What is that button? RICHARD: You must be referring to something like this: • [Richard]: ‘‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself. What ‘I’ can do to bring about this ‘death’ is that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously – and with knowledge aforethought (from the PCE) – set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and intentionally, is to press the button which precipitates a momentum – oft-times alarming but always thrilling – that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself. When ‘I’ freely and cheerfully sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is the greatest gift one can bestow upon this body and that body and every body. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Alan, 27 June 1998). The button is, of course, dedication (‘what one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself’) and/or devotion. Here is how I put in my previous e-mail: • [Richard]: ‘... when ‘I’ looked into myself and at all the people around and saw the sorrow of humankind ‘I’ could not stop. ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ had just devoted myself to the task of setting ‘myself’ and ‘humanity’ free ... ‘I’ willingly dedicated my life to this most worthy cause. It is so exquisite to devote oneself to something whole-heartedly ... the ‘boots and all’ approach ‘I’ called it then! (from page 261 in ‘Richard’s Journal’, Second Edition; ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust). And one of the best ways of ascertaining when one’s commitment has reached 100% is when the peoples one knows start calling one obsessed and slip the word ‘insanity’ into their well-meant advice every now and again. Despite all the rhetoric 100% commitment is avoided like the plague in the real-world. RESPONDENT: OK. Tell me how I can eliminate all malice and sorrow. RICHARD: Do you see – with both eyes – the utter necessity for that course of action? If you do ... you will never be the same again. RESPONDENT: Richard, would you know of any psychotherapists or psychologists in New Zealand who utilise the Actual Freedom method? If I could have a few sessions with someone who knows what they are doing, that would be awesome. RICHARD: Here is the actualism method in its entirety ... totally free of charge: • Ask yourself, each moment again, the following question: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ The actualism method is a DIY method: nobody else can possibly know your every thought, your every feeling, your every instinctual impulse ... another person cannot know the nuances of your ethnic background, the intimate details of your familial upbringing, the subtleties of your peer-group aspirations and so on and so on. Only you can set yourself free ... your freedom is in your hands and your hands alone. RICHARD: The physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) will not eventuate unless the physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition is intimately experienced. (...) Is it not obvious that all the animosity and anguish that has beset humankind throughout millennia comes from that which is a lot deeper than ‘the thinker is the thought’ ... all the misery and mayhem stems from an animal energy which is much, much more powerful than thought, thoughts and thinking. (...) One has to want to be free from the human condition like one has never wanted anything before. Because unless one is vitally interested in peace on earth one will never even begin to free the crippled intelligence from the debilitating passions bestowed by blind nature. Yet becoming vitally interested is but the preliminary stage, because until one becomes curious as to whether what is being written here about genetic inheritance can be applied to themselves, only then does the first step begin. For it is only when one becomes curious about the workings of oneself – what makes one tick – is that person participating in their search for freedom for the first time in their life. This is because people mostly look to rearranging their beliefs and truths as being sufficient effort ... ‘I’ am willing to be free as long as ‘I’ can remain ‘me’. In other words: their notion of freedom is a ‘clip-on’. Then curiosity becomes fascination ... and then the fun begins to gain a momentum of its own. One is drawn inexorably further and further towards one’s destiny ... fascination leads to commitment and one can know when one’s commitment is approaching a 100% commitment because others around one will classify one as ‘obsessed’ (in spite of all their rhetoric a 100% commitment to evoking peace-on-earth is actively discouraged by one’s peers). Eventually one realises that one is on one’s own in this, the adventure of a life-time, and a peculiar tenacity that enables one to proceed against all odds ensues. Then one takes the penultimate step ... one abandons ‘humanity’. An actual freedom from the human condition then unfolds its inevitable destiny. JAMES: I’m not clear as to how one eliminates the instincts after one has become intimate with them and then has a 100% commitment. Does this happen on its own or is there something that I need to do? RICHARD: It happens on its own in that, as ‘I’ am the instinctual passions and the instinctual passions are ‘me’, there is no way that ‘I’ can end ‘me’. What ‘I’ do is that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button – which is to acquiesce – which precipitates an oft-times alarming but always thrilling momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. The acquiescing is that one thus dedicates oneself to being here as the universe’s experience of itself now ... it is the unreserved !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood body. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result of such devotion because it is already here ... it is always here now. ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ was merely standing in the way of the already always existing perfect purity from becoming apparent by sitting back and moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all (as epitomised in ‘I didn’t ask to be born’). How can one be forever sticking one’s toe in and testing out the waters and yet expect to be able to look at oneself in the mirror each morning with dignity. The act of initiating this ‘process’ – acquiescence – is to embrace death. The 100% commitment happens of its own accord too; unlike the commitment one normally makes as a vow or a resolution (which can be broken after a lot of ‘soul-searching’ and heart-ache) the 100% commitment cannot be undone. This means one is already committed to finding out and there is no pulling back – which is why most people do not want to start – because once one has started, one cannot stop ... it is a one-way trip. The 100% commitment is primarily born out of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) as once one has experienced perfection one simply cannot settle for second-best (or worse). As a PCE is a short-term direct seeing, unmediated by ‘I’ and/or ‘me’, then when the PCE is over the fun begins. Because one must start from where one is at and move towards enabling what the PCE demonstrates ... that ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ is standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth from being apparent. This ‘starting from where one is’ is where intimately experiencing the physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition comes into play ... one needs to know experientially what it is that one is made up off (‘I’ need to experientially know what makes ‘me’ tick). This experiential knowing – in conjunction with the experiential knowing of the PCE – relieves one from trusting, believing, hoping and having faith as there is now a confidence, born out of the certainty of direct experience, that enables one to activate naiveté (sans gullibility) in one’s daily life. It is this naïve confidence (which is the nearest one can approximate innocence whilst still being an identity) that produces moment-to-moment successes, for there is the impelling movement of actualising perfection – being pulled from ahead – which is what comes from the pure intent that ensues with being activated by the consummate purity as evidenced in the PCE. This is qualitatively different from a propelling movement – being pushed from behind – which is what comes from the disciplined action that eventuates with being motivated by certitude (derived second-hand via trusting, believing, hoping and having faith). This impelling momentum – being drawn ineluctably to one’s destiny – is the thrilling part of it. JAMES: Are you saying that when the time is right I simply abandon the instincts? RICHARD: One abandons ‘humanity’. And one knows ‘when the time is ripe’ because one finds out these things as they are happening or after they have happened and the realisation that this abandon is actually happening is stimulating, to say the least (there are weird feelings such as ‘a rat deserting a sinking ship’ to feel for example). One will no longer belong anymore to the largest group there is ... ‘humanity’ (which is way, way past all gender groups, racial groups, age groups and other social groups). One realises that one is on one’s own in this, the adventure of a life-time, as an actuality. RESPONDENT: Would you tell the victims of Hitler or the Ku Klux Klan to inquire into themselves? RICHARD: Yes ... if they asked me. Identifying with by relating and belonging to a group – and espousing group ideals – invites attack from the bully-boys of another group who deem themselves superior. Why identify? Why relate? Why belong? The pertinent question to ask oneself now is: ‘Why do I have the need to identify by relating to anyone or belonging to any group at all’? This is inquiring. * RESPONDENT: I was inquiring about a situation that has arisen a few times in my life and however I have dealt with it, it has been disturbing, depressing and generally unsatisfactory. RICHARD: If it strikes home deeply that the application of the ‘Tried and True’ methods have led to a result that is ‘disturbing, depressing and generally unsatisfactory’ then you may very well be ripe for a genuine enquiry into what it is to be a human being living in this world as it is with people as they are. It is, of course, a bold step to forsake lofty thoughts, profound feelings and psychic adumbrations and enter into the actuality of life as a sensate experience. It requires a startling audacity to devote oneself to the task of causing a mutation of consciousness to occur. To have the requisite determination to apply oneself, with the diligence and perseverance born out of pure intent obtained from the purity and perfection of a pure consciousness experience (PCE), to the patient dismantling of one’s accrued social identity indicates a strength of purpose unequalled in the annals of history. It is no little thing that one does ... and it has enormous consequences, not only for one’s own well-being, but for humankind as a whole. Can you remember any of your PCE’s? RESPONDENT: Bettering oneself, as I see it is comparing oneself to some standard and trying to reach that standard. RICHARD: Precisely. The standard for the ‘me’ that was, was the perfection of the PCE. To reach that standard required ‘me’ to better ‘myself’ until ‘I’ reached the point of whatever purity is humanly possible wherein ‘I’ could safely self-immolate. To venture into the purity of the actual ill-prepared – too much and too fast and too soon – would ‘blow the fuses’ and lead to madness. RESPONDENT: It would be more productive to under-stand what one is, not try to better it. RICHARD: One must start where one is at. In the PCE I saw that ‘I’ was a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity. I saw how ‘I’ was treating ‘my’ wife, ‘my’ children, ‘my’ friends, ‘my’ acquaintances, ‘my’ colleagues and – most of all – ‘myself’. When the PCE finished and ‘I’ was again dominating this body, ‘I’ set out to better ‘myself’. It is of no avail to sit in a deck-chair on the patio waiting for the grace of god to descend. One must start where on is at. A grumpy person has no chance of becoming free. RESPONDENT: You can only become better at modifying the past. But to comprehend the past is to change it completely. RICHARD: To comprehend how one has felt, thought and behaved in the past is to effect whatever modification – partial change – one is humanly capable of ... now. To change completely – radically, totally, utterly – is the ending of ‘oneself’ ... extirpation, annihilation, extinction. Such self-immolation requires the maximum degree of preliminary self-improvement possible in order for the elimination of ‘self’ to happen safely. RESPONDENT: Insight in your condition is only reaching me in the form of conclusions, actually. And I do not see how you are pointing to it. You are pointing something out, but the ‘HOW’ is, to me at least, unrecognisable. Can you elaborate on this ‘HOW’. (Or maybe on why it happened?). RICHARD: It is all to do with humanity’s inhumanity to humanity. Something can definitely be achieved in regards to peace-on-earth ... one can readily do something about it if one is suitably motivated to do so. For me it all started when I was nineteen years of age. I was in a war-torn foreign country, dressed in a jungle-green uniform and carrying a loaded rifle in my hands. This was to be the turning point of my life, for up until then, I was a typical western youth, raised to believe in God, Queen and Country. Humanity’s inhumanity to humanity – society’s treatment of its subject citizens – was driven home to me, there and then, in a way that left me appalled, horrified, terrified and repulsed to the core of my being with a sick revulsion. I saw that no one knew what was going on and – most importantly – that no one was ‘in charge’ of the world. There was nobody to ‘save’ the human race ... all gods were but a figment of a feverish imagination. Out of a despairing desperation, that was collectively shared by my fellow humans, I saw and understood that I was as ‘guilty’ as any one else. For in me – as is in everyone – was both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ... it was that some people were better at controlling their ‘dark side’. However, in a war, there is no way anyone can control any longer ... ‘evil’ ran rampant. I saw that fear and aggression ruled the world ... and that these were instincts one was born with. Thus started my search for freedom from the Human Condition. My attitude, all those years ago was this: ‘I’ was only interested in changing ‘myself’ fundamentally, radically, completely and utterly. This entailed finding the source of ‘myself’ ... and I discovered that ‘I’ was born out of the instincts that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth. This rudimentary self is the root cause of all the malice and sorrow that besets humankind, and to eliminate malice and sorrow ‘I’ had to eliminate the fear and aggression that this self is made up of ... the instincts. But as this self was the instincts – there is no differentiation betwixt the two – then the elimination of one was the elimination of the other. One is the other and the other is one. In fact, with the elimination of the instincts, ‘I’ ceased to exist, period. * RICHARD: One can live unequivocally, endowed with an actual gracefulness and dignity, in a magical wonderland. RESPONDENT: Seems nice, but alas, my head keeps spinning. Will contact you on this when head makes full stop. RICHARD: Ask yourself this, each moment again: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? It is essential for success to grasp the fact that this is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now ... and a hoped-for happiness and harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All you get by waiting is more waiting. Thus any ‘change’ can only happen now. The jumping in point is always here ... it is at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus, if you miss it this time around, hey presto ... you have another chance immediately. Life is excellent at providing opportunities like this. RICHARD: Everything was already perfect, as it always had been and always would be. Yet I knew that I would revert back to being that entity – that ‘I’ – and work ‘my’ way through whatever stood in ‘my’ way to freedom. ‘I’ did not permanently ‘dissipate when seen through’ ... ‘I’ had to put in a lot of work before ‘my’ complete and final demise could eventuate. For ‘I’ was born out of the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth ... a rough and ready software package to give us all a start in life. There is nothing subjective about war and murder and rape and torture and domestic violence ... which is the inevitable outcome of blind nature’s gratuitous bestowal of the instinct for survival at any cost. RESPONDENT: If by work you mean meditative life, seeing with full attention or apperception, yes. But when it is asserted that ‘I’ have arrived at a me-less state, there clearly is divisive self-image. RICHARD: Not a meditative life, no ... I have never meditated. What I did was: • To constantly have the question running: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ This kept ‘me’ on the ball for all the waking hours. • I did whatever to induce PCE’s on a daily basis so as to gain maximum benefit from living the nearest approximation to an actual freedom that was possible ... maybe two to three times a day. • I examined all ‘my’ beliefs – cunningly disguised as ‘truths’ – as they came up in ‘my’ moment-to-moment living. • I did everything possible that ‘I’ could do to blatantly imitate the actual in that ‘I’ endeavoured to be happy and harmless for as much as is humanly possible. This was achieved by putting everything on a ‘it doesn’t really matter’ basis. That is, ‘I’ would prefer people, things and events to be a particular way, but if it did not turn out like that ... it did not really matter for it was only a preference. ‘I’ chose to no longer give other people – or the weather – the power to make ‘me’ angry ... or even irritated ... or even peeved. It was great fun and very, very rewarding along the way. ‘My’ life became cleaner and clearer and more and more pure as each habitual way of living life was consciously eliminated through constant exposure. • Finally ‘I’ invited the actual by letting go of the controls and letting this moment live ‘me’. ‘I’ became the experience of the doing of this business of being alive ... no longer the ‘do-er’. Thus ‘my’ days were numbered ... ‘I’ could hardly maintain ‘myself’ ... soon ‘my’ time would come to an end. An inevitability set in and a thrilling momentum took over ... ‘my’ demise became imminent. The moment of the death of ‘me’ was so real that it was experienced as being that one was going into the grave physically. That is how real ‘I’ am. * RESPONDENT: If there is sadness or anger or whatever, it is included in the field of perception and examined with great interest as ‘what is’ reveals itself. See what I mean? RICHARD: Yes, indeed I do. This is the essence of ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ The past – although being actual whilst it was happening – is not actual now. The future – although it will be actual when it happen – is not actual now. Only this moment is actual. If I am not happy and harmless here and now, then I am wasting this precious moment of being alive. Yesterday’s remembered happiness and harmlessness means nothing if one is not happy and harmless here and now ... and the same applies to tomorrow’s anticipated happiness and harmlessness. If one is not happy and harmless now, then one has something to look at to discover why not ... and one keeps on looking until one is back on track. Being ‘on track’ means a general sense of well-being ... a grumpy person has no chance whatsoever of becoming free. Once one has established this base, one up-levels the ‘feeling happy and harmless’ experience to ‘feeling the sheer perfection of being alive here and now’. It is possible to experience this for ninety-nine percent of the time ... and the other one percent provides very little trouble. I call this a virtual freedom. Virtual freedom far exceeds normal human expectations anyway, so if nothing else happened one would be light years ahead of normal. Virtual freedom is the essential springboard into an actual freedom. Through reflective thought and fascinated contemplation of the fact that one is already always here, one finds oneself stepping into the actual world of sensual delight ... leaving one’s ‘self’ behind in the ‘real’ world where it belongs. Fear – existential angst at finding oneself to be the contingent ‘being’ one always suspected oneself to be – is both the barrier and the way to freedom. Always included in fear is a thrilling aspect, and by focussing upon this and not fear itself, an energy gathers momentum which does the trick for one (thrilling as in an exciting sensation through the body, stirring, stimulating, electrifying, rousing, moving, gripping, hair-raising, riveting, joyful, pleasing, throbbing, trembling, tremulous, quivering, shivering, fluttering, shuddering and vibrating). ‘I’ cannot set ‘myself’ free ... but ‘I’ can set in motion a process that will lead to ‘my’ eventual demise. RICHARD: Are you saying that the possibility of peace-on-earth is so remote that one should give up before even trying? Thus 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 will go on for ever and a day. RESPONDENT: No, not saying that. I am saying that all the human effort thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem and the problem seems to be complex indeed. RICHARD: Okay ... ‘all the human effort thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem’ are the key-words. I have discovered something entirely new in human history ... and mostly, when I report my experience to my fellow human beings, people wish to retry ‘all the human effort’ which, as you so rightly say ‘thus far does not seem to have fixed the problem’. For clarity I call it the ‘Tried and Failed’ ... and then get told that I am arrogant (or whatever). RESPONDENT: I am no more saying that we should therefore give up than I would suggest we should quit trying to figure out physics and biology because those subjects are complex. RICHARD: Good. It is the most stimulating adventure of a lifetime to embark upon a voyage into one’s own psyche. Discovering the source of the Nile or climbing Mount Everest – or whatever physical venture – pales into insignificance when compared to the thrill of finding out about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being. I am having so much fun ... those middle-aged or elderly people who bemoan their ‘lost youth’ leave me astonished. Back then I was – basically – lost, lonely, frightened and confused. Accordingly, I set out on what was to become the most marvellous escapade possible. As soon as I understood that there was nobody stopping me but myself, I had the autonomy to inquire, to seek, to investigate and to explore. As soon as I realised nobody was standing in the way but myself, that realisation became an actualisation and I was free to encounter, to uncover, to discover and to find the ‘secret to life’ or the ‘meaning of life’ or the ‘riddle of existence’, or the ‘purpose of the universe’ or whatever one’s quest may be called. To dare to be me – to be what-I-am as an actuality – rather than the who ‘I’ was or the who ‘I’ am or the who ‘I’ will be, calls for an audacity unparalleled in the annals of history ... or one’s personal history, at least. To seek and to find; to explore and uncover; to investigate and discover ... these actions are the very stuff of life! RICHARD: I did not devise, concoct or contrive this peace-on-earth ... it was already here ... as it always has been and always will be. I just happened to discover it, that is all ... and it being so perfect that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence. What they do with this information is their business. RESPONDENT: Should I use this information to commit psychological and psychic suicide by jumping into the deep end with boots and all on? RICHARD: Oh, no. Not with your boots on ... do not take any baggage with you at all. Go forth, more naked than you would be by taking your clothes off, into the world of people, things and events. RESPONDENT: Which ‘I’ should jump first, the ego I or the soul I? Mine have been fighting. One says, ‘you go first’, and the other one says, ‘No. you go first’. RICHARD: Good, you have your sense of humour. This business of becoming free is not – contrary to popular opinion – a serious business at all. Be totally sincere, most definitely utterly sincere, as genuineness is essential. But serious ... no way. An actual freedom is all about having fun; about enjoying being here; about delighting in being alive. All that ‘being serious’ stuff actively works against peace-on-earth. However, I mean it most sincerely about the two parts to one’s identity. It matters not at all if one has been raised by agnostic or atheistic or theistic parents ... it is in the culture – the society one is born into – anyway. And, apart from that, it is what one is born with ... if the word ‘soul’ does not work for you then use the word ‘being’. It is your feeling of being – the real ‘me’ – that is evidenced when one says: ‘But what about me, nobody loves me for me’! For a woman it is: ‘You only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it is: ‘You only want me for my money ... and not for me’. For a child it is: ‘You only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. That sense of ‘me’ – that being – is what I call the soul. It arises out of the basic instincts that blind nature endowed us all with as a rough and ready ‘soft-ware’ package to make a start in life. These instincts – mainly fear and aggression and nurture and desire – appear as a rudimentary self. This is why it is felt to be one’s ‘Original Face’ ... to use the Zen terminology. RESPONDENT: Neither one can see any place to jump into, anyway. We’re getting nowhere first. RICHARD: The jumping in point is always here ... it is at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus, if you miss it this time around, hey presto ... you have another chance immediately. Life is excellent at providing opportunities like this. RESPONDENT: You’re going to have to send more information or draw a clearer map to paradise. RICHARD: Okay. It is essential for success to grasp the fact that this is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness does not mean a thing if one is miserable now ... and a hoped-for happiness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All you get by waiting is more waiting. Thus any ‘change’ can only happen now. What ‘I’ did, eighteen years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective method of ridding this body of ‘me’. (Now I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). ‘I’ asked myself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? It was a bit of a chore to start with, but as success after success started to multiply exponentially, it became automatic to have this question running as an on-going thing ... because it delivered the goods right here and now ... not off into some indeterminate future. Plus the successes were repeatable – almost on demand – and satisfied the ‘scientific method’. As ‘I’ knew, from the PCE that started ‘me’ off into ridding this body of ‘me’, that it was possible to experience this moment in time and this place in space as perfection personified, ‘I’ set a minimum standard of experience for myself: feeling good. (‘Feeling good’ is an unambiguous term ... if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all.) If ‘I’ am not feeling good then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end that good feeling? Ah ... yes ... ‘he said that and ...’, or ‘she didn’t do this and I ...’, or ‘what I wanted was ... and I didn’t get it ...’, and so on. One does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most. This way, the reward is immediate; by finding out what triggered off this loss of feeling good, one commences another period of enjoying this moment of being alive. You may remember what I wrote to you some days ago about attention, fascination, reflection, contemplation and apperception? Apperceptive awareness can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being alive now. This moment is your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time than now. And, wherever you are, one is always here ... even if you start walking over to there, along the way to there you are always here ... and when you arrive ‘there’, it too is here. Thus attention becomes a fascination with the fact that one is always here ... and it is already now. Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. As one is already here, and it is always now ... then one has arrived before one starts. The potent combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking and thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity. Okay, it is all about being here at this moment in time and this place in space ... and if you are not feeling good you have no chance whatsoever of being here. A grumpy person locks themselves out of the perfect purity of this moment and place. If you do not want to be here, then forget it. Of course, once you get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy’. And after that: ‘feeling perfect’. These are all feelings, you will notice, this is not perfection personified yet ... but, then again, feeling perfect for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day is way beyond normal human expectations anyway. Also, it is a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once. But one has to want to be here on this planet ... most people resent being here and wish to escape. This method will bring one into being more fully here than anyone has ever been before. It is really important to understand the point I have been pushing about the soul ... getting into feelings like this – ‘perfect’ feelings – leaves one in imminent danger of the seductive snare of Love and Beauty, and, conveniently ignoring their opposites, becoming enlightened, or at least illuminated. ‘Me’ – that intuition of ‘being’ that I call the soul – sugar coats itself with Love and Compassion and Beauty and Truth and swans along in a state of Blissful Euphoria. Thus one then goes off into some mystical State of Being in some metaphysical world and misses out on the clean and clear perfection of this actual world. It is very, very difficult to get out of the enlightened state and go ‘beyond it’ into this actual world of the senses. So: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? It beats any pathetic mantra by a country mile ... because it is useful. * RESPONDENT: Why do you think one must to be void of feelings and emotions in order to not be abusive, a rapist, a murdered or suicidal. RICHARD: Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings. It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly known as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others. What the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is on about is a virtual freedom wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to be feeling good, feeling happy and harmless and feeling excellent/ perfect for 99% of the time. If one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception). If it does not ... then one is way ahead of normal human expectations anyway as the aim is to enjoy and appreciate being here now for as much as is possible. It is a win/ win situation. RESPONDENT: You said that there is an insight which is not knowledge: ‘When one has an insight into an aspect of the Human Condition, there is action ... and this action is the actualising of the experience so that one’s personality is changed, irrevocably’. Can we look a little closer at this? RICHARD: We surely can. The insight reveals what conceptual thinking was unable to arrive at by the use of – sometimes laborious – sequential thought. An insight is direct seeing, unmediated by a ‘thinker’ ... and when the moment of insight is over, then the fun begins. Because one must start from where one is at and move towards what the insight disclosed. However, one has had the insight, and the insight galvanises one into matter-of-fact thought instead of merely conceptual thought. Thinking is still linear, of course, but one now has the advantage of being able to see the obvious. Seeing the obvious relieves one from believing, trusting, hoping and having faith. There is now a confidence, born out of the certainty of the insight, that enables one to actualise the insight in one’s daily life ... and this actualisation means that one’s personality is changed, irrevocably. (This is a potential sticking point, incidentally, for people want to be free without having to change ... but that is another topic). It is this confidence that effects actual change, for there is an impelling movement of actualisation ... being pulled from ahead ... which is what comes from the choiceless action that ensues with being activated from the insight. This is qualitatively different from a propelling movement ... being pushed from behind ... which is what comes from the disciplined action that eventuates with being motivated by conceptual thought. There is always a smidgen or two of doubt in conceptual thought, you see. RICHARD: Which means: what is preventing the PCE from happening ... right now? RESPONDENT: It is almost like the question is assuming that it is not happening ... RICHARD: The question is not ‘assuming that it is not happening’ ... the question is only because it is indeed not happening. RESPONDENT: ... like you are looking for a barrier ... RICHARD: Whenever this moment of being alive – the only moment there is as an actuality – is not being experienced as an on-going pure consciousness experiencing then there is most definitely something preventing such perfection. A pure consciousness experience (PCE) of the world as-it-is with people as-they-are happens when the mind becomes aware of itself ... such awareness is called apperceptive awareness. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – which is to be the senses as a naked awareness – is the outcome of the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time ... which is one’s only moment of being alive. (Oxford Dictionary: apperception: the mind’s perception of itself). RESPONDENT: ... like you are asking relative to some past PCE. RICHARD: Aye ... this is the whole point of being able to remember. When one has experienced the best one would have to be a fool to settle for second-best – or worse – because this moment of being alive is one’s only moment of being alive. RESPONDENT: The question I am asking is simple: what is already happening now? RICHARD: To be more precise, I put it this way: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ RESPONDENT: There is nothing to remove or prevent or break away from to go beyond, is there? RICHARD: Only if there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (an identity by any other name) lurking around inside the flesh and blood body and/or bodies that is each and every one of the 6.0 billion human beings currently inhabiting this fair planet we all live on. Such an identity reveals its presence by contaminating this moment of being alive with the malice and sorrow (or the antidotal love and compassion) or any derivatives that are generated by the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that all sentient beings are born with (which instincts are the origin of ‘self’). As I was explaining, in the paragraph you snipped the sentence at the top of this post from, the most effective way to get to know one’s every thought and feeling and impulse is to ask oneself, each moment again, ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Which means: what is preventing the PCE from happening ... right now? Or, to put it another way: what is preventing the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE) from being apparent? Peace-on-earth is here – right now – for the very asking. RESPONDENT: Glad that Richard’s ego is extinct. RICHARD: If you were to actually read what I write with both eyes you will find that I lay particular emphasis on the extinction of the soul and not only the dissolution of the ego. Some human beings’ life does not always fit into the preconceptions that you may have of it. RESPONDENT: So how does what never existed become extinct? RICHARD: Through an altruistic (for the benefit of both this body and everybody) self-sacrifice ... the psychological and psychic self-immolation of ‘me’ in ‘my’ totality. That is, ‘I’, who am but a passionate illusion, must die a dramatic illusory death commensurate to ‘my’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable autological event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. There is a wide and wondrous path to actual freedom: One asks oneself, each moment again, ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? This gives rise to apperception. Apperception is the outcome of the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here and now. Apperception is to be the senses as a bare awareness, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) of the world as-it-is, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception is a way of seeing that can be arrived at by pure contemplation. Pure contemplation is when ‘I’ cease thinking ... and thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind, being free of the thinker – ‘I’ as ego – is capable of clarity. With apperception operating more or less continuously, ‘I’ find it harder and harder to maintain credibility as ‘me’ feeling. ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul is increasingly seen as the usurper, an alien entity inhabiting this body and taking on an identity of its own. Mercilessly exposed in the bright light of awareness – apperception casts no shadows – ‘I’ can no longer find ‘my’ position tenable. ‘I’ can only live in ‘my’ obscuration, where ‘I’ lurk about as ‘me’, creating all sorts of mischief. ‘My’ time is speedily coming to an end; ‘I’ can barely maintain ‘myself’ any longer. The day finally dawns where the definitive moment of being here, right now, conclusively arrives; something irrevocable takes place and every thing and every body and every event is different, somehow, although the same physically; something immutable occurs and every thing and every body and every event is all-of-a-sudden undeniably actual, in and of itself, as a fact; something irreversible happens and an immaculate perfection and a pristine purity permeates every thing and every body and every event; something has changed forever, although it is as if nothing has happened, except that the entire world is a magical fairytale-like playground full of incredible gladness and a delight which is never-ending. RESPONDENT: Fortunately, life never fits into our preconceptions of it. RICHARD: May I suggest? Whenever you write – or think or talk – substitute ‘I’ or ‘me’ or ‘my’ or ‘mine’ for ‘you’ or ‘us’ or ‘our’ or ‘ours’ in any sentence that has the context wherein you are duck-shoving the personal onto the collective (even if it be true that all humans are identically stupefied). Thus your sentence now reads: ‘Fortunately, life never fits into my (No. 25’s) preconceptions of it’. This personalisation is called ‘taking responsibility’ for the perpetuation of all the anguish and animosity (you are not responsible for the cause of all the anguish and animosity). Nobody – but nobody – can set you free but yourself. RICHARD: I discovered that it was a physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition and thus promote a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) derived from my personal experience. RESPONDENT: Please, can you extend your meaning about ‘and thus promote a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself)’. Please, what is your approximation, what do you mean by ‘a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) derived from my personal experience’. Feel free to express as you like, this is to much serious for me, ‘agree or disagree’ will be only my business but I will thanks a lot any personal approach on this point. RICHARD: In my investigations I first started by examining thought, thoughts and thinking ... then very soon moved on to examining feelings (first the emotions and then the deeper feelings). When I dug down into these passions (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself. I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings (otherwise mistakenly known as the ‘original face’ and is what gives rise to the feeling of ‘oneness’ with all other sentient beings). This is a very ancient genetic memory. Being a ‘self’ is because the only way into this world of people, things and events is via the human spermatozoa fertilising the human ova ... thus every human being is endowed, by blind nature, with the basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. These passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary animal ‘self’ into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and from this core of ‘being’ the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. That this process is aided and abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born – which is conditioning and programming and is part and parcel of the socialising process – is but the tip of the ice-burg and not the main issue at all. There is much, much more to an investigation into the human condition than ‘the thinker is the thought’, because (to put it in the same lingo) the ‘feeler’ is the feelings ... and the feelings are, as the root of the psyche, ‘being’ itself. The physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) will not eventuate unless the physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition is intimately experienced. To proceed from a sound basis, one starts with facts: to be alive (not dead) and awake (not asleep) and conscious (not unconscious) and aware and perceiving (and maybe thinking, remembering, reflecting and proposing considered action) is the human mind that every human being is born with and, as such, is similar around the globe and through all generations. Intimate access to the activity of each mind is personal (as opposed to public) but the basic activities of the mind are not individual (‘individual’ as distinguished from others by qualities of its own). This neuronal activity – consciousness itself – is what the human mind is and thus, contrary to popular belief, consciousness is not its content (content as in conditioning) but the very neuronal activity itself. Because, apart from awareness and perception and thought being what consciousness is, there is the affective feelings (emotions and passions and calentures) such as the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire to consider. Are they not basic traits that every human being is born with and consequently also similar? Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’? What about malice and sorrow and any of derivatives of malice and sorrow – as a broad generalisation, ‘malice’ is what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on) and ‘sorrow’ (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on) is what one does to oneself – and the compensatory love and compassion and any of the derivatives of love and compassion that arise out of the basic instincts? Are they not latent traits that every human comes into ‘being’ with and thus are also similar because, whatever the emotion or passion or calenture may be, they all have a global incidence. Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’? What about such affectively-based activity as imagination, intuition, visualisation, conceptualisation, believing, trusting, hoping, having faith and so forth – giving rise to epiphenomenon like prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination and other psychic effects – are they not embryonic traits that every human being comes into ‘being’ with and thus are similar as well? Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’? Can it at least be clear that the obvious ‘contents of consciousness’ which are the result of conditioning, such as the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams, are what imposes a ‘collective mind’ imprint? Yet this imprinted ‘collective mind’ (all the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams) would not be able to have the tenacious hold that it has if the human brain was indeed the ‘Tabular Rasa’ brain that so many peoples believe they are born with. All the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams have such a persistent grip only because of the powerful energy of the genetically inherited instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that stretch back to the dawn of the human species ... which passions have given rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ out of ‘being’ itself who is both savage (‘fear and aggression’) and tender (‘nurture and desire’). Is it not obvious that all the animosity and anguish that has beset humankind throughout millennia comes from that which a lot deeper than ‘the thinker is the thought’ ... all the misery and mayhem stems from an animal energy which is much, much more powerful than thought, thoughts and thinking. RESPONDENT: ... and you now claim that you are writing a million words that will help people to see that Richard is in actual freedom and they also can be if they follow Richard’s method. ... I do not have a problem with your method. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: It is not new ... RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition is new to human history then any method to enable this to come about is also new. RESPONDENT: ... it is not the only method that works but it is fine. RICHARD: As no one else is actually free from the human condition, as yet, then other methods are still in the experimental stage. Until one of them works then this method I offer – which worked for me – is the only one available. RESPONDENT: The problem I have is with you setting up an organisation that takes your claims and makes a system of belief from them. RICHARD: I am aware that this is your viewpoint ... these discussions serve to examine your viewpoint to see if it has validity. RESPONDENT: I know a system of belief is not actual freedom; you do also ... RICHARD: Yes ... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer affirmation ... and confirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path. RESPONDENT: ... and I know that what you are creating is a new system of belief that superimposes itself on top of the actual freedom you seem to cherish. RICHARD: I am well aware that this is your viewpoint ... and, as I said, these discussion are serving to elucidate whether your viewpoint has validity. So far it has shown no validity whatsoever. RESPONDENT: You set up the system and everybody who comes along gets examined on the basis of that system. RICHARD: I did not individually set up The Actual Freedom Trust. The Actual Freedom Trust is a statutory legal body that five nominal directors established in order to operate under for sensible commercial reasons. The words and writings promulgated and promoted by The Actual Freedom Trust explicate the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice in the market place. There is no meditating in silence or living in a monastery shut away from the world. There are no celibacy or obedience requirements. There are no dietary demands or daily regimes of exercise. No one is excluded by age or racial or gender origins. There are no prescribed books to study ... upwards of maybe two million words are available for free on The Actual Freedom Web Page. There are no courses to follow or therapies to undergo or workshops to endure. There are no fees to pay or any clique to join ... there are no rules at all. I have no plan whatsoever ... there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation. This is my position: we are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition ... we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we gather that it is also inherent to the human condition ... and we want to know why. We report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it. I, for one, am not taking the back seat. * RESPONDENT: And then when I have had enough I stop. My not agreeing with you about some things – for example that you do not have a viewpoint – is not going to make the world any more or less subject to violence and wars and such ... RICHARD: I would not be so sure about that ... someone reading this someday may very well see themselves prancing across the screen in all their full glory. RESPONDENT: ... no more and no less than your method is going to. Your method does not work Richard. RICHARD: It worked for me. RESPONDENT: Why? Because it is like all the methods through the ages it takes a direct experience and attempts to put it into words for people to understand. RICHARD: Allow me to present the method I offer (the one which worked for me): ask yourself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Now I ask you: how is this taking ‘a direct experience and attempting to put it into words for people to understand’? Where a person puts this method into action, with the pure intent garnered from a pure consciousness experience (PCE), this soon becomes a non-verbal attitude or approach to each and every moment of one’s interactions in the world of people, things and events. And, as only this moment is actual (the past is not actual; the future is not actual) that dratted identity’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings scarcely get a look-in to stuff up the works. Instead, naiveté gets to walk in the world again. And it is only naiveté which comprehends just how nearby peace-on-earth already always is. RESPONDENT: And people will always react from misunderstanding and create conflict ... which is what your way is supposed to be helping to put into the past. RICHARD: May I ask? Is this viewpoint which you hold to be ‘correct and true’ not colouring your understanding here? I only say this because there are other people who did not ‘always react from misunderstanding and create conflict’ when they read my words. You are not the only person on this planet. RESPONDENT: It won’t ... it has worked in you; but your method will not work on its own to create a better world. It is interesting and has value but it is a method that creates more reactions in the end. RICHARD: I see again that you have certainly handicapped yourself by not having the interest to actually read the words on offer on The Actual Freedom web site. * RESPONDENT: I already have direct experience ... RICHARD: I can see that you are you having what you call a ‘direct experience’ of ... um ... fear and sadness and love and hate, for example. RESPONDENT: ...and I do not claim to have a method, a way, as you claim. RICHARD: Sure, there is no argument from me in this respect. I do see that you have no method. None whatsoever. RESPONDENT: I do not want to claim that ... all it does is increases the conflict that exists in the world already. RICHARD: How? RESPONDENT: There are enough methods, enough ways. RICHARD: So far in human history there is only one method and only one way to enable an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Yours is not unique ... you just believe it is and have a way of convincing others it is. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. I will keep my own counsel on the matter, however. RESPONDENT: What the world needs is more people who are willing to say ‘hello; this moment is a delight; isn’t it ... can we share and enjoy each others company ... I have no more to offer than you; and you have no more to offer than me ... ‘. RICHARD: Ahh ... the blind leading the blind, in other words. RESPONDENT: Then the actual will have a chance of slowly forming the real physical paradise on earth that is our potential. RICHARD: Yet this actual world already always is a physical paradise. How can that which already always is a physical paradise ‘slowly form’ that ‘physical paradise’ which is ‘our potential’? One needs to get off one’s backside and precipitate the singular event which will enable the physical paradise in to becoming apparent. Or, as I am wont to put it: to live in peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Enough methods ... really; enough. They are arrogant. RICHARD: Hmm ... here is that almost-obligatory ‘arrogant’ charge again. I have noticed that, generally speaking, only humble peoples fire this missile off. RESPONDENT: Enough people claiming that they are the one who has ‘actual freedom’ and everybody else doesn’t. RICHARD: Oh? Do you really mean to say that one person is ‘enough’ ? How will that put an end to 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? * RESPONDENT: If so; how do you justify your belief with facts Richard? What evidence do you have that you would be any more in demand by the guru seekers if your name was on the site along with your photo? RICHARD: I will provide an example that illustrates why the Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. A self-confessed guru-seeker from the other side of the world came to see me, having had some contact with the actual freedom writings, with the view of being able to be finished with gurus forever. Every afternoon for nearly six weeks this person had a private face-to-face interaction – for four to six hours every afternoon for 39 days this person had a one-on-one intimacy – and then this guru-seeker went back to their guru. Now do you see why the electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none? ALAN: Was this not enough? Was it not better to enjoy this life as ‘Alan’, the personality, than risk all on an unknown future? RICHARD: I can recall the ‘Richard’ that was considering this very question ... yet ‘he’ just knew that ‘he’ would not be able to look in the mirror of a morning if ‘he’ did not proceed. Is it an admixture of pride and dignity, perhaps? ALAN: Yet, the knowledge of what is possible – even if only a recollection of the PCE – is sufficient to make ‘me’ continue reading, writing and exploring. RICHARD: Not to mention 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 ... if peoples were not harming themselves and each other in the most grisly ways possible then this would all be but a game. Peoples play ‘for keeps’ in the real world ... it is not fun. ALAN: It is, indeed, a strange state of affairs. RICHARD: It is ‘strange’ to the point of being bizarre ... weird, uncanny, eerie. ALAN: Am ‘I’ going to continue, in the knowledge that the end result is ‘my’ demise. Or, am ‘I’ going to give up and settle for ‘second best’. Perhaps this is where ‘pure intent’ comes in. It is not a phrase I have been entirely comfortable with or, rather, completely understood. RICHARD: Pure intent is derived from the purity of the PCE (which is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’) and everything is experienced to be perfect as-it-is at this moment and place ... here and now. Diligent attention paid to the peak experience gives rise to pure intent and with pure intent running as a ‘golden thread’ through one’s life, reflective contemplation about being here doing this business called being alive rapidly becomes more and more fascinating. When one is totally fascinated, reflective contemplation becomes pure awareness ... and then apperception happens of itself. It is the quality of pure intent which pulls one forward with impunity ... pure intent transforms into action one’s determination to live a life full of gladness, peace and harmony with oneself, with a person of the other gender, and with all peoples. Pure intent produces total dedication – it is experienced as an irresistible enticement – and it makes it impossible not to do what is required (or to sweep an issue under the carpet and to let sleeping dogs lie) and to continue to conform to the long-failed dictates of the status-quo. Pure intent is not to be confused with being a ‘do-gooder’, or being full of ‘righteousness’, or being ‘moralistic’ or being ‘principled’. Pure intent is the quality that encompasses what morals and ethics aspire to but never reach. Pure intent is a manifest life-force; a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe. Freed by pure intent from the very necessary social constraints – designed to control a wayward ego and a compliant soul – one can have generosity of character without striving. Pure intent guides one in each and every situation and circumstance – it is an essential prerequisite to ensure a guaranteed passage through the psychic maze – until the primacy of ‘me’ as a psychological or psychic entity withers away. With pure intent one will not rest until one has gone all the way. ALAN: Perhaps it is this ‘pure intent’ which keeps ‘me’ going, which insists that it ‘ain’t over till the fat lady sings’, which is the knowledge that this is not perfection, and perfection is possible. RICHARD: Perfection is an actual condition – intrinsic to this universe – that a human being can tap into by pure intent. Pure intent can be activated again and again with sincere attention paid to the state of naiveté. To be naive is to be virginal, unaffected, unselfconsciously artless, ingenuous, simple and unsophisticated ... and pure intent manifests in the connection between the intimate aspect of oneself (that one usually keeps hidden away for fear of seeming foolish) and the purity of the perfection of the peak experience. The experience of purity is a benefaction and out of this blessing comes the pure intent which consistently guides one through daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. It is the highway to an utter freedom – to one’s destiny – and it is a wide and wondrous path. Once activated, freedom is no longer a matter of choice – it is an irresistible pull – but pure intent will provide one with the necessary intestinal fortitude. Inevitably the moment comes ... and ‘I’ am nevermore. RESPONDENT: 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). Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘... I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again’. (Richard, List B, No. 21f, 11 September 2001). RESPONDENT: One could benefit in practicing attentiveness sitting down with a simple focus like the darkness you see when you close your eyes. RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could ask oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) whilst going about one’s normal everyday life. RESPONDENT: After you gain some control over your attention you could start practicing attentiveness to a not to changed belief before you move on to bigger stuff. RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could be attentive to whatever felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing because, with practise, even the slightest diminishment of that happiness/ harmlessness is then unavoidably noticed, and thus attended to forthwith, so as to recommence feeling felicitous/ innocuous sooner rather than later. RESPONDENT: After you get good at this you could work on attaining a degree of apperceptiveness. RICHARD: Hmm ... in a manner somewhat similar to being partly pregnant, perchance? RESPONDENT: Once you can do that somewhat you could then delve in experientially to feelings that are seemingly not really tied to thoughts. By fully experiencing them with apperceptiveness one can begin to disempower then more and more until they minimise from non-use. RICHARD: In actualism the term ‘apperception’ refers to unmediated perception – and for perception to be unmediated it needs to be sans mediator (aka without identity) – and as an identity is its feelings (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) there are no feelings to experientially delve into/ fully experience apperceptively ... let alone disempower until minimised from disuse. RESPONDENT: Basically I think ‘actualism’ asks too much for many people. RICHARD: Whereas the actualism on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site asks very little ... so little as to appear simplistic to some. For instance: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Whatever presents itself in terms of divisive thought and feeling can dissolve in awareness. • [Richard]: ‘Nothing substantive can happen in awareness while the instinctual survival passions dominate ... and the word ‘survival’ should explain why. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘It comes through earnest self-study. • [Richard]: ‘If the above quoted understanding [‘the self is nothing other than conditioning, the thinker/ feeler/ doer is thought’] is what comes through ‘earnest self-study’ then perhaps something else is called for. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘You mean simplistic advice like keep asking ‘what am I experiencing?’ ;-) • [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... I always like it when someone says something like this as it shows that they are beginning to take notice that when I say naiveté I mean naiveté. Maybe its very simplicity is why it has been overlooked all these aeons? (Richard, List B, No. 12r, 11 January 2003). In a nutshell: to the cultured sophisticate to be simple is to be simplistic. RESPONDENT: Some training in attentiveness could be helpful. Those with experience or with a ‘knack’ for this kind of thing would not of course. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well the identity in residence all those years ago never had you to advise ‘him’ (else this conversation would not be taking place), eh? * RESPONDENT: 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: 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. RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, was a freak of nature just because ‘he’ required no attention-training – as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation – before both devising and putting into effect what has nowadays become known as the actualism method (being acutely conscious [i.e., affectively aware] as to how one is experiencing each and every moment of being alive)? 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 [i.e., affectively aware] 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 No. 60: The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not. RESPONDENT: It does sort of give that impression. RICHARD: It does far more than merely give that impression ... it is precisely what I am saying. For a recent instance: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I think its important to be free of malice (...) but I’m not sure why we need to free of sorrow. • [Richard]: ‘You do not need to be free of sorrow (or malice) ... it is your choice, and your choice alone, each moment again as to how you prefer to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive)’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 101, 4 October 2005). If then choosing to be as happy and as harmless (as free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as was humanly possible thus makes the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, a freak of nature then so too is my current companion as she comprehended right from the beginning that it is her choice, and her choice alone, each moment again as to how she prefers to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment she is ever alive) ... and which would also make my previous companion a freak of nature as well (not forgetting to mention, of course and for the very reason of it being topical, both Peter and Vineeto too). Incidentally, the identity in residence in 1981 was not surprised that others could not but, rather, that others would not (having a victim mentality, it turned out, ran much deeper than the singular mentation such nomenclature indicates). Much, much deeper ... so much so as to be past fixation, entrenchment, and well into being an impressment, an embedment bordering on an embodiment. RESPONDENT: Interestingly ‘the option method’ is built upon the premise that one can choose at any moment happiness ... interesting. RICHARD: ‘Tis not a [quote] ‘premise’ [endquote] that one can choose to be as happy (and as harmless) as is humanly possible each moment again – it is experientially evident that it be possible – and the main thrust of the actualism method is to be [affectively] aware of the quality of such felicity and innocuity, via enjoyment and appreciation of simply being so delightfully alive at this very moment (the only moment which is dynamic), inasmuch the slightest diminishment thereof is unavoidably noticed as to occasion an immediate attendance to whatever caused that diminution and thus resume being happy (and harmless) forthwith. It all depends upon whether one is going to continue to be a victim of one’s moods or a victor – or, in the jargon, whether one is going to take charge of one’s life, in this regard, or not – and, yes, that too is a choice. Your felicity and innocuity, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone. SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON HOW TO BECOME FREE (Part Three) RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX RICHARD’S HOME PAGE The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity