# Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions ## What is the Risk of Using the Actualism Method? RESPONDENT: So the obvious question is to be: ‘Does a man of apperception fall under the yoke of causation or not?’ RICHARD: Actually it is not such an obvious question after all as the words ‘a man of enlightenment’ and the words ‘a man of apperception’ refer to two entirely different things: enlightenment is the release from the otherwise endless round of birth/death/rebirth and apperception is the release from the human condition. ‘Tis only from within the human condition that such concepts as karma and samsara arise (along with their rebirth/reincarnation implications). RESPONDENT: I’d say: be careful with your response here ... ‘five hundred rebirths as a fox’ ... wow! On the other hand better then ‘five hundred rebirths as a roach’. RICHARD: It essentially makes no difference (be it either as a fox or a roach) because, according to eastern spirituality, it is only as a human being that a sentient being has a chance for enlightenment (which is the main point of being sent back down the metempsychosical path). RESPONDENT: To be fair on that my guess is ‘Yes’ ... but then again the risk is high. RICHARD: The only risk on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is that one may be enticed to wander off the path and become enlightened instead. I kid you not. RESPONDENT: So ... I say I don’t know. RICHARD: Okay ... here is a hint: both karma and samsara have no existence here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Could one still effectively engage in the process to eliminate the ‘self’ and still disagree with certain things Richard says along the way? RICHARD: On what certain grounds would such disagreement with certain things be based? RESPONDENT: None other than the phrase ‘the proof is in the pudding’. RICHARD: Presuming that you are referring to the proverb, dating back to the 1300’s, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’ (literally, one does not know whether food has been cooked properly until one tries it oneself; figuratively, do not assume that something is in order or believe what one is told but, rather, judge the matter by testing it oneself) then you are not disagreeing – synonyms: ‘differing, failing to agree, dissenting, standing opposed, being in dispute/ contention, being at variance/ odds, diverging, being in disaccord’ (Oxford Dictionary) – with ‘certain’ things on certain grounds but are disagreeing as a matter of course. In other words, to ask if one could still effectively engage in the process to eliminate the ‘self’ (the ‘self’ as detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and not the ‘self’ as per materialism and spiritualism) and still disagree with certain things, as also detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site (such as just what constitutes the aforementioned ‘self’ one is supposedly going to be effectively engaged in the process of eliminating), on no other grounds than you will not know whether those ‘certain’ things be actually so until the ‘self’ in question is eliminated is to ask whether a carte blanche approach will result in an actual freedom from the human condition. In a word: no ... and I say this because, if anything, one would become enlightened/ awakened/ illuminated/ self-realised instead. I kid you not. RESPONDENT: I see your point. Your journey to enlightenment required that you as ‘ego’ disappeared leaving you as ‘Soul’ to live in ultimate bliss for 11 years. I understand that ego is the result of ‘me’ as soul – ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being and that therefore me as ‘ego’ can not exist without ‘me’ as soul. I was interpreting ‘soul’ with a religious understanding as in a ‘soul’ that leaves the body after death and moves to some mystical plane were it is reunited with the souls of others who have since passed away. A sort of spirit that lives within the physical body but that is separate from it. This ‘religious’ connotation of the soul is in my opinion palpable nonsense. To take the dictionary definition of soul; [quote] ‘The principle of life in humans or animals; animate existence. The principle of thought and action in a person, regarded as an entity distinct from the body; a person’s spiritual as opp. to corporeal nature. The spiritual part of a human being considered in its moral aspect or in relation to God and his precepts, spec. regarded as immortal and as being capable of redemption or damnation in a future state. The disembodied spirit of a dead person, regarded as invested with some degree of personality and form. The seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature. [Oxford Dictionary]. I have no awareness of this ‘soul’ within me. RICHARD: Hmm ... no ‘seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature’ exists within the flesh and blood body known as ‘Respondent’, then? I chose to use the word ‘soul’, when I first went public, as it has both the secular and spiritual meaning – the Oxford Dictionary is my preferred source of reference for most words – as actualism is the third alternative to both materialism and spiritualism ... the main difference between those two is materialists maintain that such an emotional/ passional/ intuitive self (sometimes referred to as one’s spirit) dies with the body and spiritualists maintain it does not. RESPONDENT: However to come back to your clarification the word ‘soul’ as ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – out of which passionate identity (the feeler) ‘I’ as ego (the thinker) arises. As I understand it you are saying that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul both arise out of the basic instinctual self that all sentient beings are born with ... RICHARD: Yes ... a rudimentary animal self, as it were, however inchoate it may be. RESPONDENT: ... and that you went beyond enlightenment by ridding yourself of this instinctual self by psychological self-immolation. RICHARD: By psychic ‘self’-immolation ... psychological ‘self’-immolation rids the flesh and blood body of the ego-self only. RESPONDENT: What I am having difficulty with is forming a distinction between ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... RICHARD: And does describing the distinction as being ‘the thinker’ (ego-self) as opposed to ‘the feeler’ (soul-self) not go at least some way towards ending such difficulty? In the perceptive process the sensations are primary, the affections are secondary, and the cognitions are tertiary: RESPONDENT: ... and indeed whether that distinction is necessary in order to rid oneself of the basic rudimentary instinctual ‘self’? RICHARD: That distinction is mainly necessary in order to obviate the only danger on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition ... to wit: one may inadvertently become an enlightened being instead. I kid you not ... whilst thought usually cops the blame the feelings (and thus ‘being’ itself) get off scot-free. RESPONDENT: Any action may be corrupted by various factors and I wonder if the fault lies in the ideas one receives or in the doer. RICHARD: I always advise being guided by the pure consciousness experience (PCE) – rather than by ‘ideas’ received – wherein the ‘doer’ is in concordance with actuality (meaning that fundamentally all what is required is to say !YES! so that the already always existing peace-on-earth can become apparent). RESPONDENT: Is there a 100% success rate or warranty and no deviation or misinterpreting from all those who practice actualism? RICHARD: Speaking from personal experience (and not merely theorising) ... yes. RESPONDENT: And if there are deviations, where do they lead? RICHARD: The only danger on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is that one may become enlightened instead. I kid you not. RESPONDENT: ... when I wrote the above questions I was aware of the fact that you did not write the actualist entry for ‘spiritual.’ I was, and still am interested in your response to the above questions if you care to reply. RICHARD: Sure ... in regards to what definition of the word ‘spiritual’ I was working with when I said to another ‘you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last’ I was not referring to what Peter wrote about in the glossary article you quoted from. Viz.: • [Peter]: ‘When I was leaving the spiritual world and began to really investigate what others had to say about the human condition, I was amazed to discover that everyone – and I do mean everyone – has a spiritual outlook on life. The spiritual viewpoint permeates philosophy, science, medicine, education, psychology, law, etc. Peter’s Journal, Spiritual Search I was clearly referring to a person who actively sought – and attained – the spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind ... not someone whose [quote] ‘spiritual viewpoint permeates philosophy, science, medicine, education, psychology, law, etc.’ [endquote]. In regards to me including all of humanity as having a spiritual outlook on life when I said to another ‘you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last’ I was, once again, clearly referring to a person who actively sought – and attained – the spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind and not to such persons as Peter wrote about in the glossary article you quoted from. RESPONDENT: OK, I see that you are saying that Peter was using ‘spiritual’ in a different, broader sense of the word than when you were referring to Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti. So even though most everyone on the planet is ‘spiritual’ in the sense of being under the illusion of being an identity – thus metaphysical, not everyone is ‘spiritual’ in the sense of believing in somebody or something supernatural. Correct? RICHARD: What Peter realised very early in the piece was that, as long as the flesh and blood body hosted an affective ‘being’, an intuitive ‘presence’ which is the instinctual passions in action, there was no way that anyone – and he means anyone – can actually be non-spiritual ... even though they do not believe either in a god or truth (by whatever name) or a post-mortem soul or spirit (by whatever name). This may be an apt moment to re-post something I wrote early last year: • [Richard]: ‘... I am yet to meet an atheist who does not ponder, when questioned deeply, whether there may be something substantive post-mortem after all. For example, many years ago I went to see an accredited psychiatrist and established right from the beginning that he be an atheistic materialist – he said emphatically upon being questioned rather rigorously in this regard that everything was material and modifications of same including consciousness itself – because another psychiatrist I had previously seen was exigently talking about guardian angels looking after me within the first five minutes of our discussion ... yet when regaling this second psychiatrist of my on-going experiencing of life in this actual world his eyes opened in awe as the full import (of what he heard) struck home and he said ‘you may very well be the next Buddha we have all been waiting for’. I kid you not ...’ (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27e, 24 January 2003). Not only is Buddhism known, in some quarters at least, as an atheistic philosophy so too is Jainism – the tradition that Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain was brought up in – thus not only do some Buddhists classify themselves as atheists so too do more than a few people known nowadays as ‘Friends of Osho’ (neé ‘Rajneeshee’). As do some of those who read about/ listen to what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say. RESPONDENT: My observation is that if Richard (who claims to live in Actual Freedom) and Devika/ Irene (who claimed to have lived in Virtual Freedom) could not really make a go of it, than there are no observable facts to show that two people of the opposite gender who practice/ live actualism can indeed live in peace, harmony and equity. RICHARD: As I did ‘really make a go of it’ – and still do, of course, in my current association – your observation makes no sense at all. RESPONDENT: Richard, in this case I am not questioning your side/ experience of marriage. RICHARD: If so I would suggest you phrase your words differently as what you wrote above certainly conveys the impression that you are (the conjunctive ‘and’ in your sentence can be clearly seen). RESPONDENT: You have stated your experience clearly. What I am observing at (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listafirene.htm) is that Irene/ Devika claims that she was not happy as evidenced by her comments e.g. [Irene]: I can tell you that the reason [being ‘teacherish’ and ‘like a missionary’] was that it was actually not satisfying enough for me to have all that pleasure and delight for the two of us at the cost of all other people we came in contact with who felt constantly attacked’ [endquote]. RICHARD: In which case what you were saying would now look something like this: • [example only]: ‘My observation is that if Devika/ Irene (who claimed to have lived in Virtual Freedom) could not really make a go of it, then there are no observable facts to show that two people of the opposite gender who practice/ live actualism can indeed live in peace, harmony and equity’. Yet my previous companion, as detailed in ‘Richard’s Journal’, did ‘really make a go of it’ for five years (for the first six years she was living with an enlightened being) and it was not until she fell under the influence of love that she could no longer stay on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition ... which is one of the reasons why I warn of the only danger on the way (that one may inadvertently enter into an enlightened state of being instead). I kid you not. GARY: As I understand these things, in the PCE there is the danger of an incipient ‘I’ stepping in and claiming the credit for the experience. ‘I’ want the experience to last, ‘I’ am sad to see it dimmer and fade away, hence, ‘I’ take centre stage and send the experience packing. RICHARD: Yes and no ... the PCE is a temporary experience, when all is said and done, and it is unavoidable ‘I’ will reappear. There is more danger in ‘me’ stepping in as ‘Me’ (aggrandising the experience) with predictable results ... and then one will indeed be following in Richard’s footsteps (I always chuckle when certain people claim that anyone interested in actualism are followers of Richard). GARY: Then this is the danger of the PCE turning into the Altered State of Consciousness? This ‘aggrandizing the experience’ must be extremely subtle then? RICHARD: No, it is not subtle at all ... one is glorified by virtue of being specially chosen and the simple perfection of the PCE is humbly overlooked/ discarded/ scorned/ dismissed. This is indicated in both my own experience and the experience of some other people whom I have spoken with over many years ... ‘Article 36’ in ‘Richard’s Journal’ describes a particularly salutary example of this propensity. Not for nothing do I describe the only danger on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition as being that one may become enlightened (or seduced into wanting to become enlightened). I kid you not. GARY: What I understand to happen when this occurs is something like the following: the PCE is such a dramatic change from ‘normal’, everyday reality, that when it occurs, one loses all anchorage to the familiar, the cherished, with the resultant fear that one is ‘losing one’s marbles’, going insane. While it is a highly peaceful, pleasurable state, there also lurks the fear of the incipient ‘me’ that is on the verge of destruction, extinction. RICHARD: Yes, at root fear is the most basic of all the instinctual survival passions. GARY: This ‘me’ steps in and becomes ‘Me’, with his or her divine mission to carry the message, and this occurs because this is how all the gurus and God-men/ women down through history have interpreted the experience. RICHARD: Yes, fear is atavistic. ALAN: Turning to the PCE, you wrote: [Vineeto]: ‘In the interest of having clear, definable terms, a pure consciousness experience is just that – an experience of pure consciousness, where the ‘self’ is temporarily absent, completely. This means that there is no affective experience in a PCE whatsoever, no ‘love, bliss, rapture’ or the imagination of being ‘the saviour of mankind’. Whenever there is any feeling or emotion experienced whatsoever, it is not a PCE. For most people, the experience may well start as a PCE, but invariably ‘I’ will step in and seize the experience as ‘mine’ and interpret and feel it to be a spiritual experience. One needs to understand and practice Actualism to be sufficiently aware of one’s beliefs, feelings and instinctual passions in order to avoid the trap of Enlightenment on the path to Actual Freedom’.. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, Alan-d, 15.7.2000). This seems to contradict what Richard wrote to me: [Richard]: ‘A ‘difference in degree’ sounds like an apt description ... I cannot, of course, recall with 100% accuracy what happened twenty-odd years ago (plus there is too much other stuff that happened which blurs precise recall), so I would have to say there was an affective response which varied from experience to experience from virtually non-existent to full-blown grandiosity’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Alan-b, 5 Jul 2000). VINEETO: Yes, I think, Richard is in trouble here. Joking aside, I’m sure he’ll explain it to you. RICHARD: Ha ... you sure know how to get me out of the innards of computers and back to writing, eh? However, it is this simple: back in 1981 I had umpteen number of peak experiences – sometimes two-three times a day varying from minutes to hours – and they were wild and woolly times. Somewhere along the line I had lost sight of the four hour pure consciousness experience that had triggered my whole incursion into becoming free of the human condition and there was certainly a ‘difference in degree’ of the affective element in each experience ... ranging from virtually non-existent to full-blown grandiosity for the ‘me’ that was inhabiting this body. The PCE stayed pristine in its own domain, however, and stood me in good stead some eleven years later ... as I have recorded in ‘A Brief Personal History’: • ‘It troubled me deeply that I was in such a situation because I seem to be driven by some force to ‘Spread the Word’ and that was never my intention all those years ago when I first had what is known as a ‘Peak Experience’ which initiated my incursion into all matters Spiritual, culminating in the ‘death’ of my ego and catapulting me into this Absolute State. My intent back then had been to cleanse myself of all that is detrimental to personal happiness and interpersonal harmony ... in other words: Peace on earth in my life-time. Instead of that rather simple ambition, I found that I was impelled on an odyssey to be the latest Saviour of Humankind in a long list of Enlightened Beings ... and this imposition did not sit well with me’. (Richard, Articles, A Brief Personal History, #Peak Experience 1). Alan, you and I have had discussions, over the past two years or so, regarding the PCE devolving into an ASC when ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ step in and possess the experience – the affective element in other words – and I would say that Vineeto has expressed it (above) and in other places such that I have little to add. I was, of course, responding to your observation: ‘I have said that perhaps then I have not had a PCE, if that is what a PCE involves. Well, in a way, that was correct. This is the first time that ‘I’ have experienced, as an actuality, the validity of the statement – and it’s a whammer! And, of course I can now see that I have had previous PCE’s – but perhaps they were all ‘tinged’ with an, however slight, affective element and I guess this one is too ... perhaps it is just a difference in degree’. If the experience is ‘perhaps tinged’ with an affective element then it is not, or is no longer, a pure experience. Indisputably the PCE has no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – no affective element whatsoever – as a PCE is a pure consciousness experience. In view of all that has been explored and written about, in the twenty-odd years since the ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body first had a PCE, nobody has to follow my experience and blunder along in the dark. It is pertinent to point out that I am putting the story together ‘after the event’, as it were, endeavouring to present as coherent a picture as possible. If anyone were to sit down with me and hear all that transpired (which cannot happen as I do not remember a lot of it) they would go away totally confused ... it was a mish-mash of experiences; a jumbled, bumbled, delirious, chaotic, bizarre, freaky and peculiar trip I went on. Vineeto and Peter get regaled with bits and pieces of it every now and again ... snippets of anecdotes when some discussion jogs my memory and another crazy morsel is added to the weird smorgasbord already presented. But the main thing I stress through all these sagas is the only danger inherent on the wide and wondrous path: because of the affective faculty one may lose the plot and become seduced by the glamour and glory and glitz of enlightenment. I kid you not ... ‘Article 36’ of ‘Richard’s Journal’ spells this out in no uncertain terms. RESPONDENT: A few more questions: 1. Richard, what is the physiological nature of the ‘process’ that you (and J Krishnamurti, Konrad Swart and numerous others) underwent during ego dissolution? RICHARD: In a word: electrochemical (the spinal cord, through which all the main nerve fibres go, transmits all kinds of electrochemical signals ... which can result in all manner of psychic manifestations on occasion). In the Indian Tradition they are known as ‘Kriyas’. RESPONDENT: 2. Is ego dissolution a necessary precursor to ‘soul death’ ... RICHARD: No ... if I had known, back in 1981 at the moment of ego-dissolution, what I now know I would not have let the process stop halfway through its happening. RESPONDENT: ... or would ego dissolution be an automatic consequence of dissolving the affective self first? RICHARD: Yes ... by my reckoning it would have all been over in a matter of maybe 6-10 seconds (rather than 6 seconds plus eleven years). RESPONDENT: 3. Do you think it is possible to experience the complete dissolution of ego (leaving affective self intact) without lapsing into a delusory ASC? RICHARD: No ... the soul-self is extremely powerful (affectively powerful that is). RESPONDENT: In other words, is ‘spiritual enlightenment’ a necessary consequence of ego death (sans soul death) ... RICHARD: Yes ... without the ego-self to keep the soul-self under some semblance of control it runs rampant and totally rules the roost. RESPONDENT: ... or is ‘enlightenment’ simply a risk of same? RICHARD: No ... some form of an altered state of consciousness (ASC) would immediately establish itself. RESPONDENT: In my case, this me, this ‘I’ is very skilful of somehow sneaking in through ‘a back door’. RICHARD: It is important not to view ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ as an enemy – blind nature is the culprit – and to be friends with yourself ... only you live with yourself twenty four hours a day. Coopt any aspect of yourself as an ally in this investigation into the human psyche ... eventually ‘I’ come to realise that the very best thing that ‘I’ can do is altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and all bodies. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result when ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory ... unless ‘I’ am seduced by the Glamour and the Glory and the Glitz into becoming the Saviour Of Humankind. It is a risk well worth taking, however. RESPONDENT: Any activity I might become attracted to seems to define the ‘I’ – as a ‘doer’, but most of all, especially as the watcher. RICHARD: Becoming free of the human condition is a result of making a curious decision to ‘do it’ – whatever it takes – and once one sets it all in motion a momentum takes over where one realises one has embarked already ... and once one has that impetus going one cannot ‘un-set’ the pace. An alacrity takes over and one finds that one has already been doing it and one has no choice in the matter (fascination is almost like ‘I am not doing this – this is happening to me’). This means one is already committed to finding out – it is not that one makes a commitment as one can always break a commitment after a lot of soul-searching – and this commitment one cannot break. 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 ... that is the thrilling part of it. With application and diligence, born out of pure intent, it will happen ... one cannot help but become fascinated, for this is the predicament that humankind has been agonising over for aeons. Any reluctance to become fascinated is because of the ‘no turning back’ aspect. After fascination comes obsession wherein you cannot leave it alone any more – or rather it does not leave you alone – and that is when that tempo picks you up – an eagerness grips you – and you feel alive, vital, dynamic. Things happen of a serendipitous nature. One can no longer distinguish between me doing it and it happening to me. They happen simultaneously – cause and effect are left behind in the Land of Lament – and it is absolutely thrilling. Then one is fully doing this business of being alive – doing it here on this earth in this lifetime as this body – and it is all happening now. This moment is happening and I am doing it and the doing is happening of itself and I am the experiencing of the happening. Then one is in this propitious state of being able to say: ‘I am the doing of what is happening’. And this is wonderful. RESPONDENT: (...) Perhaps you should arrange a meeting with a psychiatrist because if your condition is indeed linked to (Right) Temporal Lobe damage, the + 4 million words on the website might prove to be more harmful than harmless. RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, No. 25, nice try indeed. RESPONDENT: I wish it to be just that, a nice try. RICHARD: Well, your wish is granted as that is all it is ... no amount of words, no matter how eloquent or erudite they may be, could possibly bring about a *neurological* condition (aka an *organic* disorder) in anybody. Here is an example of what does cause TLE: (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) Causes: • Approximately two thirds of patients with TLE treated surgically have hippocampal sclerosis as the pathologic substrate. • The etiologies of TLE include the following: • Past infections, eg, herpes encephalitis or bacterial meningitis. • Trauma producing contusion or haemorrhage that results in encephalomalacia or cortical scarring. • Hamartomas [a focal malformation that resembles a neoplasm, grossly and even microscopically, but results from faulty development in an organ]. • Gliomas [any neoplasm derived from one of the various types of cells that form the interstitial tissue of the brain, spinal cord, pineal gland, posterior pituitary gland, and retina]. • Vascular malformations (ie, arteriovenous malformation, cavernous angioma). • Cryptogenic: A cause is presumed but has not been identified. • Idiopathic (genetic): This is rare. Familial TLE was described by Berkovic and colleagues, and partial epilepsy with auditory features was described by Scheffer and colleagues. • Hippocampal sclerosis produces a clinical syndrome called mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). MTLE begins in late childhood, then remits, but reappears in adolescence or early adulthood in a refractory form. • Febrile seizures: The association of simple febrile seizure with TLE has been controversial. However, a subset of children with complex febrile convulsions appear to be at risk of developing TLE in later life. Complex febrile seizures are febrile seizures that last longer than 15 minutes, have focal features, or recur within 24 hours. (www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic365.htm). RESPONDENT: For now the evidence points in the opposite direction ... RICHARD: There is no ‘the evidence’ – be it either for now or earlier – outside of your imagination. 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: 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 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: There is an answer to a question being asked in ‘Selected Correspondence’ that I haven’t understood, and I would appreciate if you or Richard will clarify that. [Co-Respondent]: Are you saying then that in order to eliminate the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ that the instinctual passions themselves have to be eliminated ... [Richard]: No ... and the reason why not is this simple: who would be doing the eliminating of the instinctual passions? As ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ it is an impossibility because the result of trying to do so would be a stripped-down rudimentary animal ‘self’ (seemingly) divested of feelings ... 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 so on – and has repressed the others. Richard, Selected Correspondence, Self-immolation Richards says here – ‘who would be doing the eliminating of instinctual passions?’ – Isn’t it apperceptiveness doing so? The third I? What is the difference between investigating instinctual passions and eliminating them? I would like to add another quote posted in the same correspondence section I have misunderstood, here it is: [Richard]: ‘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).’ Richard, Selected Correspondence, Self-immolation 2 What is the difference between 1. de-activating the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activating the felicitous/ innocuous feelings, 2. eliminating instinctual passion (the action that is impossible and advised to be avoided), and 3. investigating emotions and instinctual passions? RICHARD: (...) 1. As apperception (unmediated perception) only occurs when identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty is either in abeyance – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – or where it is extinct (upon an actual freedom from the human condition) there is no way that apperceptiveness could be doing the eliminating of the instinctual passions. Besides which, my rhetorical question was about who, and not what, would be doing that proposed elimination of the instinctual passions. 2. As the term ‘the third I’ refers to the flesh and blood body only (as in sans the instinctual passions/ the entity formed thereof) there is no way that such an freed organism could be doing that proposed elimination of the instinctual passions. 3. The difference between ‘me’ investigating what ‘I’ am fundamentally made up of (the instinctual passions) and ‘me’ eliminating that which ‘I’ am fundamentally made up of (the instinctual passions) is that in the former ‘I’ get to stay in existence and in the latter ‘I’ cease to exist ... simply because ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. 4. The difference between de-activating both the ‘good’ feelings (those that are loving and trusting) and the ‘bad’ feelings (those that are hateful and fearful) and activating the felicitous and innocuous feelings (those that are happy and harmless) is that not only does it have the immediate benefit of feeling good or feeling happy and harmless or feeling excellent/ perfect for 99% of the time, as one goes about one’s normal everyday life, it has the ultimate benefit of assisting in the rewiring of the brain’s habitual circuitry before the once-in-a-lifetime event – altruistic ‘self’-immolation – happens which wipes out the entire affective faculty/ the identity in toto (aka the instinctual passions/ the entity formed thereof). 5. The difference between de-activating both the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings, and thus being able to activate the felicitous/ innocuous feelings, and eliminating instinctual passions (the action that is impossible and advised to be avoided) is that in the former ‘I’ get to stay in existence and in the latter ‘I’ cease to exist (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). 6. The difference between de-activating both the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings, and thus being able to activate the felicitous/ innocuous feelings, and investigating emotions and instinctual passions is that with the former one’s normal everyday life is able to be enjoyed and appreciated each moment again and in the latter one is finding out why one is not being able enjoy and appreciate one’s normal everyday life each moment again. Lastly, in that e-mail exchange I was clearly making the point that, although it is hypothetically correct that the elimination of the instinctual passions would be the elimination of ‘I’/ ’me’, it does not work that way in practice (for reasons such as already explained in the part-quoted text). To wit: not only is it a dangerous approach – as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ then the result of trying to do so would be a stripped-down rudimentary animal ‘self’, seemingly divested of feelings, somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly known as ‘psychopath’) – it is an impossibility anyway. Only altruistic ‘self’-immolation, in toto, will do the trick. RESPONDENT: In light of a post today (R: Case <name deleted>) does this method throw up such risks? VINEETO: The disclaimer on The Actual Freedom Trust homepage clearly states, that actualism is for a normal people, sensible human beings who understand what a word means, who have learned to function prudently in society with all its legal laws and social protocols, and who is a reasonably ‘well-adjusted’ personality who has a deep-seated interest in finding ultimate fulfilment and complete satisfaction. As for risks – there are, of course, risks that one might loose courage on the way to becoming free and choose to remain trapped in one or the other mental-emotional states that pass for being ‘normal’ or ‘spiritual’ but by far the greatest risk in practicing actualism is what Peter has called ‘grounding on the Rock of Enlightenment’. To be seduced off the path to an actual freedom into the institutionalized delusion of a permanent altered state of consciousness is a real risk and a warning that I did not discard lightly. Whilst practicing actualism and investigating the root of the so-called ‘good’ emotions I personally experienced a few altered states of consciousness, some of which lasted for several hours and one for more than a day. After these experiences I made it a point to become acutely aware of the ‘self’-aggrandizing symptoms of this passionate trap in order to be able to recognize the warning signs and nip any onsets in the bud. RESPONDENT: Yeah I can see the need to be vigilant. And that’s why I asked the query about risks of mental health, just as you have no intention or wish to go enlightened way! I have no intention or wish to go crazy. Some stuff pertaining to this issue (and my worries) can be read at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecture5.shtml VINEETO: The link you provided gives a general overview about many possible types of mental disorders. Some people have queried Richard about what is described as ‘Capgras delusion’, which is a result of the non-functioning of the amygdala, whereas Richard describes the change that made him actually free from the instinctual passions happening in the brain-stem. If you read more of Richard’s writings you can recognize for yourself that an actual freedom has nothing at all to do with this particular illness. However, you may be interested to know that an actual freedom has been classified by psychiatrists as being afflicted with a chronic and incurable psychotic mental disorder – not only depersonalisation and derealisation but anhedonia and alexithymia as well. In Richard’s selected correspondence on ‘Sanity, Insanity and the Third Alternative’ you will find the explanation for this and some further clues regrading your query. Personally, I can understand your concerns very well as I had a short period where I was genuinely afraid of going mad myself. The only thing that helped me to overcome my fear was to have straightforward to-the-point discussions with the two only actualists at the time, Peter and Richard, about the nature of the human condition, about the all-pervasiveness of the instinctual survival passions, about the cunning of my ‘self’ and about the delusion of spiritualism. It then dawned on me that what they were saying made sense – in other words, that what they were saying was simple, sensible, straight-forward, matter of fact and down-to-earth. My determination to get to the bottom of the matter finally resolved the issue of sanity and insanity when my ‘self’ temporarily disappeared and I had a pure consciousness experience. In fact, it was my burning desire to know for sure who was right and who was crazy that brought my inquiry to a peak and caused the bubble of ‘me’ to temporarily burst. This particular pure consciousness experience confirmed, without doubt, that an actual freedom from the human condition (the extinction of both ego and soul) is the only salubrious solution to bringing an end to my malice and my sorrow. If society, in its wisdom, classifies someone who is free of malice and free of sorrow as having a chronic and incurable psychotic mental disorder, then what to do – stay ‘sane’? * VINEETO: Be that as it may, the risk that most people I have spoken to or written to seem to fear most is to commit themselves wholeheartedly to something, particularly if this something will result in irrevocable change. RESPONDENT: I will tell you what my fear is. I am quite a happy and cheerful guy, I mostly feel its stupid to be sad, mostly sorrow seems to self generated, imagined ones and by accepting the society norms and then unable to live up to it, the divide between the ‘goal, the ideal’ and where I am now, brings sorrow. Take ‘success’ for e.g. or any of the other norms that exist in values or material field. That much is clear. VINEETO: There is much more to being unconditionally happy than being disillusioned with society’s goals and ideals, much, much more. RESPONDENT: Am I harmless, definitely not, not always. Am I always happy, no. Why not? DO I have the clarity of the ways of what and how to live, No. VINEETO: The question at this point would be if your realization that you are not always happy and ‘definitely not’ always harmless is motivation enough for you to want to change and change radically. 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 & Vineeto’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity