I can’t believe it, I’m actually discovering now, how the spiritual enlightenment is such a delusion. Such a fantasy. The Truth. And it’s the ultimate truth of the human reality. Oh man. Damn! I have just saw a movie that my spiritual enlightened guru have advised me to see (Vanilla Sky) saying (the spiritual teacher) how the movie helps to see the concept of awakening from the dream of mundane living to the greater reality, The Truth, (to fall into the truth of my self) and I see that it’s such an ego trip. And the most fascinating and uncomfortable for now thing for me is that spiritual enlightenment is the ultimate truth of the human condition, and it shapes all the other believe systems and values.

Damn. And this genuinely enlightened guy talks about how after one have awakened to the real truth, everything is cool, life is just a dream, he can as well swing in his hammock to the rest of his life, he is the Self, live is a dream, he is enjoying that now he sees it’s a dream and others still don’t, and since he is not this body anyway, he just can wait until time finishes him. And I thought it’s the ultimate life can be!

And just a few months ago I’ve read his writings with such an enthusiasm! The excitement was that I’m heading to the final truth and I’ll find the truth after all and will be saved! Now I’m starting to see that it is such a self centred trip that is empowered by the instincts of wanting power and self glory, (to such an un-fun place) and those instincts (the drive behind the direction to self - who am the real I) aren’t even questioned!

Part of me can’t believe just how far away actualism and spiritual enlightenment are. The distance is actuality, this sensible life, this infinite universe vs. imagination. I see how heading toward actuality is such a turn away from the human reality and from the spiritual reality. The actuality is just here and the awakened self just sees the hierarchy of reality which persons like him give status quo to and stand on the top of this whole direction.

What an ego tripper I was, heading to a world that is more and more inner, accepting the physical universe and everything as a hologram, as some infinite equation, which in the final truth I am. But big part of me is still automatically heading there, but now the instinctual drive starting to be more noticed. Self sucks me in from being here now to an imaginable (real) source.

It’s seem like a very scary thing to give up all reality completely. No 104, 2.9.2006

The metaphor that expresses my understanding of it is to say it is about dismantling the trigger commands for the emotions – which make up the program code of the ‘Self’ operating system – and setting the feeling level to ‘felicitous’, corrupting its ‘identity’. Crazy? No 99 to No 58, 11.5.2006

Thank You A Lot! Ha Ha (This is so much fun!) No. 82(R) to Richard, 31.12.2005

Early on in my encounter with actualism it became apparent that it’s all or nothing. If Richard’s ‘style’ seems aggressive to you, or you have a problem with it, then you have something to investigate. It had gradually dawned on me that Richard’s very relentlessness had something to do with the fact that he is currently the only human being on the planet that is actually free.

Is the ‘aggressiveness’ really coming from Richard or not? In every case I’ve looked into, Richard has simply not been the aggressor. It’s really quite simple – a normal human being ducks and shoves. When Richard refuses to let you of the hook, ‘you’ (those that interpret it as an aggressive style) duck the perceived dart and shove the blame on him for being ‘aggressive.’

Blaming others, trying to change or manipulate others, having a problem with someone’s ‘style,’ etc simply has no place in actualism – it really is all or nothing. Early on in my encounter with actualism it became apparent that it’s all or nothing. No 37 to No 60, 3.2.2006

Not too long ago in the past, ‘I’ wanted acceptance by as many as would accept ‘me’ – so I used to be very fluent in ‘identity talk’, speaking/ writing/ listening in a style that was very much approved by other identities; and, as a consequence, ‘I’ was usually liked by nearly everyone in ‘my’ life.

One of the reasons I enjoy seeing Richard correspond is because he writes things that can be so challenging, to one’s socialized ‘being’, as to be perceived as aggressive (thus making him out to be a very unlikeable identity) – which is the main reason why ‘I’ would always remain silent when seeing another’s fundamental contradictions*); and therefore maintain a friend/an ally who would most likely also remain silent when seeing one of my own. Consequently keeping each other in the dark – that’s how much we cared.

I have seen Richard lose countless potential friends/ allies by refusing to play this game. And this game was therefore more important to them than whatever is on offer on the Actual Freedom website and list. No 47 to No 60, 3.2.2006

*) Small/trivial contradictions are easy to point out, especially by sugar-coating them with humour, but the fundamental contradictions are another matter entirely.

*

How exactly would you go about doing this, No 60? How could you explain to somebody that their most treasured feelings/noble ideologies/optimistic dreams (those very things that give meaning to their life) are fundamentally flawed in that they have never and will never bring about peace-on-earth, without the possibility of coming across as ‘aggressive’, ‘arrogant’, ‘hostile’ and ‘unfriendly’?

As an example, the first girl who I fell in love with was nothing less than perfect to me; she gave meaning to my life. But when someone informed me, in a very kind and considerate way, that this girl was actually only interested in older guys (despite her telling me otherwise)… I resented this person and denied the evidence put forth.

After several months of digesting what had been presented to me, and seeing the facts of the matter for myself, I realized I had thoughtlessly shot the (friendly) messenger of a very factual but unpleasant message – and the style of the message was flawless, it was the substance I had a problem with.

Now, here is the thing, even if actualism was all substance and no style I would have still been interested enough upon first approaching it to get to where I am now. As the style, which I personally find a lot of fun by the way, is only very partial – it is the content, the substance of the words, that interests me. No 47 to No 60, 3.2.2006a

Another gem I have learnt by looking at the volume of my old posts is that – all these conceptualizations and theorizations (that seem to be going on a lot in the list) – paradoxically – have no value in the final experience. It is as if one has oneself in a messy thorny bush and one might need all kinds of tools to get oneself out – but the actual experience has no use for all those modus operandi and to spend one’s life in the process of disentangling engrossed in the process would be a waste, no? One has to do what one must, but to be able to see outside of the box what is one doing to oneself in large spans of time, the repetitiveness, the various avatars of oneself etc. would be a great boon. If one can clearly see that the life outside the suffering of human reality can be much better, one may not waste more time than necessary. All this is obvious at some point and not before [why?]. No 33 to No 60, 20.9.2005

I find that, at work, it ‘pays’ to be a self. It pays to love and be loved. What I mean is that everyone seems to be the most lenient and beneficent when we are all the most ‘nurturing’ toward one another.

There is a certain kind of ‘group resonance’ in that. And I have the feeling that in order to really pursue this goal of Actual Freedom, I’d be necessary to become irritating to my co-workers – simply because I wouldn’t be going with the loving and super-friendly program that everyone prefers.

In some sense it certainly does ‘pay’ to be and behave as a self.

There is definitely a group dynamic where you are expected to participate like everyone else and there are ‘punishments’ for those that do not. Your co-workers very well may become irritated by your refusal to play the ‘self’ game, but also consider that will likely be balanced by a more genuine benevolence on your part. Remember, that it is not your ‘job’ to correct them or to change them or to point out the error of their ways. Doing so will probably just make matters worse.

I guess a more basic question would be: is it possible to live in the ordinary world (hold a job, be married, raise children, etc.) while pursuing Actual Freedom? And to respond, simply, that it is an individual matter – that it all depends upon me – is a little too vague for application. In what way does it depend upon me? I’m hoping for a more direct answer.

In my case, since being an actualist, I have had several promotions in my current job – now having a great deal of independence and value within the company – with the best paycheque ever. I’m not attributing that solely to actualism – only to demonstrate that not only is it possible to pursue actualism and hold a job – but that it is possible that you will excel at that job.

I have also been married during this pursuit of actualism, though my wife and I are currently ‘separated.’ This I can directly attribute to my practice of actualism since I do everything I can to avoid the games of being a ‘self.’ My current wife is simply not interested in the ‘non-emotionalism’ of actualism – she still thrives on the fight of feeling.

I look after 2 children. Raising children as an actualist has been a pleasant surprise. In the beginning, I was worried about the possible effects of not telling them that I love them and all that goes with that. I have found that I can still let them know that I care about them not only in word, but in deed – and so far it has had a huge payoff. I don’t fight with my kids like my wife does – and we have a lot of fun together. They get the cuddling and consistency they thrive on from me. Overall, I am very pleased at being a much better parent that I might have been otherwise.

My basic concern is that I am going to break up what stability exists in my social relationships in order to become ‘happy and harmless’!

In some cases that may be the case. But in my experience, you can learn to minimize the fallout and begin to notice the benefits and steer towards those. One of the things that I find important to remember is that you have to deal with the circumstances you find yourself in. If that means that occasionally you have to ‘play the game’ in order to avoid serious consequences, then so be it.

What I’m thinking of here is Richard’s comments about lying. There is no reason one would typically need to lie – but there is also no need to have a principle that states ‘never lie.’ So, in those rare instances where it is obvious that someone would be tremendously hurt by the truth, then you always have the option of staying quiet or if necessary – lying. The point is that what you are doing is motivated by genuine benevolence rather than self-interest.

Same goes for the workplace. If things just go better by ‘playing along’ on a rare occasion, then why not?

Actualism is not at all about principles – so you are breaking no principle by doing so if required.

I am looking forward to a reply.

This is all my personal experience, so yours will likely vary. The question I ask myself when I encounter an unwillingness to continue is ‘Do I really want to continue living this way?’ Invariably I find the answer is that I MUST go on – otherwise I will not be able to look at myself in the mirror. No 37 to No 91, 18.12.2005

Dedicated to: No 60, the uncertain dissident.

My first correspondence starts August 30, 2001 as a personal mail to Richard. I was quite excited to find a way out of the paradoxes I found myself in for over 10 years. Had been thoroughly confused by reading a lot of Zen, Krishnamurti and Richard offered open discussions about those topics.

During those days my main focus was to understand what feelings were. I wasn’t sure about the term, about the stuff that it denotes. I must have been too lost in conceptual world, particularly using the word thought as it is done – for everything mental. I was struggling a lot to understand the stuff.

I distinctly remember having located my blind defence for science when I communicated with Richard. My inbox still has a lot of incomplete drafts filled with anger at the actualist’s simplistic critique of modern science. I had decided to suspend this for sometime to go for matters closer to the everyday experience.

I don’t think I can ever say that I had put the method into practise sincerely. Half the time I was struggling with fighting the notion of a method, as Krishnamurti reading had prepared me. I had made a lot of intellectual sense of the contents of the web site and started sending mails and that gave me a good pass time. Most of my mails then, and to date are filled with hypocrisy, and when they are sincere, they are off the mark.

And then I had some psychotic experience that made me lose almost a year. Looking back, the single error that led me to the experience – if there can be an explanation to the whole thing – was trying to read between the lines – trying to decipher the real time events as an answer to my mental contents. That is, a belief that my questions are answered by the universe in an encoded form – height of self-centeredness I guess.

Recently I decided to give a total commitment a go. And though it wasn’t total, it was a good deal compared to my previous efforts. I keep uncovering a lot of strange stuff, real or imagined. I realize that in spite of a lot of progress, still I have a part in me that is a believer and defender of Richard’s words, contrary to my denials. It is like no matter what I do, I am dirty – how much ever I produce evidence to the contrary. Everything I do seems to be a cover-up – I take the words and defend it; I master the techniques of breaking the opponent while fearing the same. So the deep core of me is still a fearful and cunning entity viewing everything as a warfare which is antagonistic.

However, the above paragraph if totally true – can give this flesh and blood body’s experience no merit. My life is not without merit. I have done some good deeds, experience happiness a hundred times more than last year etc. I just don’t know the proportion of the good and bad. I am generally more understanding, less demanding and more considerate of my fellow human beings. It is as if I lead two lives – very complexly intertwined.

I realized that whenever somebody criticizes me of something, I become angry and defend and try to prove that the other is wrong. But I get angry not because they are wrong, but because they are possibly right. I beg to the world to agree with me in my denial of my own dark nature, and I call somebody a friend if they do so. I am constantly trying to run away from my dark nature. Even my admittance of it is to hide the bigger chunks. The dark nature is due to the inherent selfishness and callousness that exists. The hypocrisy, the denials, the sloppiness, the viciousness, the cunningness – all spring from my deep nature.

Has actualism worked for me? Jack should be delighted – I have been fooling myself and others all this time that it has been a straight line, a wide and wondrous path. I am very, very unclear as to how to summarize the experience, but I will say this: I am very glad to have found actualism, and I am very happy today, and the future looks really great. No 33, 29.9.2005

So, are you a Christian? Do you agree with what you have offered as the ‘Christian view?’

What I am and what I agree to is completely irrelevant for the fact that the actualist’s claims regards ‘the entity as soul’ are based on mis-information and are mis-information themselves.

Just so there is no room for misunderstanding – would you state clearly exactly what the ‘mis-information’ is that you are referring to?

Exactly what are the actualist claims regarding ‘the entity as soul?’ that you are saying are incorrect?

They might be talking about something when they talk about the ‘entity’, but they have incorrectly equated it with the notions ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’; the ‘entity’ correlates with ‘Satan’ [‘adversary’] as understood in orthodox theology and none other.

Here’s a definition from dictionary.com...

en·ti·ty

1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.

2. The fact of existence; being.

3. The existence of something considered apart from its properties.

Certainly nothing there about Satan or ‘adversary.’

Do you think it would matter one bit what meanings that orthodox theology would correlate with the word ‘entity.’ In my experience, Richard pretty much sticks with dictionary usage.

My understanding of the word ‘entity’ is that it is basically a synonym for ‘being’ or ‘presence.’ It is the being or ‘essence’ of a person.

This all proves once again that R has no clue whatsoever about true religion and true metaphysics How does it do that? Also, notice that in order to claim there is such a thing as ‘true religion’ and ‘true metaphysics’ – that such things must exist in contrast to ‘false’ religion and ‘false’ metaphysics.

Since you are claiming there is ‘true religion’ and ‘true metaphysics’ – it is relevant what you believe, since what you believe determines your view of what is true or false.

...and all his confused attributions about the ‘entity’ are strongly biased by his former mystical inclinations;

How so?

...equally, their followers understanding about spirituality, religion and metaphysics is more than questionable, which shows in many unqualified comments; most likely due to their long-time exposure to Bhagwan’s maddening syncretism.

It might be helpful to name specific people rather than painting all ‘followers’ with the same brush. I can only guess here that you are really referring solely to Peter and Vineeto – otherwise, you are hoping to use this explanation as a sleight of hand to stand in for other ‘followers’ as well.

[copied from the URL]: ‘In the real world, the human psyche or entity that dwells within the physical body is defined as being permanent and real and, as such, deemed to be actual. This entity as soul, spirit or mind is a non-corporeal entity that is ‘inside’ the physical flesh and blood body, looking out through the eyes, hearing through the ears, smelling through the nose, etc.’

Here again to contrast these wrong attributions of the ‘entity’ as ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ [and also certainly not as ‘mind’]:

Again, would you state clearly why these attributions are wrong?

‘According to the Christian view the human person is not a soul temporarily enclosed in a body, ...’

*

Or – do you side with the ‘perennialists’ – like Rene Guenon? or both?

I’m curious why you would quote both the ‘Christian view’ as well as from people like Guenon, Coomaraswamy, and Schuon at the same time, unless you see them as being in harmony.

Being that you are attempting to reduce actualism to a spiritual framework

I am not attempting anything here.

You most certainly are ‘attempting’ something here.

Regardless whether you succeed or fail – one must make an attempt in order to demonstrate something.

Perhaps you mean that you are not ‘merely’ attempting?

I demonstrated how actualism is neither metaphysics, philosophy, religion, science, but a body of dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions, immunised by an improper application of certain metaphysical principles; like for example the identity of subject (report) and object (reported), or the consubstantiality of body, perception apparatus, and universe, overlayed with attributions properly belonging to the Absolute.

Being that you are reading actualism as a belief system, it is no surprise that you think you have demonstrated that it is a ‘body of dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions...’

In brief: actualism is not a belief system. And since dogma requires belief – it cannot be a body of dogmatic assertions either.

*

– do you care to lay your cards on the table as to what you actually believe?

What I believe or not believe is totally irrelevant.

If only that were the case, huh? But you see – you are claiming that there is such a thing as ‘true religion’ and ‘true metaphysics’ – so you cannot get off the hook so easily. In order for you to claim there is ‘true religion’ and ‘true metaphysics’ – you would be required to fess up to what you actually believe – in order to support those claims. Otherwise your claims rest on ... zilch. No 37 to No 81, 25.9.2005

I know what you mean when you say that you can’t go by a general sense you get by reading of people’s testimony.

I think that takes you up to a certain place and from there you have to grill deeper to go ahead.

One of the things I have found most fascinating recently is to go back to the web pages and re-read some things which I now have an experiential understanding of. The difference in understanding is vast, and words can barely begin to convey the meaning.

The words in the site always meant the same... only that I didn’t see before and was busy in my world distorting/ interpreting/ doubting/ objecting based on general principles and various other devices. The problem is not with the words, but with ‘me’.

But I get what you are saying.

I think this contributes to why I find actualism to be such hard work. No one else can do it for you – or at least, I haven’t discovered how they can yet.

It is a very curious business... yes ‘I’ have to do it all by myself... but everything is there around me if ‘I’ be willing. Something I am working on:

‘I’ am built with so many layers that ‘I’ didn’t even know of. ‘I’ am like the onion that hides so much inside. The actualism process is like willingly peeling one’s own layers... or rather investigating the layer after another. Initially, it appeared ridiculous that ‘I’ am malice and sorrow... because I was dealing with nice outer covers and blind to most of the stuff. Each layer was there for a reason... and finding out the reason and soothingly replacing the layer with intelligence and common sense... seeing what is obsolete and what is appropriate... seeing that there is nothing more to desire or fear when one is completely here.

This constant attention to the layer that is in action and resolution of it then and there is the process that can take one deeper and deeper into oneself. Nothing less than the intelligence one is capable of can do this job... the survival mechanisms that the layers are formed of would not drop if not completely convinced of the presence of superior intelligence that can serve the function better. How much ‘I’ am not here at all... ‘I’ live somewhere else... how can ‘I’ find the meaning of life at all... as the meaning has to be here...here and now is the place of action and ‘I’ live somewhere else. When ‘I’ feel bad: it is like sitting in a nice breezy place and complaining that it is hell...

The hellish realm is one’s own making and the ‘now’ is perfect. Nothing that ‘I’ think and feel is applicable to the ‘now’: ‘I’ is made of something past, old and unreal. ‘I’ am not reporting about actuality but ‘I’ am creating reality. ‘I’ have to quit blaming about the other and see that ‘I’ am the root cause of misery. All this constitute the journey inside the deep layers that one is made of. No 33 to No 21, 2.7.2005

There is something about what you write (identification/recognition)

that incites me to write back. I have had quite a few private correspondents on hold for the past several weeks mainly because I find that I don’t have the necessary confidence, and knowledge, to speak surely about a freedom from the human constitution – much less condition –  as I have yet to be virtually/actually free of either… which is entirely ‘my’ choice (more on this later). But I also find that I’ve been using this as one of ‘my’ clever excuses to ignore my forte, which is ‘freeing’ myself from human conditioning – I’m still just a baby actualist :o)-, and have thus avoided potential conflict with others by not sharing my experiences (both on and off this list). So here is a little something from someone who has been a believer, a disbeliever and an unbeliever of the actualism process.

With regards to the reason/s for your (impending) departure, that you have shared with us, I am sure you are being sincere to the best of your knowledge and experience; but I also think it’s quite possible that you are inadvertently limiting that same knowledge and experience, particularly with the actualism method, to the limited and frustrating results you have obtained so far. Results, or lacks thereof, that are shockingly similar to those ‘I’ had, or didn’t have, when ‘I’ was solely ‘me’ figuring it all out. Of course, ‘I’ am still ‘me’ – a more benign and cooperative ‘me’ –  but ‘I’ am nowhere to be found when a major breakthrough comes.

I get the impression that, in practice, you decided to do this all by yourself – not that you should have done it with somebody else. I mean, frustration trying to end frustration on the one hand; and (affective)

happiness trying to increase happiness on the other (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). So the motivating factor in both these cases is solely ‘me’. And I know that you’re a big guy No 60, but no one is big enough to take ‘me’ on. So where is that force which is far beyond ‘me’ – pure intent – for am ‘I’ enough to free myself from ‘me’? Will ‘I’ ever succeed with little or no help? Has anyone ever succeeded this way? My experience: ‘I’ neither could nor ever would.

Ring any bells or am I way off?

My conflict with actualism for some time now, completely different from my past conflict with it, has been not that it doesn’t work but that it works too well. So much so that ‘I’ no longer just feel that ‘I’ am being a hypocrite, and then realize it is only an emotional thought, and then get back to feeling good… I now see the fact of ‘my’ hypocrisy, ‘an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction’, and remain feeling good despite it.

Usually, every moment ‘I’ have two options: to do something about this, or not. There is no longer any guilt if I decide not to do anything about it and this can sometimes lead to a reverse incentive with regards to the actualism method – as there is no longer any ‘stick’ to punish ‘me’. The only consequence of not doing something is a loss of dignity, which can easily be replaced by pride, which in turn leads to a procrastination wherein attentiveness ends; this pretty much wipes out happiness and harmlessness, the infamous actualist question thus becomes useless, and of course futility begets frustration.

Once frustrated, ‘I’ am left option-less but with a seemingly effective reaction to end and further avoid frustration of this type by temporarily abandoning the actualism method. This does work; however, I have yet to have an emotional ‘reaction’ ultimately worth having… but if you have a different take on this, then you very well maybe better off not trying to practice actualism.

Back to ‘my’ hypocrisy, it’s not just any hypocrisy, it’s of the most perverted type wherein I factually know of a solution to end suffering yet capriciously forsake it for egocentric/soul-centric trips. Or, the naysayer may better understand me if I rephrase it as: wherein I factually think I know of a solution to end suffering yet capriciously forsake it for egocentric/soul-centric trips. Either way, not much dignity is there?

It used to be that ‘I’ was afraid of hypocrisy getting the better of ‘me’; now I see that ‘I’ am no different from it. Who would willingly perpetuate unnecessary suffering? Who could care less about radical change but spend most of their time, and effort, rearranging the furniture on the titanic to a spectacular degree... ‘me’, of course.

So even if I wanted to I could not lay the blame, of ‘my’ failure, on the method. For it is, as I previously wrote above, entirely of my choice to be where ‘I’ am now at. And this is not the same as when I used to believe in Religion/Spirituality and lay the blame on anything but Religion/Spirituality… for then ‘I’ knew no better. ‘I’ had no choice on the matter and could not compete with a 2000+ year old knowledge, improved and refined to fit modern day thinking, born and kept alive by a 1,000,000+ old feeling.

The friction ‘I’ now have with actualism is:

• I am so comfy where ‘I’ am now at that I am finally enjoying life in a way I thought I never could.

• This joy can no longer increase, nor stabilize, without ‘me’ leaving the scene… except affectively.

So ‘I’ am hanging by a thread (connection) here and if I don’t turn my back on actualism soon (in any way or form) I don’t know how much longer ‘I’ can remain a normal feeling ‘being’ (and a significant part of ‘me’ still wants this); or, if ‘I’ and ‘my’ passions get the last word in, plunge into a full time job of ‘Being’ feelings. Will I ultimately abandon a ‘Virtual/Actual Freedom’ for a Freedom ‘I’ can keep enjoying?

For a Freedom from trying to be free? Absolute Freedom?

If the horror ‘I’ sometimes experience these days is anything to go by… it is tempting. I don’t know if ‘I’ will use this fear as a means to end it, surrender to its opposite, or ignore it – like most people do–  with something/s special to keep it at bay (family, in ‘my’ case). I don’t know if ‘I’ will be able, because of a lack of wanting, to completely eradicate this seemingly new fear, which actually feels very very old.

I, as of yet, have no solid intentions of abandoning actualism… but if I do one day, since sincerity and intelligence are now currently in operation, I am exposing exactly why I would do such a thing. And if ever the day comes when I start objecting to actualism, I expect someone to quote this against me (not kidding). Even though I know that the chances of regaining common sense, once it’s gone, are very slim… but possible.

*

This post is getting quite long and I do hope you don’t become bored by it. So if you start reading:

‘blah blah… success blah …’me’ and ‘you’ wrong actualism right…[yaaaaaaawn]… blah blah…’ then I would recommend you nip this post in the bud. As I know all this would be awfully boring to someone no longer interested in actualism.

But I’m having my fun, so here goes anyways  ‘I’ almost don’t know/feel who ‘I’ am anymore; ‘almost’ because ‘I’ can still relate to a couple of people and they to ‘me’ (‘I’ verify them and they verify ‘me’). But, for example, habits and manners of ‘being’ (‘speaking/reacting/relating’) that used to be so common place in ‘me’ are no longer present. In a way, this sensation is similar to my years while in depression (when ‘I’ was completely lost) but without the negative feelings/passions or the apathetic/nihilistic view on life.

One of the principal reasons why I know ‘I’ remain as strong as an Ox, but as thin as a pin, is because of ‘my’ relating to others. Even though ‘I’ve lost most of ‘my’ friends and acquaintances, a relatively new and satisfying relationship has developed with ‘my’ family (which, in Mexico, is everything). For the past year, as a result of practicing actualism, I’ve had a unique type of harmony with them that was near to impossible when I was normal and/or spiritual… way easier going and mostly conflict free (very different from how it used to be).

However, ‘I’ have somewhat unenthusiastically discovered that this mutual relationship ‘I’ have with ‘my’ family, however pleasing, is directly the cause of ‘my’ procrastination and ‘my’ silent panic of leaving *everything* behind. This is why ‘I’ have (subtly but voluntarily) been avoiding a ‘Virtual Freedom’.

‘I’, like you, have also blamed the actualism method before for not working; all the while subconsciously staying as far away from it as ‘I’ could. Obviously, it’s up to you to find out (unless you already have)

if you are doing the same as ‘I’ was, or not – or if you want the task at all (I can understand your reluctance if you don’t/or tried, failed and gave up).

Honestly, ‘I’ am not ready to go any further, as ‘I’ don’t yet want to be ready, as ‘I’ am all ‘I’ have left and all ‘I’ have left is ‘my’ family. In other words, ‘I’ am ‘my’ family, my family is valuable to ‘me’, hence ‘I’ am valuable and therefore (as with all other things important) ‘I’ am serious about ‘me’ and even more so about ending ‘me’; and seriousness, as you must know, precludes happiness. Shucks… see what I mean?

[Initiating tongue in cheek mode] What do you think my chances are of talking Richard into allowing my family to be a part of Actuality? If you help me do this I promise to help you convince him to let you keep, and use, your imagination too. [Finalizing tongue in cheek mode] The main questions that now haunt me everyday are:

• Why am ‘I’ able to deceive myself, and others, when ‘family’ is ‘my’ motivating factor?

• Why am ‘I’ unable to deceive myself, and others, when ‘Pure Intent’ is ‘my’ motivating factor?

• If ‘I’ had no family *what* would be of ‘me’?

• What am ‘I’ in relation to these people?

• Could ‘I’ really exist without them?

• Is ‘my’ family more important to ‘me’ than other families?

The thought out answers which I continually get everyday, which I sometimes think are so carefully thought out so as to avoid an experiential answer, go something like this (notice that after the ‘-but’ is ‘hard core’ sincerity in action) :

• Fact 1: Actualism is by far the most important thing in my life – but there is still room in ‘my’ life for a few other things.

which leads to –

• Fact 2: I want to (psychologically/psychically) not exist as I know that is where the big enchilada is – but ‘I’ obviously still want to remain in existence.

and taking into account the previous two facts– 

• Fact 3: I have rather incredibly benefited from actualism without achieving a stable ‘Virtual Freedom’– but ‘I’ have yet to actually practice all of actualism without modifying or leaving out a thing or two.

So why have I yet to reach a ‘Virtual Freedom’?

• Fact 4: Well, ahem, the answer is now quite obvious to me… it’s because of that ‘thing or two’ you see.

And ‘I’ used to think others had contradictions! ‘I’ am like a living breathing contradiction, a contra-‘being’, but ‘my’ discrepancies have been identified and will be dealt with due diligence… ohm, someday ;-)

Going back to one of ‘my’ favourite inconsistencies….

‘I’ also know that ‘my’ family doesn’t belong to ‘me’… it belongs to humanity, as do ‘I’. War also belongs to humanity, it is a part of it, so ‘I’ can relate to war; and when push comes to a much uncivilized shove, ‘I’ can and will create war. Where there is just ‘pushing’, ‘I’ just create normal conflict, but where there is shoving and that shoving is relevant or in someway related to you, ‘I’ have the potential to cause havoc/physical death on you and your loved ones.

This fact was made all the more obvious to me at a time when I was socializing with the not so economically fortunate people of this country… more than a few times I heard about, and experienced second hand, how very nice, loving and affectionate people would do the unthinkable (to other very nice, loving and affectionate people) when emotional conflicts became passionate ones. And I see that ‘me’ and ‘my’ family have this same potential for harm, if it comes down to it.

I am also writing all of this because I have decided to further expose my frequent loss of dignity and the reason that the actualism method hasn’t virtually freed me or, by other/other’s standards, worked for me.

The more ‘I’ procrastinate the more I will, at best, have no potential to be of use to others in regards to freedom and, at worst, cause them harm.

I well understand why Richard wrote that he could not look at himself in the mirror when he had done less than he could to free himself from the human condition; and I well understand why I have also sometimes chosen to ignore this particular statement of his.

That is why I have decided to blow the whistle (I hope this is the correct expression) on why the actualism method hasn’t completely

worked for me. This unsophisticated method is doing exactly what it is purported to do… and ‘I’ am just acting or reacting accordingly).

Farewell dear No 60 if you decide to leave… ‘Ahoy!’ if you decide to stay. No 47 to No 60, 18.5.2005

None that I am absolutely certain of. But I have had quite a few experiences where the world has taken on a magical, fairy tale like quality that tells me I am pointed in the right direction.

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that my ‘search’ for truth has ended – and that is quite a relief. Also, my ‘relationships’ and dealings with people are virtually free of emotional entanglement, so they are much, much smoother.

No, in the sense that actualism and the recognition of the human condition has brought some unanticipated downsides that I am still working through. Briefly, the downside I am referring to could be summarized like this: ‘I’ resent being here, and ‘I’ know it.

So, I cannot definitively say that I am happier overall.

The fact that my ‘search’ has ended and dealings with people have improved is clearly attributable to actualism. The unanticipated downsides have had to do with the fact that for most of the last two years, I have practiced actualism incorrectly. I have mostly looked at the human condition and my experience by trying to think through them and understand them. Unfortunately, though that approach gave me an intellectual understanding of the human condition, it has not allowed me to eradicate it in myself. I’ve only recently been able to discern the difference experientially, which has to do with examining emotions with attentiveness rather than attempting to analyze them intellectually. There is a big difference that can only be discerned experientially, and from what I can see, the trick is to remain with attentiveness rather than intellectualizing. Also, an important note – I’ve have long understood (intellectually) that there is a difference, but one has to understand this experientially.

There have been a lot of misunderstandings about the phrase ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’. I’ve tried to focus on ‘what’ I am experiencing – a sort of passive awareness, ‘what’ I am sensing – passive awareness – ‘what’ I am feeling – passive awareness – and other variations on the ‘what’ theme. It is only with the recent distinction between ‘what’ and ‘how’ that I see the question is specifically designed to be a simple test of the quality of experience in whatever form. ‘How’ is the important part in that it puts attention on the quality of experience – the emotions and feelings underlying thoughts so that one understands them experientially with attentiveness, not intellectually.

That is still to be determined. No 37 to No 38

When I first came across Actualism I promised myself I would find a reasonable objection to which you would unreasonably reply. All I needed was a fact that would contradict your description of the Actual so I could continue on my way to either pursuing unrequited love – among other addictions – and/or all sorts of therapy. Reading U.G Krishnamurti even cheered me up for a while, as he reinforced my belief that I wasn’t missing out on much. My life sucked and I knew where I was heading to, where it might have ended, yet I would rather continue suffering – sweet sorrow – than admit to the possibility of change; although I welcomed hope, and that is where the cycle of believing and doubting Actualism began.

I recall at one point I had the option to feel and be convinced that my objections were worthy and sensible and so continue hanging on to my beliefs, completely closing the possibility of a third alternative, and go back to living a normal or spiritual life. I remember how uncomfortable it was for me at the beginning not being able to find something that would contradict your words, I sooo wanted you to be wrong, however my common sense would not allow me to make silly objections; and it was the altruism I felt, my regard for others, which finally made me stick around. I am more than pleased to have taken the time and effort to see what you’re all about… and it has turned out to be the most important and fruitful decision of my life. No 47 to Richard

Sorry for the delayed response No 16.... let me just say what I think here frankly and see if it makes sense:

It seems to me that whatever is said in the website, though in so much detail (4 million words to be made fun of :), are the experiences of the actualists and though they seem to be simple, it starts making sense only when one goes deep into this mess (my experience). As it is said, it is highly iconoclastic and challenges one’s beliefs so much. So without practising, let us say one starts discussing about it. I claim that one will get upset with something that is being said at one point or another (repetition of 180 degree opposite direction seems to make sense to me now). What do you do with that upset?

You can blame Richard, Peter, Vineeto for being adamant, dogmatic, incorrect etc. (That’s where looking for exact evidence at least in one case to support one’s feelings is worthwhile. Then one realizes, however strongly felt, the nature of feelings. This itself would be in some sense applying actualism.); or you can see why you are upset... even if they are so... what is that preventing you from being happy and harmless with the situation as it is... (again you have started applying actualism already if you do this) and my guess would be that there is a belief (principle, moral, ethical rule, value...) or deeply enough an instinct (it takes a while to get a knack of this.... this is really crazy… it is almost like an egg hatching to a chicken process... things are not clear in the beginning but facts and repeated application and contemplation are extremely important).

So that is why to understand actualism/the nature of human condition/the nature of actualfreedom, I think you have to practice actualism (or any of the self observation, watching etc. but I think there will come a point where the feelings that are exonerated in other methods will be challenged in some of the writings and upset... there you go. This is a kind of question everything approach, but tailored to work).

I am not trying to produce a bullet-proof mathematical intellectual argument for practising actualism (as I might have made some cognitive oversight); just trying to present the case for actualism as I understand it from my experience and open a discussion.... and why anything less (dilution, variation) may not work etc.

See if this makes sense and if not, as always, let us discuss this stuff thoroughly (there is no objection for discussing things thoroughly, right? though it takes a lot of thought, time and energy). No 33 to No 16

In the light of what is going on: What is your idea of conducting a sensible dialogue? Please feel free to send your thoughts.

Because the issues involved are intricate.

I have been passively taking advantage of your inputs to this mailing list, thank you for writing, and I see it fit to now finally share a bit.

When it comes to talking/thinking about several things that don’t emotionally threaten ‘me’ I am able to conduct (or generate) a sensible dialogue. But when interests – hidden agendas – are at stake, I become so very cunning; and being sensible, as in proceeding from good sense or judgment, is the last thing on my mind… which is all the better for ‘me’ and also the reason why I keep pulling myself back into the ‘real world’. I know that I am being cunning when I want or expect things to unfold in a certain manner that benefits ‘me’ in any way; and most of the time, if not all, excludes others.

Your idea of a sensible dialogue is essentially the same as mine, which from time to time is much more than just an idea, but if I haven’t been able to be sensible enough with myself – lacking the capacity and the desire to be so when ‘I’ am challenged- I know that it is less likely to happen with another.

I have caught myself justifying and excusing some of my silly*) behaviours lately – even after more than a year of doing what I can with actualism. During this time I have fortunately dismantled many layers of the identity only to come upon thinner and subtler ones. So I have yet to be completely honest with myself, and other people, but I do appreciate when others have similar grounding and can tell me straightforwardly what is actually going on inside their skull; this ensures my best attempt towards a sensible dialogue. However, I also appreciate other dialogues that are non too sensible as they tend to bring out the worst in me.

Being sensible has turned out to be a very dangerous enterprise for ‘me’, and contrary to what I believed when I first started practicing actualism – that because I am young it would be easier to arrive at a Virtual or Actual Freedom – I have struggled seemingly more than others because of an apparent lack of experience in the ‘real world’ and just a shocking dose of the cynicism in it. Before I came upon actualism I was like a mess swept under the carpet, next few months after that the carpet had been lifted and I was just a mess, now I have a handle on the broom**).

On another note, I had my first – without a doubt – PCE last week; but I became so overwhelmed by the experience that it turned into an ASC seconds after… I hesitate to give a practical description, since it lasted but a few short moments and was quickly replaced by something terribly impractical, although I can say it was a life-changing event. I also no longer have to rely on the memory of long time passed PCEs – which also became clearer.

All the best to you,

*) As in it hasn’t, doesn’t and cannot work.

**) The mess, the carpet and the broom (including the handle) are actual; this thought occurred to me today while I was sweeping… I have yet to mop. No 47 to No 33

It is no armchair philosophy. A great deal of work is getting done. Only that is such a work, that the payoff is immediate. What was so confusing all these days is getting more and more light.

I should admit that it would have been impossible to have done this by myself. Firstly, I wasn’t even going in this direction. Secondly, the innumerable entanglements – it is so easy to give up and resort to the real world wisdom – you can’t change human nature – one must be insane to be going the way no one has gone – if not for the luck to have some great precedents here. Thirdly, the lure of enlightenment and the ASCs and the ‘Tried and True’ solutions abound – I would not have even had the slightest idea that all this could be wrong. It is a monumental discovery indeed.

In interacting with some friends recently, I could see how the various beliefs were such impediments to investigation (‘Advaita Shuffle’ being one) and learning and change. And I myself had been subscribing to them all these years – simply because they came from the masters, they were beautiful, their hoariness, peer-group-conditioning (Am I learning some wonderful words here?). And I said – I could have gone on, and would have never even imagined the actual freedom, because as it has been said here – common sense and naiveté are not fashionable in real or spiritual speaks.

Actualism is simply amazing. The goods that it delivers (which has been subject to inquiry by the fellow participants): common sense, intelligent thinking free of emotions, well-being, wonder, enjoyment of the moment, etc. are invaluable. Since there are so many goods there is no reason for blame and malice!

Let me borrow the phrase: Ain’t life grand! No 33

This is the reason I don’t practice Actualism per se because what I hear this saying is let’s keep the religion pure which is what other religions say.

Because you hear the above passage as saying ‘let’s keep the religion pure’ (which is worth going into) you probably feel revulsion and therefore feel the revulsion for yourself if you practised actualism. Am I correct?

If that is the case, it will be really, really worthwhile to go into this passage in detail and see if it is based on facts or based on some religiosity. If a scientist discovers a law and sees that the science-fiction writers distort the meaning of the discovery and thinks that it will be good to have the original preserved so as to separate the facts from fiction, will I say that it is a religion because of that? We can just take the paragraph in question and see if it is a religion because of that. Or maybe you would like to preserve your feeling because it rings true?

This one sentence is a good example of what I mean:

‘This is the very reason that we have set up The Actual Freedom Trust, simply in order that there will be at least one original untainted source of Actualism and Actual Freedom which people can use as a touchstone in a world renowned for duplicity and self-deception. Thus it is possible, as with any new discovery, to see two streams operating.’ Peter, Guide for Advanced Actualists

The key words here are ‘untainted source’ and ‘touchstone’. We have heard this same rhetoric from many religions. The source, the well, the centre. It goes by many names.

I see what you are getting at. Your point being somewhat like this - that religions have a holy book (like bible, for instance) and call it ‘untainted source’ and ‘touchstone’ and treat it unquestionable and holy and sacrosanct. The above passage gives a similar feeling. So you are suspicious.

How would you go about to find if that is the case? Or are you convinced that it is the case that ‘actualism’ is another religion? Because if it isn’t true, you have something to gain! If it is true, I think you can save your energy by once for all finishing with the case.

Because I don’t have this problem: reason being,

a) actualism is not a belief system because it is about investigating all beliefs and believing.

b) any superficial similarity between the spiritual/religious concepts – when I tried to investigate by going into detail – breaks down like anything. No 33 to No 16

There’s not much practical actualism action going on this list right now, hmm? well, I’ve had a few experiences I’ll put out there.

I recently remembered a PCE, which was helpful because before this I could only go on how much practical sense actualism made, and take other’s word for it that this grand experience was possible. Thus I was unable to connect with ‘pure intent’ and unable to have a marker to compare various other experiences by. The distinct quality in the experience for me was not having to look into my surroundings – no piercing awareness of it was necessary, because, as I have heard described before, there was absolutely no distance between what I saw and my eyes. The experience occurred during a boring lecture, in a bland, almost empty lecture-hall, and it all made no difference because all I saw was fascinating. I have no recollection of other sensory experiences, hearing, feeling, and such though, and I do not have a distinct memory of what type of thoughts were occurring, or whether ‘I’ was there. But nevertheless, it was good enough for me.

An item I noticed in practicing the method was how long it’s taken me to get a hold of how the method actually works. I recently heard someone on the list describe the method as incredibly simple, and I do agree the more I find out how it works. My experience is that I interpreted the words and descriptions of the method in as many possible ways as I could without comprehending the simplicity of the method. I came up with all these explanations and method ‘add-ons’ that would help me- it seems all they did was postpone discoveries. For example I would try to tackle entire instincts at a time- either aggression, nurture, desire, or fear. or I would try to tack-on other psychology bits and pieces and such. and try to uproot the conditioning that way. A lot of it was me thinking the method was too simple, and not enough, and that I needed to find my own way through it all.

I recently noticed that sometimes, I have even turned actualism into another layer of my identity – all it did in these cases was keep me from investigating. I would notice a particular problem and before I could go into it I would say ‘I’ve gone over this before, I’m an actualist, and thus it should be gone’ and go on feeling bad about failure, or ignore the feeling, or whatever traditional escape I came up with.

However, I don’t that if I had just stuck to the words in the presentation of the method from the very beginning if it would have helped. The words apparently just did not click with practicality as they do now- but I needed the experiences of taking the method the wrong way, and the ensuing frustration, to understand bit by bit what the method was about. It requires that I be able to experientially know what the words are talking about, and as they made sense at the first read, I didn’t ‘understand’ them in this necessary sense.

Just recently I have been able to identify what was going on in with my identity and then I saw the particular bit of social conditioning around the issue and was able to say ‘that is ridiculous’. before I could examine the whole thing, but was unable to let go of it, for whatever reason.

It all ends up being remarkably similar to how it is described on the website on Peter’s ‘advance guide.’ I suppose I should have expected that from the beginning though... No 55

‘I don’t yet accept that this is a ‘now for the first time’ kind of a deal. We’ve got some people exiting Plato’s Cave here, and claiming that ‘now for the first time’ the sun in shining. They haven’t yet made an exhaustive investigation of all the other places it might have been shining up until now (though they might THINK they have). I mentioned some places to look above, for starters.’

I have looked high and low and have never found anything like what Richard is offering.

I’ve spent years trying to understand people like Suzanne Segal, Bernadette Roberts, Meher Baba, U.G. Krishnamurti, Da Free John, Douglas Harding, Ramana Maharshi, Ken Wilber, and various traditions around the world and have NEVER run into ANYTHING resembling actualism. The closest would be U.G. Krishnamurti, yet even he is miles away.

The following may look like an intellectual indulgence to you, but I tell it to make a point.

Bertrand Russell used to try to get his student Wittgenstein to admit that there was no elephant in the room – when there was no elephant in the room – and Wittgenstein wouldn’t admit it. His problem is that he couldn’t definitively PROVE there was no elephant in the room. In other words, he couldn’t rule out EVERY possibility – so he couldn’t state the fact that there was no elephant in the room. He also had a problem with physical laws – Wittgenstein’s problem was equivalent to the problem of induction.

How do you prove that a physical law holds in ALL cases? A corollary is how do you prove something does NOT exist? The answer is you can’t. At some point you take something as fact, and at what point that happens has to do with your personal judgement and warrant you have. So, in the same way there is no elephant in my room right now, actualism is new to human experience. Maybe there was another culture somewhere, maybe someone has discovered in another time and place or whatever – but that is all irrelevant – the point is that Richard and others have made a thorough investigation of mystical traditions, contemplative, altered states, etc and have come up empty. You will see if you continue on that Richard’s knowledge of the mystical traditions of the world and writings of people like J Krishnamurti is extensive – this is not to put him up on an unquestionable pedestal, only to state a fact. Besides, Richard has stated repeatedly that he would be happy to find another person in actual freedom – to compare notes. The point in making the claim that actualism is entirely new is not (in this case) ‘actualist calenture,’ but a statement of fact as we know it. If another person in actual freedom showed up somewhere, that would then contradict that claim and it would have to be modified. I don’t see that anyone would have a problem with that – and it would indeed be welcomed.

I do think you are discovering as well that many of those who seem to be going out of the cave into something like actualism or pure consciousness are something entirely different and one begins to anticipate that they will also be ‘thrown on the bone pile’ along with the rest. How many times does one have to turn up negative results before the ability to make a positive claim about the uniqueness of one’s own experience?

So, the gist of what I’m saying here is that Richard has a good case for actualism being ‘entirely new to human experience’ and I’m sure he would only be too happy to modify that claim should evidence turn up otherwise.

One further question here – why would one want to make such a claim? When I first encountered it – it seemed absurd – a piece of calenture if there ever was one. It also smelled rotten – of pomposity and ego – as if Richard is a ‘hero’ and is wanting recognition for being the first! Well, if that’s what it’s about – then throw it on the bone pile too! Anyway, I think there is a better explanation – as I read and understood more of what was on offer, I saw that it is a correct statement of fact (as far as we know) – but the value in stating it is that people know that this isn’t the same old stuff. It’s important to an actualist that this is set apart from everything else – since it isn’t like anything else out there. That explanation suffices for me – though I’d like to hear your feedback.

The second issue you raise is whether the actualist method is a proven method. This one I’m on the fence. The issue of what it takes to prove something can be a complex one. There are many scientists for example, that claim that science never PROVES anything, that it can only approximate. Where one stands on the issue of what constitutes a PROOF has to do with one’s own proclivities and understanding of method, evidence, etc. Personally, I’ve done some time reading various things in philosophy of science, like Kuhn, Popper, Feyerabend, etc. and will read more further down the line – but things like ‘proof’ can be hairy, so I incline to take a naive (not gullible) perspective on this idea of proof.

That said, how many does it take to prove something? It worked for one person, does that prove that it’s possible? You could take either side. Now, it’s worked for some handful of people to reach virtual freedom – do you take into account their ‘testimony?’

If you limit a success to actual freedom alone, then you might toss out all but Richard – as you seem to do. But, if you include partial successes along with the one success, then you have various people from different backgrounds and genders coming together to say that the method has worked UP TO A POINT – that is, Virtual Freedom. I do think your point that it’s actual freedom on offer here and not virtual freedom is an interesting one – but to some degree it depends who you ask. Certainly many people are going for the Big one – AF, but why not consider VF to be a success and count it as part of the evidence? It appears that Richard is using this fact that others have succeeded in VF to count towards a proven method. I don’t fault him for doing so – the evidence is scant so far, I agree, but it’s not an entirely unreasonable claim being made – and there is some warrant for it. No 37 to No 54

I’m curious about your current ‘take’ on actualism – from what I can see (and this is just an educated guess) – it looks like you think there may be at least a grain of truth, fact, or correctness in actualism – yet it is also evident that you think that much of it is corrupt, hypocrisy, etc.

Yep, see separate message in due course...

Do you think that Richard is fooling himself and others – and that what he is doing is merely toying with other people?

I don’t know what Richard is, or what he is doing. My feelings about him change from time to time, as do my non-affective assessments. Bottom line for me at this stage: he’s too much an enigma, too far out of my league for me to be able to judge him fairly.

(But as my desire to find a solution in actualism grew, cognitive dissonance almost – but never entirely—overcame that impression!) Now my assessment of him is more like it was back then. There are just too many things that don’t add up. There is no way I would act the way he does in a PCE. Maybe he just has an exceptionally prick-ly manner inherited from the ‘Richard’ of yore. Or maybe he is invisible to himself as a result of some neurological ... event. I don’t know. For me, when it comes to matters psychological/existential, direct experience and autonomous reasoning is the only thing I will trust now.

I can identify with much of what you’ve said – I also was quite excited when finding actualism – then subsequently dismayed by the lack of compassion displayed by actualists. I don’t think I was much bothered by repetitiveness – or ‘grammatically tortuous intellectually flaky crap.’ I suppose the only things I can relate to that would be that it was a hurdle to get over the claim that Richard purportedly is the ‘first’ to be actually free – also the negation of the Big Bang and Relativity – may have seemed ‘flaky’ at first, yet the more I investigated, I found it not to be ‘flaky’ at all – only at first appearance. Also, I the more I looked at just what was being said – the more I realized that Richard was speaking factually – though the initial appearance was that he was being insensitive. As I looked at my own ability to ‘pussy-foot’ around ‘tough’ issues, I was hooked on the ability to just finally say it like it is – no frills or denial required.

Sure, insensitivity is a minor problem if the underlying certainty is valid. If, OTOH, the underlying certainty is invalid, and if some kind of neural short circuit prevents recognition of same, then what you’ve got is an insensitive, dogmatic arsehole who is 100% certain of what he says, yet also dangerously wrong: people risk losing everything that matters to them, and more besides. It’s not the kind of thing one wants to discover was a mistake ... in hindsight.

OK, but why should this make one bit of difference to you and you wanting to be free of the human condition (if that is the case)? It has been very clear from Richard and other actualists from the get-go that they are not suggesting that you trust them. To be miffed regarding whether or not another person is entitled to their certainty is to put yourself in a position of trusting or not trusting what they say.

But people love to see certainty in another – and when they do, they often misappropriate it for themselves. Uncertainty is painful. We’re so limited; it takes so much energy and time to carefully investigate something, to overcome our own biases and blind spots, to consider an issue from several angles, to weigh up pros and cons, etc. Life is finite. So when somebody comes along who’s been there, knows it all, tells it like ‘it is’, the attraction is very understandable.

Yes, it is – but that is also why ‘actualism’ points out the pitfalls of trust and borrowed certainty.

I think part of the reason why I find Peter and Vineeto’s testimonies valueless (and also part of the reason why I dislike them personally)

Do you want to continue to dislike them personally?

…is that, right from the very beginning, they misappropriated Richard’s certainties. Thereafter it was a case of: we know the truth^H^H^H^H^Hfacts, hereafter we dig in our heels and defend, and repel all potential threats. YMMV, but I personally hate people who do that. The modus operandi is so obviously to reinforce those ‘certainties’ at any cost.

Yes, my mileage varies :o)

Why invest yourself in hating anyone? What relevance does this have to freeing yourself? Who cares whether Peter and Vineeto are forming their own actualist cult or lining themselves up as heirs to the throne? IF that were the case, that would be their blindness – not yours.

When I see Peter in action, I see the very same blind cretin who was once prepared to kill and die for his belief in Mohan Rajneesh. Same person, different set of beliefs – only now he’s utterly impenetrable, an impregnable fortress of certainty. He has ‘stripes’ now, he’s bosom buddies with the General. He’s in the inner sanctum at last. Making progress, getting somewhere. Fame, respect, power, a guru who values him, a fan base. Good, hey?

Nah... those two suck hugely, IMO. The only meaningful interaction I could have with Peter these days is in a boxing ring.

Just as an experiment. Ask yourself whether, if you were practicing actualism [as recommended by Richard alone], whether or not it would make one bit of difference in whether or not you like Vineeto and Peter if they are actually the hypocrites you think they are?

I am suggesting this ‘experiment’ simply because I once found myself wondering about them – but when I realized that it makes no difference to my desire to be free from the human condition whether or not they are hypocrites or not – I realized it was completely irrelevant. I didn’t need to decide whether they walk their talk – since it makes no difference whatsoever. Who cares? It’s their personal business.

*

Also, what is your current take or view (replace with whatever word you wish) of Peter and Vineeto and their practice of actualism?

Not favourable, as you might guess, but I just don’t have it in me to say more tonight. I feel sorry for them.

I have had opportunity to observe their writings for about 3 ½ years now. I certainly had my tangles with both of them in the beginning. Vineeto specifically regarding her ‘style’ and one-liners that often seem to be intended to be cutting – and Peter with his apparent ability to turn almost any inquiry into a lecture to convince the other person that it’s ‘their problem’ they don’t see it like he does. I definitely notice a willingness on both their parts to communicate in such a way as to let the person they are talking to know that they certainly don’t consider them an actualist. There is a consistent reframing of the other’s words into ‘real world’ terms such as ‘position,’ ‘belief,’ etc. such as to give the appearance of distancing what they are saying and put the other down. I don’t think that is their intent, I don’t really know, but it is certainly the effect.

After having observed it for two years, I do think it is their intent. And it hurts a lot of people.

So – are you feeling righteous indignation on behalf of those that are getting hurt? Maybe just hateful because they hurt you? If you were hurt, why?

If you are hating them because they are hurting others, why?

*

At the same time, I think they are both entirely sincere, but it is possible for a sincere person to have blind spots as well. I state these as appearances only – I have given up on trying to exhaustively guess their motives. Personally, I applaud both of them for their willingness to assist in blazing a trail to an actual freedom – I don’t assume that one will always be perfect or not slip up every now and then – so there really is no room for resentment from me regardless of their motives.

Fair enough.

What I find is that in order for someone to become resentful of Peter and Vineeto – they must first place them in the pedestal role of guru or assistant gurus, then when they don’t fit that image they are hated or resented quite strongly.

I did not do that. When I came to the list I naturally treated them as equals, potential friends, people whose interests and experiences were aligned with my own, people I could learn from and share experiences with. They put themselves on a pedestal; made themselves into gurus. I maintain they are know-it-alls who are only interested in bolstering their ‘certainties’, and the pathetic power-tripping fringe benefits that go with it.

Nobody can put themselves on a pedestal. You have to buy into it to be hurt by it. OR – you would have to hate them for others buying into it and subsequently being hurt – which is where righteous indignation would come into the picture.

*

As far as I can see – there is an easy way out of that cycle – don’t venerate or put responsibility on them in the first place, after all, they are fellow human beings.

I never did venerate them, and I don’t think I ever put responsibility on them. What I wanted from them – and all I wanted/expected from them when I was investigating actualism – was simple human decency in sharing ideas and experiences. I felt, and still feel, that they turned every interaction into a dominance game.

And you do see that wanting/expecting something from somebody sets you up for disappointment?

I see other people so frustrated by this double bind: sign says ‘Come in! Great fun here!’. Yet bouncers stand at the door repelling every comer, treating them as unwelcome intruders. (I am not advocating personal bonding here, either).

It is definitely interesting seeing the kinds of interactions that happen – and I do understand where you get the impression that the actualist list starts out with a warm welcome followed by a few metaphorical uppercuts. I can also see why you might be disappointed by all that.

I think it is very easily explained though – people come in the from ‘real’ world with their customary ways of bonding, being chummy, optimistic, or the opposites of those. Actualism is about eliminating all that good and bad – so none of the customary friendliness flies very far, rather it falls flat. So many people resort to the opposite of hatefulness to try and get to the actualists – since the usual ‘support me’ kind of friendliness doesn’t work.

What I’ve learned is that whenever people communicate with each other – much of what is said and how it is said is done in order to establish a relationship.

Since the ‘self’ is about survival – it is constantly trying to determine whether the relationship is one of friend or foe – the reason being that people are generally looking for ‘supportive’ relationships – and it is easier to keep on guard once a traitor has been discovered. When someone doesn’t play the usual ‘supportive’ relationship game – then they are tagged as a traitor and treated that way.

So, it is inevitable that people will feel hurt by actualists simply because they are not supporting the status quo.

Of course, at one point I ran square into the question – ‘If actualism is supposed to be about ‘peace-on-earth’ – then why does it create so much conflict?’ And – ‘isn’t this counter-productive?’ The answer I found is that it is indeed (generally) the actualist who is being peaceful and operating with sincere intent. It is not at all their fault that those who encounter them completely misinterpret their actions.

To take a guess (and you are the judge whether it is correct) – I would say that you quite simply despise hypocrisy. Since encounters with actualists produce predictable and repeated conflict (which contradicts their claim to want peace-on-earth) – they are prime examples of hypocrisy (which again contradicts their claim to want peace-on-earth). An apparent conundrum.

The way I resolved this apparent conundrum was to determine the source of the conflict.

*

What are you current explorations and how are they going?

As above mate. I’ve stepped back from the actualist-recommended naiveté toward a more familiar cynical/realist position in self-defence, so I can suss out for myself what’s what. ‘Happy and harmless’ is certainly not my aim at present. My aim is to resist any and all convenient refuges from uncertainty, and keep on questioning, exploring, uncovering, until I have the necessary experiential certainty to go ‘boots and all’ – in which direction and by how many degrees remains to be seen.

I don’t know if this is ‘reading between the lines’ or not, but it does seem as if you are not satisfied with your current ‘familiar cynical/realist position.’

And so ... how’s it all hanging with you?

It would indeed be nice for me to be able to report being completely happy and harmless, but I sincerely cannot. I have never seen actualism as a ‘magic wand’ where it is waived and someone is actually free. In many ways, I am much better off having practiced actualism – in other ways, I am worse off (so far).

Mostly, I am better off because I have stopped looking for the meaning of life and stopped wondering how to be peaceful – I know how it works now. I have sussed through so much relationship, male/female stuff, group/belongingness, etc to know that I am pointed in the direction I want to go – yet, my instincts don’t always cooperate. I still often feel desperate about the suffering in the world – resentful that I have to be here (instead of somewhere else) – and sometimes it is all overwhelming. I do realize that it isn’t this way for most people since being ‘normal’ means that one has learned to tuck away to whatever degree their personal experiences of being overwhelmed with the complexity and uncertainty and suffering of the world (as experienced by a ‘self.’)

I would say that on a social and person-to-person level I am unbelievably better off than ever before – and that is an incredible gift. Yet at the same time I am still haunted by the painful void – the basic existential resentment that I see expressed all around me.

So – most of my time these days is spent unravelling that basic resentment. No 37 to No 60, 5+6.9.2005

I don’t ask such personal questions as the ones I asked to No 60 to any person outside this list (I may gently point out this or that if I see some reception/value) – No 60 has shown interest in actualism in understanding... so I want to communicate what I see knowing that it is harsh. if he says no... I don’t want all this... I want comfy chat with lot of good will and nice time... that is a different story (this is just an example). What No 71/No 60 may want is that: why can’t Richard (if not Peter /Vineeto) say what they say in a non-confrontational, friendly, sugar-coated, euphemistic, gentle, saving-other’s-face, etc. style?

Fact: This is a false dichotomy.

As I have said elsewhere I can see 100% sense in Richard /Peter /Vineeto’s writing. That might not have been how I would respond, but I see how they are moving close to the problem... now, I see them moving straight given the goal of actualism.

*

I would really, really ask at this point to mercilessly point out all that is non-sense, silly, conceited, contradictory in what I write.

Okay, see above. Here’s some speculation based on the above fact.

You are bolstering your belief in actualism by means of a false dichotomy: you wish to believe that while the actualists have an unpleasant manner, they always speak the truth/facts, whereas those who are not actualists are interested in their fluffy, friendly, face-saving untruths. You overlook the third (very real) possibility that the actualists are not only often unfriendly, they are also often wrong.

At this point, I think they are closest to the facts as far as I can see. That is not to say that I don’t see where others are coming from.

Everybody speaks the truth as they experience it... but I see it to be mixed up with falsities (emotionally felt beliefs, conclusions which actualism addresses) as well. But with Richard /Peter /Vineeto I see that they go for the sensible stuff... if you don’t read ulterior motives in them, then it is possible to see what I see.

You don’t wish to see this possibility; to you it is called ‘doubt’ and you shun it as an unwelcome feeling).

How long you are going to doubt actualism? How long you have been in this site? Is there any realistic conclusion for your doubt? When will your doubt become a certainty?

So you become more desperate to prostrate yourself before the actualists;

Well, I think I have passed that stage.

Being afraid of being picked apart, you willingly invite it, so that you might be ... how shall we say ... re-educated, and more indoctrinated, to the point where you cannot ‘doubt’ any longer. The sooner the better. This condition of uncertainty is painful. This is your way of seeking the certainty you don’t currently possess. (And also probably your way of seeking a measure of protection from the actualists by publicly declaring yourself a very, very willing ally).

I don’t want their support at all. I can defend myself. I am experiencing what they say these days. I treat everybody as equal. I went to a wedding in south India and spent two days amongst relatives. I am able to see the human condition in action (bonding... duplicity... nurture... aggression...) and yet I am not subject to those forces as I was before, I am untouched by all the happenings and yet having fun. I am able to practise equality... I see that people get special treatment if they are rich/poor/powerful... I have ended all that stuff. So I see what they see. I concur. And I express that.

It might look like what you say. But what can I do?

Any of that ring true? Or is that just the ‘real world’ intruding on an otherwise perfect actual world?

All I can say is that what you wrote is familiar to me. I have done that. And my experience these days is vastly different... so... No 33 to No 60 29.5.2005a

On a more practical and personal note, throughout this winter I’ve been applying your method with encouraging results. Mainly –

1) I’m no longer blindly bouncing back and forth between the ‘bad’ feelings and their ‘good’ pacifiers. At first I found it hard to sit with the ‘bad’ feelings without immediately running into the waiting, welcoming arms of the ‘good’, but now I can understand how vitally important this is if one wants to cure the underlying condition instead of just treating the symptoms. I look for the ‘third alternative’ all the time now.

2) I’ve given up blaming other people for my feelings, no matter what the situation. Looking back it seems such a simple and obvious thing to do but it had escaped me. On the flipside I decline to make myself responsible for other people’s emotional hurts [unless I’m hurting them intentionally].

3) I’ve become very conscious of how people are enslaved by the need to belong, and how it is impossible to be unconditionally happy and harmless while we harbour this need. Consequently, I’ve begun to withdraw my psychic/social/emotional tentacles, replacing emotional demands/dependencies with a friendly, commonsense, ‘live and let live’ attitude most of the time. There is a long way to go along this path, and there are some daunting prospects ahead, but I am emboldened by the results of the first steps.

4) I’m learning how to be friends with myself. The very idea once struck me as corny and wishy-washy on a superficial level, and on a deeper level quite impossible because of my intimate familiarity with all the filth and scum in ‘me’. But after overcoming those initial reactions I’ve found out just how much and how often I persecute myself, and how self-defeating it is. There is only ‘me’ in here, and whatever is done to ‘me’ is ‘me’ doing it to myself. No 82, 14.8.2005

Richard: The universe experiences itself as this flesh and blood body (and the distinction is not trivial).

What is the difference between ‘through’ and ‘as’?

It’s like the difference between –

1. I live in this body.

2. I live as this body.

The first statement implies that there is an entity/actor of some sort (me) which uses something else (this body) as its intermediary. The second does not.

Now take another look at the difference between –

1. I am the universe experiencing itself through a human being.

2. I am the universe experiencing itself as a human being.

Again, the first statement implies that there is a separate entity/actor of some sort (universe), which uses something else (a human being) as its intermediary. In the second statement there is no separation.

Experientially, there is a big difference between experiencing life through the senses (‘me’ gazing out at the world), and experiencing life as the senses (no ‘me’, no separation, just pure sensate/reflective experience of actuality). No 82 to No 90(R), 17.6.2005

No amount of realization is equivalent to actualization. Actualization is irreversible but realization is corruptible. Realization cannot solve human problems... because it will be corrupted eventually. Only thing that will do the job is to actualize.... and if ‘I’ cannot, who can? No 75 to Richard, 19.5.2005

I also showed that the only one who could uncover such an ‘Absolute in disguise’ is someone who is entity-free; but such a person [like BR for example] will not be acknowledged as an ‘authority’ by R for the very reason that s/he wouldn’t make the same dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions, hence, so prescribes the perverse logic [based on the immunising fallacy: report = reported], s/he cannot be entity-free and must be in ASC!

You say that you ‘showed that the only one who could uncover such an ‘Absolute in disguise’ is someone who is entity-free’ but you are claiming to have uncovered it yourself. So, either you are contradicting yourself, or you are ‘entity-free.’

Which is it? No 37 to No 81, 25.9.2005a

1.) My ‘impression’ because intellectually you have a very good understanding of actualism; but what is that worth when, apparently, behind the scenes it’s another story.

2.) I write ‘wanting’ because there is a very precious flipside to this ‘fear’, hence, ‘my’ unwillingness to let go, and I write ‘seemingly new’ because of its intensity.

3.) I still sporadically associate/relate with a few old friends. It’s really fun, sometimes they remind me of who ‘I’ am, or who ‘I’ am not, and at other times I remind them of what they are, or what they are not.

4.) ‘my’ affectionately caring and convenient family… ‘I’ feel that all ‘I’ could ever ask for, materially and emotionally, ‘my’ family can give ‘me’.

5.) ‘acting’ on instinctive ‘Altruism’ and/or ‘Pure Intent’ on my better days (and I have seen a difference between the two, when either is a main motivating factor in my life; as ‘Pure Intent’ does not exclude instinctive ‘Altruism’ but instinctive ‘Altruism’ can exclude ‘Pure Intent’) or ‘reacting’ when ‘my’ desire is other than (literally) the best – which is recognized only by the remembrance of a PCE and/or of its existence–  or a forgetfulness of same.

6.) I have been working, almost daily, three consecutive part-time jobs for these last few weeks and ‘I’ sometimes let myself forget about attentiveness –which is usually, but not always, activated by the ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ question–  and thus confuse/forsake the ‘best’ for the mere ‘better’.

Actualism Homepage

 Actual Freedom Homepage