Others ~ Selected Correspondence

Happy and Harmless

Last week, I had my first PCE after starting to read this website.

I had been playing with a friend’s niece and nephew all afternoon and evening, when all of a sudden, while sitting in the sitting room with them at night, something ‘popped’ and I could hear and see and feel and just generally perceive with amazing clarity. My friend’s nephew was speaking to me, and mid-sentence, I wasn’t only listening to just the words he was saying, but could hear the tones and timbres in his voice and the slight echo it had from all around the room. I saw the shadows on the wall cast by the lighting, and the colours and shades were so vibrant and bright, not bright in a ‘more lighting’ way, but in a ‘more clear’ way. My skin felt so ‘close’ and immediate, and I noticed the way it felt (rather than just feeling it as a weight). And where before I was feeling happy and light-hearted, I no longer felt that – I didn’t feel whatsoever!

‘Empty-hearted’ might be the best way to put it. There was no separation between a ‘me’ that could feel and anything else, and in this was such a purity, for lack of better word. Being alive felt so real. I was also aware of this happening and recognised what it was, and it was funny. I described the experience as it was happening to the kids (‘wow I can really hear you, before I wasn’t really listening somehow’ and ‘wow everything looks so amazing, its all right here’) and they thought it was pretty funny too but that I was being awful weird.

I’d had PCE’s in the past, spontaneous ones brought about by drug use, meditation, sometimes just everyday circumstances, but there were also too many ASC’s that blocked a clear recollection. Every time I tried to think about a PCE, I would just have too many affective responses and it wouldn’t get anywhere. This was the first out and out clear PCE.

I really understand now why the felicitous feelings are to be maximised. In the past, before reading the actual freedom site, I had felt frustrated because I thought anything within the realm of a self would just be a lame imitation of the pure experience and that wouldn’t help anything.

And even after reading the site I had doubts but thought it was worth doing anyway because it did sound right, and I had nothing to lose. But now I really know that the felicitous feelings are worthwhile in and of themselves, and now I also see how, while only being an imitation, they are related to and really do lead to the PCE. No 108 (R), 30.1.2006

The past few weeks I have been reading the actual freedom website. The first reading of it dispelled much of what I have been actively pursuing, spiritually, for the last 6 or 7 years. Now in the last week, I have discovered that nothing can take away my happiness unless I let it, because my happiness is based on the intent to be happy. And so nothing has. Anything that gets in the way of that gets stopped. I sometimes ask myself ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, but even when I don’t ask this, the resolve to be happy is still there. I had simply been too unhappy, for far too long, to give up this resolve.

In this past week, even ‘positive’ emotions have been seen to be actually obstructions to happiness and I’m stopping those too when I see them as such. This includes psychic entanglements like the instinct to feel empathy and compassion for someone who is suffering. They are felt as very subtle reflexes now, and can also be stopped.

Nothing has gotten me down since I realised this about happiness. And some pretty crappy circumstances, which I would have probably been quite upset about had they happened before, have happened. It may still happen yet, logically speaking, but there is no reason to believe that it will, and I certainly don’t intend to let it.

This is the key difference: I no longer resent being here. And as such I am free to be happy about it, right here and right now, with the eventual goal of eliminating the affective system completely. Life has never had such a bright outlook before.

As for PCE’s, I have probably had them, but cannot think of any for certain. I think this is because I have had way too many ASC’s. I know the description of the PCE and am too convinced by it as an actuality that it doesn’t seem likely for to have never had one. Regardless, the intent to be happy is here and is the foundation of what I am doing. No 108 (R), 27.11.2005

I can honestly say that I haven’t noticed anyone trying to intimidate me. I am pretty sure I would have noticed if they had tried, especially if they had ‘literally stop[ped] at nothing’ in their efforts.

Yes, I understand. But see, ‘I’ am silly not dumb; in fact, ‘I’ am quite clever and ‘I’ will only ever try to intimidate others ‘I’ know ‘I’ can intimidate – or who cannot intimidate ‘me’. For example, I would never try to intimidate you because I’m doing my best to be harmless; but ‘I’ would never try to intimidate you because ‘I’ know ‘I’ would get an ass whoopin’ (and ‘I’ didn’t want you to know that). In other words, as long as ‘I’ fear you, you are safe – not for nothing did ‘I’ sense/feel you are brave and confident.

But, what about actualists? They’re harmless folk, easy prey; until they defend themselves. Then they’re hypocrites, but no longer easy prey. So what about the newbies? (and yet another rhetorical question)

However, when there are many ‘me’s – people joining for a common cause – then it doesn’t really matter if a prey is easy or not ... as long as ‘I’ have back up. And this is I think, in part, what Peter was saying about ‘the naysayers’ doing literally anything in order to intimidate others. And all this is not always evident to the people involved.

Please do take into account that human beings, being the way we are, ameliorate our suffering by abusing others (however mildly) or else suffer the consequences of not doing so. We have to defend and attack ourselves constantly when interacting with others, who do likewise, and actualists certainly seem to be doing this. What can be more provoking than someone who challenges ‘me’ (directly)?

(Having said all this, I don’t mean to be disingenuous about the issue in general. I know that doing anything that goes against the grain – including being an actualist – is likely to make one a target for ridicule, hostility and worse. That general tendency is not news to me).

The only thing I’d add here is that ‘being an actualist’ is not only ‘likely to make one a target for ridicule, hostility and worse’; but also ‘a target’ for ‘my’ ‘ridicule, hostility and worse’. What I found, while practicing actualism as a neophyte, was that I had -since I can remember- made it into a habit to project ‘my’ stuff on whoever was challenging ‘me’. So, are ‘you’ any different from ‘me’? (last rhetorical question) I hope I’m helping … and ‘I’ hope I’m not making you mad. No 47 to 60

I think one of the reason ‘I’ write or even exist is due to sheer malice! let me explain: the ‘loneliness’ or some sorrow I was trying to figure out went away once I saw the active malice in the psyche (in the form of pleasure in other’s suffering). so I guess there is some connection to this drive and malice. ‘I’ think it is crucial to acknowledge ‘my’ malice - not just ‘righteous’/justifiable stuff (which is social programming I guess) but the underlying raw animal malice (aggression?) which is a feeling like an animal impelled by a pleasure in hurting others. No 33, 20.7.2005

I have been on this list for a few years, but am a man of few words. The actualists have said it all, and it works for me in terms of dealing with my feelings and, recently, instinctual passions. What is absolutely necessary, though, is to develop a strong intent to be 1. harmless, 2. happy.

Without the shift to this intent it is a big struggle. With the strong commitment to it, it becomes quite easy. If I make it into a single-minded effort, secure it at the core of my – being, or Being, whatever... Even though the being, Being, me, Me, are not actual (the definition adopted from the actualists terminology), it is what dictates my behaviour. Why not use it while it is available here, while it lasts? Without combining this effort with passion at the core of my being - it has been very difficult to proceed). I am not fighting my self, my being. The start might involve putting this commitment in you, to be harmless and happy, and to clearly agree that you want to give it 100% go ahead.

Feeling and emotion – sense it in your body and try to understand it – remember your commitment to being harmless – see if this feeling might be against the commitment – remember when you were happy without feelings before, when you were not driven to react by your feelings – accept that this is what is necessary – to accept that it is important for the benefit of everybody in this world to change by dropping it and... wait to see what happens. Of course, I am talking about doing all this as it happens, no delay is allowed. No 7 to No 38

That is not to say that I have not had plenty of objections to actualism myself. No, wait a minute, ‘objections’ is too strong a word. I have had ... questions. I have had confusions. That might be a better way of putting it. How can one object to being happy and harmless? I suppose one always can, but to what point?

It is quite hard to understand. I am not at all happy with the way ‘I’ am. Perhaps No 12 said it best recently. He said he is not interested in changing, that everything is fine as it is. Well, I did not come to this list or to this website because everything was fine the way it was. I am interested in changing ... irrevocably and fundamentally. It seems every once in a while I run smack dab up against the instincts. It seems like it is a matter of practicing unceasing awareness in all your affairs. It seems like I fall sometimes into the trap of not running the question ... kind of like running on automatic pilot. If I trace an explosion of the instincts back to when they started, that’s usually what comes up ... I was not examining my experience, not running the question with honesty and assiduity.

It seems like trying to figure out what goes on in another person’s mind and heart is pretty much a waste of time. Being outside of the Human Condition ... in other words, being happy and harmless for relatively long periods of time, one can see that most people are intensely self-centred, very emotional, passionate, and often violent. I am glad in a way that I have these storms of anger. Although disturbing in a way, the raw energy is dissipated and it seems to get it out of my system, then I can get more easily back to being happy and harmless. As Peter, I think, pointed out, the harmless part of the equation is the more difficult part to get.

*

For some reason, the framework in which actualism is presented has never bothered me. If someone has found something and wants to share it with others and wants to have a website detailing these discoveries, what the heck – then go for it. If I don’t agree with the information on the website or it doesn’t suit me, I don’t have to stick around. I can take it or leave it as I so choose.

The actualism method is really quite simple. It makes eminent sense to me and the more I examine the ins and outs of it, it is the most sensible thing in the world to eliminate everything that stands in the way of peace, happiness, and harmlessness in this lifetime. Not too many people seem really interested enough to see if it can be done. It means the end of ‘me’. But I am doomed anyway, so what’s the fuss? As long as ‘I’ am in existence, I am apt to make a terrible fuss ... and even worse. It’s indeed a bitter pill for some to swallow that ‘I’ am the root cause of all the wars, misery, child abuse, rape, torture, etc, etc.

Probably now somebody will pop up and say I am proving that this is a cult because I am parroting what others have said before. Oh well, we’ll see. Gary to Vineeto

Basically, poverty is a multifaceted issue and quite often has many complicated causes.

However, having said that, I think we can often identify malice as the main cause. If a person ended malice in themselves, then there would no longer be any reason to be greedy or to deliberately deny to another person the resources one is so intent on maintaining for themselves. Greed is a major factor in poverty as it is in the hunger problem. Hunger results directly from poverty. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone many times over.

If every human being was free from malice and sorrow, there would hardly be any reason for poverty to exist because there would be enough of everything for everyone to go around. There would be no greed, avarice, or hoarding of resources. There would be no cause for one person to maliciously dominate another person or group of people by denying them resources. For instance, it is probably redundant to point out that much poverty results from oppression, and the major forms of oppression are the ‘isms’: racism, sexism, class-ism, so on and so forth. Human beings oppress other human beings basically as a means of having power over them and controlling them. In other words, quite simply oppression is a ‘power trip’. One need not chronicle every instance of oppression down through the ages to realize that man’s inhumanity to man is legendary. Every single instance of oppression, either in intimate relationships as mental cruelty or violence or collectively as a nation or country to oppress other countries, is an example of unmitigated malice in action.

Sorrow is no doubt related to this. Sorrow is a consequence of poverty, and in turn sows the seeds for malice. But this relationship need not be a necessary cause-and-effect relationship, as a person living in Actual Freedom would be incapable of experiencing malice or feeling sorrow. Thus, one need only look at the ‘lessons of history’ to see that quite often the roles of being victim and persecutor are conveniently interchanged. So poverty would not lead to sorrow for one who is living in Actual Freedom. Effectively, the cause-effect relationship would be broken. Parenthetically, I find it interesting that in the present debate over the Iraq crisis, the old countries of Europe, once the primary Imperial powers, oppressors, and disturbers of world peace, have now taken the moral high-ground in the debate, lampooning the US as a demonic, militaristic superpower.

This is like, as my grandmother put it: ‘the frying pan calling the kettle black’. But I digress.

I don’t think poverty is always the result of malice however. For instance, there was a man, recently deceased, who lived on our road in an appallingly dilapidated trailer, who always looked like he was half-starving. He was an extreme hermit, and I always thought that he must have some serious mental disorder like Schizophrenia. He had a lot of medical problems and eventually died. I don’t think he was being oppressed because he looked and talked like everyone else. But he may have experienced discrimination as a result of his mental condition, and been unable to care for himself. I think this does bring up the issue as to why in a country so rich as ours some citizens live in shockingly primitive conditions with scarcely the resources to maintain life. Obviously there are great inequities in the distribution of resources in society, which permit these conditions to exist, and I think these can often be sheeted home to malice, pure and simple. Gary to No 48

What do you think would happen if we were all happy & harmless & there actually is scarcity? Would we equally share what we have?

I would prefer not to indulge in speculation as to what would or what wouldn’t happen if everyone were happy & harmless. I see in a way that I have already done that in my original post when I speculated that the elimination of malice and sorrow from the human species would also solve intractable problems such as world poverty and world hunger.

Yet it remains a speculation, as to my knowledge there is only one person extant who lives in Actual Freedom and it is not me. Yet, be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that all people are not happy & harmless, as one can easily discern from many sources including most importantly one’s own life. I really can’t tell you what I would or would not do, and such speculative leaps could easily lead to a situation where we are fancifully imagining various scenarios that have no semblance or relevance to everyday concrete realities of life on this planet. I think what I have done is to, in general way, point to malice and sorrow as being responsible for the gross inequities present in the world, both today and in yesteryear. It seems a useless exercise to speculate what would or would not happen if everyone in the world were happy & harmless. Rather than indulge in these kinds of activities, which might make for interesting parlour games, I would prefer to stick with everyday, concrete reality.

Again, there is really no way to tell you that, and indulging in speculation about this question seems irrelevant. These kinds of questions make for interesting moral dilemmas. But I can tell you that it’s a bit like passing a begging man on the street.

Should I put money into his basket, cup, or hat? And If I do, he might run around the corner to the liquor store and squander the money on drink, thereby reinforcing his state of abject poverty. Or, am I moved by compassion to an extent that I consider it important to give him money in the vain hope that it will make a difference in his day and I will feel less guilty that I have partaken in the privileges and benefits that I enjoy in my own life? These are questions that are rather complicated and have no simple, easy answer. I have personally played it both ways.

Instead of idle speculation, I think what really counts is the simple nuts-and-bolts application of Actualism to one’s own life. Only rolling up one’s sleeves, getting in there, ‘down and dirty’ so to speak, and doing the work of eliminating the entire instinctual package from one’s life makes any sense to me at this point, rather than imagining what would or wouldn’t happen if everyone were happy & harmless. The only way to find out is to do it yourself. You might be pleasantly surprised by what you find. Gary to No 48

I have read some of your recent mails with interest. What interests me that you have not remembered any PCE but you are still able to use the actualism method successfully. I find that most of the time when I ask the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’, I get the answer as happy and I don’t know what to do next. As I understand from some other correspondence that I should raise the bar to feeling excellent. But I don’t know what does feeling excellent mean. I never had a PCE, so I can’t treat that as the next level. So looks like I am stuck here.

Yesterday I resolved a major anxiety that arose whenever I tried to sort things out i.e. clearly identify the feelings and see the context. This has been a major hurdle and I think that this is a major breakthrough (this could be one of ‘my’ tricks to save myself). So, as it is, though I enjoy being here most of the time – I still have some major hiccups to be taken care of and the progress is only recent. I would term my experience as ‘feeling good’ – just to be tentative.

I have had some experiences of late that are purely sensate and I am still wondering how to classify these experiences: they are sensate delight, I saw the fall colours and the thin space in the three dimensional purview, the affect was mostly absent (however it came back albeit very powerlessly when I tried to sort out what was going on), carefree, worriless, most of the stuff I read in the web-site seems obvious, and when I asked if this is what I wanted – the answer was not exactly that this is my destiny but it will be great to have this (I suspect that there might have been still a thin veneer of the affect; next time I will try to find out more).

In other words, I still have some work to do before I come to raising the bar issue you have.

Having said that, addressing your question: if you get the answer as happy, then you have the moment to be enjoyed – there are plenty of things you can do to enjoy the moment – including contemplation. When you say ‘I don’t know what to do next’ – I suspect that there might be some thin negative feeling hidden there (I am only going by my experience, I can be totally wrong when trying to apply to you).

Have you read about ‘stark reality’ ( ../actualism/peter/selected-writings/fear.htm is one instance) ? It is one of the powerful tricks ‘I’ have up my sleeve to save ‘myself’ from extinction. Or something I have read from Vineeto/Alan’s writings about how they found that fear underlying their answer of ‘no feeling’ (of course you are saying that ‘you are happy’ so this case is slightly different, but see if this helps to dig deeper, I can’t get the link in the site).

In addition, can I ask you if say, in the past 3 months, how much of the time you were feeling happy and harmless? that would be a good measure. If the answer is 24/7, I would go about to finding ways to induce PCEs (some tips as to doing that are in the web-site; also tips on inducing delight etc.). Because all this is fun!

Having said that I must admit that actualism (even just understood intellectually) has made life much simpler and burden free and I am enjoying life in any case.

You mean to say that you haven’t put it to practice in eradicating any of the deterrents (beliefs and feelings) to happiness and harmlessness? Intellectual understanding helped me undo a bit of my spiritual heritage but not until I put it into practice (I used tips such as memory of feeling good, will, obsession to overcome some massive hurdles) and reaped the benefits – real change started happening. But of course, your case seems to be different (as you had said in previous mails that you were reasonably happy and harmless – which wasn’t the case for me at all; funnily the ‘self-image’ I had of myself, say 18 months ago when I came to the list, was totally wrong as it was a product of so many denials and only after digging deep I could see all the stuff I was denying).

See if this makes sense... anyways, nice to mail-converse with you as this made me think about the next stage :). No 33 to No 4

The Mark Twain quotation or remark was lifted from a PBS television production on the life of Mark Twain. It may not be exact or verbatim, but it was something like that. I found the program interesting in one respect as it showed the ‘private’ side of this great humorist and satirist and world-renowned author. Despite his enormous public appeal and worldwide notoriety, he appears to have been a very unhappy camper, controlling his wife and children and erupting in titanic rages from time to time. In that respect, he would certainly personally know something about how humour is a salve for sorrow.

Since I cannot remember the exact quotation, I might have erred in presenting it the way I did.

To summarize what I think about humour and laughter at this point: It does sometimes stem from sorrow and malice, but not always. There is such a thing for me as laughing and being humorous simply because I am in a good mood, I am joyous, and I am taking delight in being alive, and present in this moment. Such laughter and humour lacks the emotive force, as I have termed it, that laughter and humour stemming from sorrow have, what you term the ‘hysterical’ quality of laughter. ‘Hysterical’ laughter can erupt at times of great danger, as a kind of tension release. ‘Gallows humour’ may be of this sort. The kind of laughter and humour I am describing comes from the extremely enervating and refreshing experience of being alive and present in the moment, and is in juxtaposition to laughter and humour that stems from nervous tension or impending danger. Essentially, there is nothing ‘wrong’ with humour and laughter, and the enjoyment of it does a body no harm at all, as long as it’s malicious or sorrowful elements, if present, are recognized by an alert intelligence.

In short, I am concluding that even the ‘feel good’ experience of laughter and humour can be tapped for information about what makes ‘me’ tick – in other words, ‘my’ feelings and emotions, moods and complexities. The discussion on the list recently about laughter and humour reminds me of the difficulty I have had, and likely still have, in understanding precisely what is meant by ‘the felicitous feelings’, as described in AF writings. I had thought that AF was on about a purely sensorial enjoyment of the present moment, devoid of any trace whatsoever of feeling and emotion. What then are ‘felicitous feelings’ if not emotions? Having been confronted with this apparent contradiction, I have looked into the so-called ‘positive’ emotions, including of course love and sentimentality. Even the so-called felicitous feelings do not escape the spotlight of attentiveness, but that does not mean that I have to retreat into a kind of benumbed feeling-less state, what Alan some time back has called ‘comfortably numb’.

Your paragraph here about sums up my present experience of humour. I too am ‘happier than ever’, and less preoccupied with ‘my’ troubles and woes. Spontaneous laughter and seeing the humour in simple, everyday commonalities is not only good fun but need not stem from, as No 13 had termed it, ‘duplicitous stupidity’. Given that the sorrowful and malicious entity in this body has progressively and incrementally shrunken to an exceedingly small percentage of its original size, this then leaves me free to (as you say) look ‘at the bright side of life’, not as a state of denial of my sorrowful state, but because ‘my’ sorrowful state has evaporated, leaving me enjoying, indeed revelling in the present moment. There is only then enjoying the journey, as No 13 had termed it. Gary to Vineeto

…regarding Richards claim of being the 1^st to be fully free of the human condition ( I will use the actualist term) … how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing? Clearly the writings of Carlos Casteneda point to the Indians of the Mexican peninsula devoting their entire existence to such goals. One is not likely to find such evidence scouring the internet.

Living in Mexico and having been brought up interacting with more than a few Natives – of diverse backgrounds-, I have had direct experiences, as well as indirect ones, that clearly demonstrate how the romantic view we have about secluded civilizations is flawed. The Indians I have come to know from different tribes/cultures are not as happy and peaceful as we would make them out to be.

I remember how disappointed I felt when I spoke with a Mazatec Indian and expressed my deepest admiration for their way of life and the beauty of nature. He looked at me as if I were some kind of nut ... he then continued to explain that he knew about cities and would prefer to live in one. Another time I asked somebody else from the Lacanja jungle, who had already visited a city more than once, if he felt the same way and he assured me that if he had the money, a place to go, and could take his family with him, then he would not even think about it.

Naturally, many were proud of where they lived, but this didn’t keep them from fighting off one another for the best merchandise me and my father had taken them as an act of good will.

And as a final note, I have an aunt who is a doctor and dedicates herself to the task of curing mostly natives who get sick from all around these parts, Mexico to Nicaragua, this has always made me wonder why the shamans, sorcerers, witches and witch doctors cannot cure a simple cholera or salmonella case without the help of a certified, normal and ordinary doctor ... but then again, there exists a quick fix for everything – I was told – one could always take a ‘magical mushroom’ and this would seemingly to do the trick. Well, at least for a while. No 47 to No 58

I remember the first few months I corresponded on this list I felt Actualists to be offensive and/or defensive. To my great surprise, I later found out that these were all ‘my’ feelings and had not to do with what was actually going on. I am not an expert Actualist but I do have a lot more common sense now then I did before I started practicing Actualism… so there is a chance that you might find something I write useful; that is the only reason why I replied to your post.

*

Living in Mexico and having been brought up interacting with more than a few Natives – of diverse backgrounds-, I have had direct experiences, as well as indirect ones, that clearly demonstrate how the romantic view we have about secluded civilizations is flawed.

I have no overall romantic view of these cultures or civilizations as a whole. There is romance to be found in every culture.

Yes I agree… so do you think romance would be needed if one were ‘fully free of the human condition’?

…regarding Richards claim of being the 1^st to be fully free of the human condition ( I will use the actualist term) … how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing?

Clearly the writings of Carlos Casteneda point to the Indians of the Mexican peninsula devoting their entire existence to such goals.

The Indians I have come to know from different tribes/cultures are not as happy and peaceful as we would make them out to be.

Who is making them out to be happy and or peaceful? Someone who is ‘fully free of the human condition’ is of course peaceful and, in order to become irrevocably peaceful first, had to first be happy in order to arrive at ‘such goals’. When you write ‘I will use the actualist term’ and ‘fully free of the human condition’ and ‘how can Richard or anyone know whether there was… peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing?’ and ‘devoting their entire existence to such goals’ …well, it leads me to think that you are the one who is ‘making them out to be happy and or peaceful’.

One is not likely to find such evidence scouring the internet.

That is why I am letting you know about my personal experience with these Indians. Thus adding to the knowledge that can be found on the internet so as to make it easier for other human beings to know what I know and let them do what they want with my reports; and I expect anybody else who is considerate towards his fellow human beings to do likewise, especially if he is or knows of somebody free from the human condition. And as there is virtually no unexplored territory anywhere anymore, where one would find a civilization – or at least someone in it – actually free of the human condition, and no available documentation, on or off the internet, about anybody tackling the instinctual passions and becoming free of them… I then conclude that it is safe to say that Richard is the first and will not be the last. Just as I find it safe to say that I am alive and well, despite not having talked to everyone in existence, and that ever existed, to prove me otherwise.

*

I remember how disappointed I felt when I spoke with a Mazatec Indian and expressed my deepest admiration for their way of life and the beauty of nature. He looked at me as if I were some kind of nut...

Can one blame him for such a reaction?

No, when fantasy is faced against fact, there is often ‘such a reaction’.

*

He then continued to explain that he knew about cities and would prefer to live in one. Another time I asked somebody else from the Lacanja jungle, who had already visited a city more than once, if he felt the same way and he assured me that if he had the money, a place to go, and could take his family with him, then he would not even think about it. Naturally, many were proud of where they lived, but this didn’t keep them from fighting off one another for the best merchandise me and my father had taken them as an act of good will.

I don’t know how all this is related to finding one individual who found actual freedom for themself.

I think I know why, I assume these are your words: Posted – 2003 Oct 17: 03:52:05 http://www.julius.it/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=3&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=231

• ‘Here is the latest exchange btw myself & Richard (the self-proclaimed no-self first ever to actually be free) … <snip>’
• ‘The only thing he is the first & foremost human ever to find is a state of 24/7 complete and utter Human delusion…’
• ‘…and his disciples are a sorry lot’
• ‘He is just another con man. But He is a good con man…’

*

And as a final note, I have an aunt who is a doctor and dedicates herself to the task of curing mostly natives who get sick from all around these parts, Mexico to Nicaragua, this has always made me wonder why the shamans, sorcerers, witches and witch doctors cannot cure a simple cholera or salmonella case without the help of a certified, normal and ordinary doctor ... but then again, there exists a quick fix for everything – I was told – one could always take a ‘magical mushroom’ and this would seemingly to do the trick. Well, at least for a while.

So there you have it? Case closed? That is like saying an alien spaceship landed in Australia to look for an actually free person and they went to the local mall and didn’t see one after conducting a survey of lets say 300 people. Then they went to a local public health centre and discovered the primitive healing techniques administered by the so-called brightest of the bright human doctors. So they flew off confident that there were no humans free of the human condition.

This topic has been beaten to a pulp here and I don’t wish to keep it going ... but what hell ... it’s a good topic.

Maybe if you were to actually give Actualism a try, prove that it works – and undoubtedly see the changes that occur – it would be easier for you to understand. Note that I write ‘prove’ and not ‘believe’ … I gave believing in Actualism a try once and all it ever accomplished was to subtly perpetuate the human condition and create an image of Actualism that has nothing at all to do with Actualism. No 47 to No 58

Actualism Homepage

 Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust