|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Actualism
RICHARD: ... I am only too happy to rephrase what I originally wrote so that it be in accordance with your own nomenclature:
RESPONDENT: I think No. 97 basically wants you to inform people that what this (‘actualism’) is about is ‘superstition of facts’. RICHARD: It does look to be more like something that you would want to inform me about ... be that as it may: when Mr. Henry Thoreau used that term in ‘The Spirit of the Times’ (15 February 1848), nearly forty years before Mr. Rene Guenon was born (1886), he had the following to say:
I mention this because actualism, being experiential, is not a matter for science ... nor are my reports/ descriptions/ explanations scientifical. For an unambiguous explication of this:
RESPONDENT: It is, to quote Rene Guenon, a ‘peculiar delusion, typical of modern ‘experimentalism’, to suppose that a theory can be proved by facts whereas really the same facts can always be equally well explained by a variety of different theories’. RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential, not theoretical, there is no theory to be proved. RESPONDENT: Your facts might be right ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As there are no such things as ‘your facts’ (or ‘my facts’ or ‘his facts’ or ‘her facts’, and so on) and neither is a fact either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – a fact is nothing other than that (a fact) – might it be possible that you are really referring to ‘truths’? RESPONDENT: ... but your theories about what these facts mean, and your conclusions regards the ‘ultimate questions’ still can be utterly wrong. RICHARD: Perhaps if you were to specify what those [quote] ‘ultimate questions’ [endquote] are then whatever it is you are wanting to convey might be more comprehensible. RESPONDENT: Richard, I came across this statement of yours while reading in the Actual Freedom Trust website – ‘It is this simple: eliminate the instinctual passions and you are free.’ RICHARD: You must be referring to this:
Of course, as ‘I’ am the instinctual passions, and as the instinctual passions are ‘me’, then the elimination of the one is the elimination of the other – they are the one and the same thing – and, as ‘I’ cannot eliminate the instinctual passions and yet still stay in existence, any attempt to eliminate the one without eliminating the other can only result in (at best) detachment or (at worst) dissociation. RESPONDENT: (Using pieced-together segments of sentences you’ve written): In order to bring about the possibility of ‘enabling the already always existing’ ‘peace-on-earth’ ‘into being apparent’ ‘for this body, that body, and everybody’ – it seems to me that I must reach the point of seeing myself in my entirety, all at once. RICHARD: Many years ago the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body was wont to say, after having had the memorable pure consciousness experience (PCE) which set what has nowadays become known as the actualism process in action, that it is normally impossible to see oneself, in one’s entirety, all at once because the part of oneself which would be doing the seeing was itself unable to be seen ... and would liken the various aspects of an identity to the wedges of a sliced pie, or a cake, wherein one could slice the wedges ever thinner and thinner and yet still not see that last remaining, and oh-so-thin, wedge. And ‘he’ would say this because, at the very instant of that seminal PCE happening, ‘he’ did see himself, in ‘his’ entirety, all at once and that very seeing was the end of ‘him’ (albeit for the duration of the PCE). In other words, and speaking generally, mostly people do not dare to see themselves, in their entirety, all at once and elect instead for the detached/dissociated way of seeing ... it being a whole lot safer, so to speak. RESPONDENT: At that point, it seems everything will be clear. RICHARD: Provided it be the end-of-oneself type of seeing ... yes. RESPONDENT: And it seems, in order to ‘eliminate the instinctual passions’, I will have to reach the point of seeing them in their entirety, all at once. Seeing them in their entirety – is, it seems to me, seeing myself in my entirety. RICHARD: As they are both one and the same thing ... indeed so. RESPONDENT: I wonder if all of that is correct. RICHARD: Yes ... and having said all this it must be pointed out that one does not actually ever see oneself, in one’s entirety, all at once because the identity who would do the seeing has to cease to exist for that seeing to occur (whereupon there is no identity to be seen, in its entirety, all at once). And I am neither being tricky nor mystical in saying this ... it is factually so. RESPONDENT: If so, those two ways of looking at the objective seem to mutually feed off of and support each other. This moment strikes me as one of such a giant wide-open possibility that I have to slam my accelerator to the floor in order to fly into it fast enough to keep up with it. RICHARD: Ha ... if the experience of the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body all those years ago is anything to go by the opposite occurs as ‘he’ would oft-times reach for the brake-pedal, in order to slow down the rocketing momentum unleashed upon giving ‘himself’ permission to go all the way, only to find (with a sinking feeling of alarum/a thrilling feeling of gay abandon) that ‘his’ foot went all the way to the floor. Put simply: once launched there is no way of stopping the process ... it is the ride of a lifetime. RESPONDENT: Putting this here so that what I’m doing is on display to maximize the possibility of receiving input from you. RICHARD: Sure ... one of the reasons this mailing list exists is so that my fellow human being can tease out of me items that may not occur to me to write otherwise (as in writing an impromptu article). RESPONDENT: If you have any input, it will be greatly appreciated. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... please bear in mind that all I can do is offer hints, tips, suggestions, clues, and so on, born out of personal experience – insider information as it were – and anything I have to report/describe/explain must, of necessity, be verified experientially in order to be of effect. Merely believing me will get one nowhere ... and fast. RESPONDENT: Tell me, what is the point of telling people about actualism? RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you that if nobody passed-on what they discovered we would all still be sitting in caves or bough shelters, dressed in animal skins and covered with lice, gnawing on raw brontosaurus bones? Here are a few examples of how I have responded to such a question (you can take your pick):
And:
And:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: I would think that sitting on the back porch, listening to birds, looking at the wind blow through trees, and sipping on some herbal tea would provide a much better series of moments than the ones spent haggling with so many dolts who have it 180 degrees wrong. RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition is an unconditional happiness and harmlessness no such conditions are required. Vis.:
In short: I like my fellow human being … no matter what mischief they get up to. RESPONDENT: Implicit in actualism is the value judgement that the physical is superior to the metaphysical. RICHARD: Ha ... implicit in actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) is that there is only the physical in actuality and, as an appraisal requires comparison, no such value judgement as you speak of can take place in this actual world. RESPONDENT: ‘You’ (the metaphysical entity) decide this. RICHARD: If I may point out? In the direct experience that matter is not merely passive there is no ‘you’ (no ‘metaphysical entity’ whatsoever) ... there is only this actual world (aka this actual universe). RESPONDENT: And having decided this, the totality of the universe is then divided up into the ‘actual’ and the ‘real’. RICHARD: I would hazard a guess that it is ‘you’ (the ‘metaphysical entity’ who decides) who has decided that ‘the ‘actual’’ and ‘the ‘real’’ together make up a whole ... otherwise known as ‘the totality of the universe’. RESPONDENT: The ‘real’ is minimised to the point where only the ‘actual’ remains. RICHARD: In the actualism process, as detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel well, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. If one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre, bonhomie and so on) then with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception) ... and apperception reveals that there is only this actual world/universe. In short: there is no ‘the ‘real’’ in actuality to minimise (let alone to the point that only ‘the ‘actual’’ remains). RESPONDENT: So this (actually non-existent) division between the physical and the metaphysical becomes a concept in the mind of ‘you’, a metaphysical entity. RICHARD: As there is no ‘the metaphysical’ in actuality, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), there is no division to be either existent or non-existent ... the entire argument being presented (above) is but a conceptual contention created in the feeling-fed mind of ‘you’ – ‘a metaphysical entity’ – for reasons as yet unstated but bearing at least some of the hall-marks of the ‘Tried and True’ (as in when the division is seen to be false there is only the totality/whole) as made popular by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. RESPONDENT: You say it’s all fun now but on the way it took ‘nerves of steel’ so there was a considerable amount of work involved. What are the nerves of steel needed for? Dread? Or taking the chance of alienating your friends and family due to a turn in behaviour, like no longer being able to empathize or sympathize or share beliefs? RICHARD: Oh, it was a lot of fun along the way too ... the ‘nerves of steel’ phrase is a common expression, along with ‘not for the faint of heart or weak of knee’, which I co-opted to describe what is involved in the deep-sea diving that is an inevitable part of exploring the stygian depths of the human condition (where an aqua-lung is essential in contrast to using a snorkel in order to explore the human conditioning which was inculcated from birth onwards so to somewhat ameliorate the effects of the human condition). The aqua-lung is, of course, analogous to pure intent. Dread is a common occurrence in the real-world (else the word would not exist) so ‘nerves of steel’ does not specifically refer to that ... nor does it specifically refer to alienating loved one’s as that too is a common occurrence in the real-world (as evidenced by de-programming for example). I mainly used the expression so as to make it clear that the going can get a bit rocky at times – that the process of becoming actually free is not something one is going to breeze through without mishap – as I have no interest whatsoever in misleading my fellow human being. To be forewarned is to be forearmed, in other words. RESPONDENT No. 59: Vineeto, here in Mexico people are No. 1 at seeing words as having double meaning ... this is mainly how humour is expressed here, it is even seen as a desirable quality, and there are contests where people try to convey the best hidden meaning in words which imply something else. I have seen that taking words at face value gives others the impression of me being innocent but in an ignorant way ... and thus they sometimes try to take advantage of me; however, at the same time, most feel they can trust me. The thing is, I have seen how Actualists always take words for exactly what they mean, should I continue strictly attending to the words of others without ‘imagining’ or trying to find out what the hidden double meaning is? What others are really thinking? I am still distrustful of the words of some but because of several past and present experiences. VINEETO: I remember that in the early years of writing about actualism I tried to figure out ‘the hidden double meaning’, the emotional agenda, the context of feelings and beliefs in which the post was written and I got hopelessly entangled in the psychic web of other people’s malice and sorrow and was consequently unable to give a clear response. I found I first had to untangle myself from the emotional web in order to be able to think straight and write clearly about my experience of freeing myself from my spiritual beliefs and emotional burdens. Taking people’s word’s at face value has nothing to do with trust or mistrust, but is a matter of a simple and straight-forward way to communicate. A ‘hidden double meaning’ is almost always an emotionally charged meaning and trying to second-guess what this is in any situation does nothing to enhance sensible communication. Nowadays I always assume that if people find it important that I take notice of any ‘hidden’ meaning then they will tell me – it is not my responsibility to discern what another is trying to convey through unmentioned hints and allusions. As for being ‘distrustful of the words of some’ – the good news for me was that by examining and understanding my own social and instinctual identity I had less and less reason to fear that people would emotionally hurt me with insinuations or outright sarcasm – identity-slashing intimations from others now rarely reach a target. RESPONDENT No. 59: Understood. My problem is that I sometimes forget to focus on the content because of distractions of how it is conveyed. VINEETO: Of course, that is the very purpose of people conveying a message in an emotional way. Those ‘distractions’ are the very stuff to explore in order to determine how you are in relation to other people. Other than the words themselves there is usually a whole layer of invisible and inaudible interaction happening and this is how Richard explained it: [quote] ‘All sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence. Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example).’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT No. 23: This could explain why I have a sense of not belonging here or anywhere else for that matter because there is no psychic connection. I am an actualist in the sense that I have seen that matter is animate thru a PCE although I am not positive of this because it could be a physiological process in my own body that makes matter look that way. Also, I don’t practice Actualism per se because it seems that would connect me to the group I see here. I also don’t feel I belong on any spiritual list or group. Not having any psychic connection could explain why I don’t belong and don’t want to belong as opposed to the usual use of belonging which means one wants to belong. Makes sense? RESPONDENT: I think that’s a legitimate question. The PCE could be, in fact, what else could it be, a product of my own body experiencing itself without the usual imaginary filters. A question to Richard: What about this psychic web? It seems at odds with the here and now down to earth stuff. Especially when it refers to ‘vibes’ between people who are present. I was taught in psychology classes that the verbal message is only 20 percent of the message, the rest being expression and body language. I do think I’ve observed some patterns that aren’t explainable by obvious physical forces such as synchronicity – the seeming grouping of events in themes, sometimes seeming to have meaning, sometimes not, but this is a separate subject. RICHARD: As I am none too sure what your question to me is actually about I have situated the quote of mine back into the discussion it was first used in as it is quite self-explanatory in reference to the subject then under discussion ... please correct me if I am in error but you do seem to have taken it as a given that there is in fact [quote] ‘the group’ [endquote] which another sees which does in fact require a [quote] ‘psychic connection’ [endquote] in order to in fact [quote] ‘belong’ [endquote] to and are then asking me if this is not at odds with the ‘here and now down to earth stuff’ as if it were a legitimate question I can meaningfully respond to. There is no group (aka ‘cult’) to connect with/belong to – either emotionally/ passionally or intuitively/ psychically – as the word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive (which, incidentally, does not mean that matter is animate) and the word ‘actualist’ refers to the experient. Vis.:
Put succinctly: there is no psychic web in this actual world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – to be at odds with the ‘here and now down to earth stuff’. Your co-respondent is but tilting at windmills (again). RESPONDENT: There are hints pointing towards your actual state in the 4th way system as well (one of its major sources are esoteric Sufi teachings), but it is said that it can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before. RICHARD: If you could provide the hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition, which you say are in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings, I would be only too happy to read them. RESPONDENT: So this being an already difficult thing to achieve for most people, it probably seemed pointless to develop the idea even further or to convey/design any specific method when there was no case. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying here: Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and/or Mr. Petyr Ouspensky, and some un-named esoteric Sufi teachers, achieved an actual freedom from the human condition, whilst ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, but it probably seemed to them pointless to convey to other human beings how they achieved it (let alone developing/designing anything else) as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people. Am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: Your case seems to prove that ... RICHARD: If I may interject? It would help considerably to read the hints, about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition which you state are in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings, that say such a condition can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before, before coming to the conclusion that my case seems to prove that it probably seemed pointless to Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and/or Mr. Petyr Ouspensky, and some un-named esoteric Sufi teachers, to tell other human beings about how they achieved it – let alone developing/designing anything else – as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people. And referenced quotes would help even more. RESPONDENT: ... and any evidence for a more direct route is still to come. RICHARD: If by this you mean that it is yet to be demonstrated, that one can proceed direct to an actual freedom from the human condition without passing ‘Go’ again and winding up in gaol, by somebody actually doing it then that is (to use a colloquialism) a no-brainer as nobody has done that yet – as far as I have been able to ascertain – but the pure consciousness experience (PCE) patently provides the necessary evidence that such an action is possible. RESPONDENT: How can you eliminate something if you don’t fully (experientially) know it, in this case the soul? RICHARD: As the soul can be experienced in an altered state of consciousness (ASC), and drops into the waste-bin of its own accord in a PCE, it does not require enlightenment to be experientially known that it has no existence here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Why not experience it and then throw it to the waste-bin when Experientially understood for what it is, as when dealing with the social identity? RICHARD: As the soul drops into the waste-bin of its own accord in a PCE it does not need to be thrown there. RESPONDENT: Why not applying the same measure for both? RICHARD: The social identity, otherwise known as a conscience (a moral/ethical and principled entity, with inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, overlaid upon the identity within), being a cultural construct requires a different way of being dealt with than the genetically inherited ‘being’ or ‘presence’ which the identity is at root. Or, to put that another way, the core of the identity within (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) cannot be whittled away, via the hands-on examination of various beliefs and truths and so on, like the overlaid social identity (and many aspects of the ego-self and some aspects of the feeling-self) can be. RESPONDENT: And why are you so persistent in saying to those walking this path to stay away from enlightenment? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to draw your attention to a previous discussion? Vis.:
Can you not see that the reason why I am ‘so persistent in saying to those walking this path
to stay away from enlightenment’ is because (a) it is too traumatic ... and (b) it is just plain silly ... and (c)
as it is exceedingly difficult to live in the massive delusion that spiritual enlightenment is the ratio of success can
easily be estimated to be much less – much, much less – for those that would go directly?
I do not know how much more clearer I can put it than this ... but I will give it a go (further below). RESPONDENT: How can you speak of a way towards ‘actual freedom’ not via the ‘Rock of Enlightenment’ if you haven’t walked that route yourself? RICHARD: It is quite simple: provided the soul is not resurrected/does not resurrect itself from the waste-bin (and that proviso is of vital importance) there is then only a direct route to an actual freedom from the human condition ... thus no need for me to have walked that route myself. RESPONDENT: There is still proof to come for this route to actually exist ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? As you say (further below) that you can ‘can intellectually figure out a major difference between a PCE and an ASC’ can you not also intellectually figure out that the proof for the direct route lies in the very fact that a PCE can happen in the first place? RESPONDENT: ... and then we can speak of an efficient viable method of riding ourselves from the human condition. RICHARD: And just what is not efficient and viable about altruistic ‘self’-immolation, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, brought about by asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) with the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth stunningly evident in the PCE become apparent sooner rather than later? RESPONDENT: Till now the logical conclusion based on ‘facts’ is that there will be no ‘peace-on earth’ if this is a method unintentionally designed for the One in 10.000.000. RICHARD: The actualism method, first put into practice in 1981 by a normal person with a normal wife and a normal family and a normal mortgage and so on, is not designed for the ‘One in 10,000,000’ person (not even unintentionally) as it was born out of the initial four-hour PCE in June 1980, which set the whole process in motion in January 1981, and not out of the enlightened state which came about in September 1981 as a result of the vitally important proviso not yet being known (someone has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour) let alone being remembered/applied under all circumstances ... circumstances such as falling in love, for example, and being bitten badly by the enlightenment bug as a direct result of the love being unrequited. I kid you not ... the only danger on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is that one may become enlightened instead. RESPONDENT: There is still evidence to come for a person to safely arrive to ‘actual freedom’ and then to convey how it was ‘via the non-enlightenment route’. RICHARD: As I safely arrived via the massive delusion called spiritual enlightenment why would arriving via a non-delusory path be any less safe? I would easily estimate it to be more safe ... far, far more safe. RESPONDENT: I bet it would be a very interesting account. RICHARD: The account of the next person to become actually free would indeed be interesting ... maybe this is an apt moment to put this hoary subject to bed, pat it on the head and send it to sleep, until somebody new to this mailing list raises it again as if it has never occurred to Richard that an actual freedom from the human condition has not yet been replicated (even though they may say, in the next breath, that it has been lived before)? Vis.:
Those words were spoken somewhere between May-July 1997 ... and even before I went public I wrote the following in my journal:
And even more explicitly:
Furthermore I have acknowledged there may be other methods:
And:
And:
There are other references but maybe these will do for now ... put succinctly the replication of my condition presently calls for pioneers, people with the necessary derring-do to pilot a one-seater aeroplane by the seat of their pants to this pristine wonderland, and not for those who will follow in their wake in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain. And nobody knows who that pioneer aviator is until that person actually lands here ... not even me. RESPONDENT: It’s the reason why I’ve asked about Alan (a practicing actualist), as his site (www.actualfreedom.co.uk) is out-of-reach. RICHARD: As it is a reasonable assumption to make, that if somebody subscribed to this mailing list (or even anybody previously subscribed) has become actually free from the human condition they will present an account of it, I do not see the point in writing to somebody – let alone anybody – every now and again only to ask if it has happened yet. Furthermore, it is pointless to ask why another person is not yet actually free because if another person – any person – knew why they were not yet actually free they would be actually free ... and there is something strange, almost to the point of being weird, about an attitude which has it that until somebody else has walked a path one will not walk that path because such a path has not yet been demonstrated to exist. Put simply: how on earth can something be done if nobody will do it because it has not yet been done? * RESPONDENT: Concerning the distinction between ASC and PCE and taking into account that you experientially (via direct perception) know that this Universe is infinite, I wonder if it is not consciousness that let you know this to be a fact. RICHARD: I have made it clear on many occasions that unmediated perception (aka apperceptive awareness) is how infinitude is directly experienced. RESPONDENT: I don’t think you have arrived at this thanks to one of your senses. RICHARD: You may find the following exchange to be of interest, then:
And by ‘standing naked’ I mean sans identity in toto (unmediated perception/apperceptive awareness): the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception first happened one night in early 1981 whilst looking at the space between the stars, and not the stars themselves as one might normally do (due to the preponderance figure usually takes over background), and when more stars became apparent in that space, looking into the space between them, and so on, and so on, until infinitude became apparent as an experience of itself ... or, to put that another way, being the actual experiencing of infinitude (which is what all flesh and blood bodies are anyway) as a sensory organism. Further to this point, six e-mails after the e-mail the above excerpt is from the following line, which refers to visually seeing infinitude wherever one looks, may very well give pause to reflect upon just what it is that is being conveyed by the term ‘unmediated perception’ (aka apperceptive awareness):
The entire discussion about the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception may be
of further interest if only because of the dominance abstract logic can have over sensible reason (especially when
acting in concert with spirituality). The full exchange starts here: It may take some wading through. RESPONDENT: Otherwise would have not been such a ‘hot topic’ on this mailing list as a fact is out in the open, cannot be argued with, etc. RICHARD: It is only a ‘hot topic’ for those who want scientific proof of something experiential (whilst oft-times proffering mathematical proof, as to why the experiential evidence is invalid, in lieu of scientific proof – as if they were one and the same thing – into the bargain). I have never made any secret of the fact that actualism is experiential ... for just one example out of many:
In what way is infinitude not out in the open, and thus able to be argued with, etcetera, in a PCE? RESPONDENT: I do intellectually understand that the universe is infinite (the spear analogy) but I also experientially know the limits of our intellect. RICHARD: It is not so much that the intellect has limits in regards to infinitude per se as it is, rather, that (a) the extent of its grasp is usually circumscribed by a centre (the ‘self’ by any name) in cognisance ... and (b) its intelligence is usually crippled by the affective faculty ... and (c) its ability to sensibly reason is often dominated by abstract logic (mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process for example) ... and (d) it is not an experiential faculty anyway (the wrong tool for the job, as it were, just as is the affective faculty). Howsoever, in conjunction with apperception the intellect has no difficulty ... else how would these descriptions/explanations get written?
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997-2001 |
