RICHARD: I will re-post the operative words, which are just sitting there in plain view, in the section you snipped from the above response of mine: [Richard]: ‘In short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Ok, forgive me, but I am bit confused. When you say ‘in the section you snipped from the above response of mine’ are you referring to this bit that I did not include: [Co-Respondent]: ‘I have my OWN commitment to integrity in this investigation, that depends not a whit upon yours. [Richard]: ‘If I may suggest? Sincerity is the key to unlock one’s innate naiveté, the nourishing of which is essential if the wondrous magic of life itself is to be apparent, which naiveté effortlessly provides the integrity you say you have your own commitment to. (...) I might add, though, that naïveté does away with all that ‘heavy lifting’ you spoke of in an earlier e-mail. Vis.: [Co-Respondent]: ‘From what I can glean so far, virtual freedom is a period of ‘heavy lifting’. [endquote]. Where you have gleaned this diaphoretic impression from has got me stumped ... here is but one of the many ways I describe the actualism practice: [quote]: ‘... the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events’. [endquote]. Or even more specifically to the point of your ‘heavy lifting’ comment: [Respondent No. 12]: ‘If it is the experiencer that makes efforts to be aware and stay aware, the centre is strengthened, not dissolved, right? [Richard]: ‘Since when has naiveté been sudorific? [endquote]. In short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again’. [endquote]. Because that is very plain and I understand that.

RICHARD: Just so there is no misapprehension: are you saying that you plainly understand there is no [quote] ‘working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote] involved such as to occasion you to think the goal of being happy and harmless seems contrived?

RESPONDENT: In the examples I copied and pasted from the AF site, all of which I thought were written by Peter, speak of effort ...

RICHARD: Aye ... yet nowhere do those examples speak of [quote] ‘a working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote], such as to occasion someone to think the goal of being happy and harmless seems contrived, do they?

RESPONDENT: ... and it is not clear to me why it takes effort as in: [quote] ‘but it does take ‘effort’, commitment, drive, ambition, stubbornness and sheer will power to get there’ [endquote] and: [quote] ‘to suppose that one can become free of being a psychological and psychic ‘self’ without ‘mental effort’ does not make sense’. [endquote].

RICHARD: Yet is it clear to you that there is no [quote] ‘working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote] involved in that effort such as to occasion you to think the goal of being happy and harmless seems contrived?

RESPONDENT: When you say the exact opposite as in: [quote] ‘in short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again’ [endquote] is the ‘looking until it is again’ the effort that is referred to in the passages I copied?

RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to a section of the above text:

• [Richard]: ‘... the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events’. [endquote].

Then I will re-post the relevant part of the first of those quotes you provided:

• [Peter]: ‘It is amazing that I now get up in the morning and take it for granted that I will again have a perfect day. But it does take ‘effort’, commitment, drive, ambition, stubbornness and sheer will power to get there. I called on every one of those attributes whenever I needed them’.

Now, when Peter writes of it being [quote] ‘amazing that I now get up in the morning and take it for granted that I will again have a perfect day’ [endquote] do you reckon he is on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition (a path marked by enjoyment and appreciation) or has he inadvertently wandered off the way?

And when Peter writes of it having taken [quote] ‘effort, commitment, drive, ambition, stubbornness and sheer will power to get there’ [endquote], whenever he needed them, do you reckon he was writing about what it took, on occasion, to get back on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition (a path marked by enjoyment and appreciation) after having inadvertently wandered off the way or is he writing about what it takes to stay on that path marked by enjoyment and appreciation (the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’)?

There is no need to answer ... these are rhetorical questions designed solely to draw attention to what is patently obvious (once seen).

*

RICHARD: Furthermore, what Peter is saying in those quotes which you have provided is a far cry from [quote] ‘attempting to be happy and harmless’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘making an effort to be here now’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘trying to force ones self to be happy and harmless’ [endquote] is it not?

RESPONDENT: Ok but you did not explain specifically what he does mean by that.

RICHARD: I will say this much: he does not mean that [quote] ‘a working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote] is involved.

RESPONDENT: When an actualist finds a belief is that ‘enough’ or does one benefit by ‘replacing’ the belief ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ with a sensible cognition like ‘failing at a task doesn’t make one a loser. Thinking about oneself like that is only going to cause pain, so I’m not going to feed that thought. I can be happy w/o blank ... .’

RICHARD: If failing at a task does not make one a loser then what does succeeding at a task not make one?

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if you tried something and could not do it that you would be stupid, and pathetic (which is what the label ‘loser’; means from my part of earth)?

RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my query: If failing at a task does not make one stupid and pathetic then what does succeeding at a task not make one?

RESPONDENT: I’ll admit it here flatly. Sometimes, I just don’t get what your trying to get me to understand.

RICHARD: I am asking a very simple question ... perhaps an analogy will demonstrate: two people are playing chess; the person playing white succeeds in the task of checkmating the person playing black/the person playing black fails in the task of checkmating the person playing white; the person playing white, who succeeded in the task, is said to have won the game/the person playing black, who failed in the task, is said to have lost the game; the person having won is said to be the winner/the person having lost is said to be the loser.

Now, and in my initial understanding of the word ‘loser’, if failing at that task does not make the person playing black a loser then what does succeeding at that task not make the person playing white (if not the antonym of that word)?

Given that you have since explained that by the word loser you meant stupid and pathetic (antonyms of intelligent/clever and admirable/excellent) then if failing at a task does not make one stupid and pathetic then what does succeeding at a task not make one (if not intelligent/clever and admirable/excellent)?

In other words, how can one evaluate one’s success/failure if [quote] ‘succeeding at a task doesn’t make one anything’ [endquote]?

RESPONDENT: Why does any behaviour have to ‘make’ one anything?

RICHARD: Since when has having/holding a belief been behaviour? Vis.:

• ‘behaviour: manner of bearing oneself; demeanour, manners; observable actions; treatment shown to or towards another or others’. (Oxford Dictionary).

For example:

• [example only]: ‘When an actualist finds a manner of bearing oneself is that ‘enough’ or does one benefit by ‘replacing’ the demeanour ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ with a sensible cognition like ‘failing at a task doesn’t make one a loser. An observable action is only going to cause pain, so I’m not going to feed that treatment shown to or towards another or others. I can be happy w/o blank’ [end example].

RESPONDENT: What’s the point in torturing oneself like that?

RICHARD: Here is the essence of the question you asked:

• [Respondent]: ‘... does one benefit by ‘replacing’ the belief ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ with a sensible cognition like ‘failing at a task doesn’t make one a loser.’ [endquote].

What I am asking is does the obverse also hold true? For example:

• [example only]: ‘... does one benefit by ‘replacing’ the belief ‘I’m a winner because I succeeded at blank’ with a sensible cognition like ‘succeeding at a task doesn’t make one a winner.’ [end example].

What is the point of replacing a belief with another belief (albeit disguised as a sensible cognition)?

RESPONDENT: And yes, I always remember I’m talking to a certified madman.

RICHARD: Well now ... as this certified madman nevertheless not only comprehends the distinction between belief and behaviour but also the difference betwixt emotional pain and bodily pain there may very well be something to be said for a total absence of sanity, eh?

*

RESPONDENT: Succeeding at a task doesn’t make one anything.

RICHARD: Ha ... and judging another to be a loving and compassionate being is to not be judgemental either (yet judging another to be malicious and sorrowful being is), eh?

RESPONDENT: I smell (perhaps imaginatively) pin the spiritualist donkey on No. 68 game.

RICHARD: No, either modern-day psychotherapy (as in positive affirmations) or folk-lore remedies (look for the good).

RESPONDENT: So, your saying determining that one is sorrowful is just a fact, not a judgement?

RICHARD: No, determining oneself to be anything is to be appraising/evaluating oneself ... and all such judgment starts the moment one wakes up and continues throughout the day until one goes to sleep.

RESPONDENT: Likewise with recognizing one as a loving being. Ok, I think I’m with you there. It is a ascertainment of fact.

RICHARD: Here is how your question at the top of this page began:

• [Respondent]: ‘When an actualist finds a belief is that ‘enough’ ...? [endquote].

In a word: yes.

In several words: not if the same-same belief keeps cropping up over and again.

Put succinctly: when one finds a belief the very seeing that it is a belief is the end of it being a truth; if the same-same belief keeps cropping up, over and again, as a truth then its very nature remains to be seen.

In short: what makes a belief a truth is its affective component (as in one’s investment in holding it to be so).

*

RESPONDENT: Its just the body succeeding at a task.

RICHARD: Oh? Since when has a body ever cognised that thinking about itself like that – [quote] ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ [endquote] – is only going to cause pain?

RESPONDENT: Um ... ok, it is an identity that cognates that.

RICHARD: Aye, and it is identity who dictates behaviour (persuades the body to do and say all manner of things) per favour its beliefs.

RESPONDENT: However, it is a reasonable thought to stop treating oneself ‘harshly’ in one’s ‘head’(i.e. self talk/mental talk).

RICHARD: Is it also a reasonable thought to stop treating oneself ‘gently’ in one’s ‘head’ (i.e. self talk/mental talk)?

RESPONDENT: I would figure a body sans identity as you would never, ever think ‘I’m pathetic, I’m a loser, I can’t believe how stupid I am ... etc’.

RICHARD: A flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto cannot believe, period.

RESPONDENT: It’s just crazy to think like that.

RICHARD: It is crazy (as in foolish) to believe, period.

RESPONDENT: Madness.

RICHARD: Nope ... it is sanity in action (all over the world billions of people believe in believing).

*

RESPONDENT: Why tack on a identity to that?

RICHARD: Put succinctly: that pain has no existence here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Ah ... are you trying to say that no matter what you think you never suffer?

RICHARD: No thought can, of course, ever make me suffer (induce affective pain) ... but that is not what I was saying: you had said that succeeding at a task does not make one anything/it is just the body succeeding at a task/why tack an identity onto to that despite the fact that only an identity can generate that pain (affective suffering).

RESPONDENT: I understand that, but what I think about my self can indeed cause me to suffer.

RICHARD: Indeed ... thus succeeding at a task does make one something/it is not just the body succeeding at a task/an identity is not being tacked onto the body.

*

RICHARD: Perhaps a personal anecdote may be explanatory: many years ago, when in the company of three others, the identity then inhabiting the flesh and blood body typing these words was waxing eloquent about what ‘he’ had achieved/what ‘he’ was yet to achieve, thus far, whereupon a person of the ‘thou shalt not be judgemental’ ilk, who had been listening somewhat impatiently, interrupted the flow of experiential knowledgeability rather brusquely so as to (non-judgementally) assert that ‘his’ problem was that ‘he’ saw life in terms of winners and losers ... to which averment ‘he’ replied, with words to the effect, that ‘he’ had no intention whatsoever of allowing blind nature to be the winner.

RESPONDENT: Was it ‘you’ or him who said ‘he’ had no intention whatsoever of allowing blind nature to be the winner’?

RICHARD: So as not to get lost in a mind-field of scare-quotes: this flesh and blood body did not say or do anything ... it was the identity within who did all the work.

RESPONDENT: Basically you used the urge to be a winner to make the human condition the ‘loser’?

RICHARD: To succeed where no-one had succeeded previously the identity in residence all those years ago desired success like it had never been desired before.

*

RICHARD: Needless is it to add that, had it not been for that identity’s totally dedicated/utterly devoted pure intent to not have intelligence be the loser, yet again for the umpteenth billionth time, this conversation would not be taking place (and that neither would this mailing list exist either)?

RESPONDENT: Intelligence won and your identity ‘lost’, right?

RICHARD: No, blind nature lost ... the identity got precisely what ‘he’ wanted more than anything else (the blessed release into oblivion) thereby allowing intelligence to operate unimpeded.

*

RICHARD: By the way ... another thing ‘he’ would stress, over and again, was that one is to be scrupulously honest with oneself if one is to succeed at that task.

RESPONDENT: This is part of my problem as it is easy to not see my own self-deception. I figure having a more systematic ‘method’ of inquiry could help with that, but perhaps I’m mistaken.

RICHARD: The actualism method is an attentiveness/ watchfulness method – not a method of enquiry – inasmuch one is attentive/watchful as to how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) so that the slightest deviation from the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition can be attended to forthwith ... thus enabling one to live as peacefully and harmoniously (as happily and harmlessly) as is humanly possible each moment again.

Any and all enquiry has far more chance of success when one is back on track again. Vis.:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘(...) any analysing and/or psychologising and/or philosophising whilst one is in the grip of debilitating feelings usually does not achieve much (other than spiralling around and around in varying degrees of despair and despondency or whatever) anyway.

What the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago would do is first get back to feeling good and then, and only then, suss out where, when, how, why – and what for – feeling bad happened as experience had shown ‘him’ that it was counter-productive to do otherwise.

What ‘he’ always did however, as it was often tempting to just get on with life then, was to examine what it was all about within half-an-hour of getting back to feeling good (while the memory was still fresh) even if it meant sometimes falling back into feeling bad by doing so ... else it would crop up again sooner or later.

Nothing, but nothing, can be swept under the carpet’.

RESPONDENT: I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs.

RICHARD: There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation). Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again’.

RESPONDENT: One could benefit in practicing attentiveness sitting down with a simple focus like the darkness you see when you close your eyes.

RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could ask oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) whilst going about one’s normal everyday life.

RESPONDENT: After you gain some control over your attention you could start practicing attentiveness to a not to changed belief before you move on to bigger stuff.

RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could be attentive to whatever felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing because, with practise, even the slightest diminishment of that happiness/harmlessness is then unavoidably noticed, and thus attended to forthwith, so as to recommence feeling felicitous/innocuous sooner rather than later.

RESPONDENT: After you get good at this you could work on attaining a degree of apperceptiveness.

RICHARD: Hmm ... in a manner somewhat similar to being partly pregnant, perchance?

RESPONDENT: Once you can do that somewhat you could then delve in experientially to feelings that are seemingly not really tied to thoughts. By fully experiencing them with apperceptiveness one can begin to disempower then more and more until they minimise from non-use.

RICHARD: In actualism the term ‘apperception’ refers to unmediated perception – and for perception to be unmediated it needs to be sans mediator (aka without identity) – and as an identity is its feelings (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) there are no feelings to experientially delve into/fully experience apperceptively ... let alone disempower until minimised from disuse.

RESPONDENT: Basically I think ‘actualism’ asks too much for many people.

RICHARD: Whereas the actualism on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site asks very little ... so little as to appear simplistic to some. For instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Whatever presents itself in terms of divisive thought and feeling can dissolve in awareness.
• [Richard]: ‘Nothing substantive can happen in awareness while the instinctual survival passions dominate ... and the word ‘survival’ should explain why.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It comes through earnest self-study.
• [Richard]: ‘If the above quoted understanding [‘the self is nothing other than conditioning, the thinker/feeler/doer is thought’] is what comes through ‘earnest self-study’ then perhaps something else is called for.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You mean simplistic advice like keep asking ‘what am I experiencing?’ ;-)
• [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... I always like it when someone says something like this as it shows that they are beginning to take notice that when I say naiveté I mean naiveté.
Maybe its very simplicity is why it has been overlooked all these aeons?

In a nutshell: to the cultured sophisticate to be simple is to be simplistic.

RESPONDENT: Some training in attentiveness could be helpful. Those with experience or with a ‘knack’ for this kind of thing would not of course.

RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well the identity in residence all those years ago never had you to advise ‘him’ (else this conversation would not be taking place), eh?

*

RESPONDENT: I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs.

RICHARD: There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation).

RESPONDENT: Yes, I knew that, which is why I referred to Peter and Vineeto instead. To be objective, it has not been determined that you are not a freak of nature yet.

RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, was a freak of nature just because ‘he’ required no attention-training – as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation – before both devising and putting into effect what has nowadays become known as the actualism method (being acutely conscious as to how one is experiencing each and every moment of being alive)?

RESPONDENT: I’m sure you’re aware that certain folks have highly developed aptitudes that others don’t?

RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no highly developed aptitude for attentiveness/watchfulness ... let alone to a degree that others do not.

*

RICHARD: Look, ‘he’ was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about.

RESPONDENT: Oh I don’t doubt others can do this your way, but it seems others undoubtingly need something else.

RICHARD: I can say this much: the something else which those others you refer to do not need is a history of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) ... if anything they need to unlearn/ discard all of those tried and failed disciplines.

And unless/ until that much is crystal-clear there is no point in discussing just what the something else was, which the identity in residence circa the ‘eighties decade had in abundance, which those others you refer to may very well be in need of.

*

RESPONDENT No. 60: The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not.

RESPONDENT: It does sort of give that impression.

RICHARD: It does far more than merely give that impression ... it is precisely what I am saying. For a recent instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I think its important to be free of malice (...) but I’m not sure why we need to free of sorrow.
• [Richard]: ‘You do not need to be free of sorrow (or malice) ... it is your choice, and your choice alone, each moment again as to how you prefer to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive)’.

If then choosing to be as happy and as harmless (as free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as was humanly possible thus makes the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, a freak of nature then so too is my current companion as she comprehended right from the beginning that it is her choice, and her choice alone, each moment again as to how she prefers to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment she is ever alive) ... and which would also make my previous companion a freak of nature as well (not forgetting to mention, of course and for the very reason of it being topical, both Peter and Vineeto too).

Incidentally, the identity in residence in 1981 was not surprised that others could not but, rather, that others would not (having a victim mentality, it turned out, ran much deeper than the singular mentation such nomenclature indicates).

Much, much deeper ... so much so as to be past fixation, entrenchment, and well into being an impressment, an embedment bordering on an embodiment.

RESPONDENT: Interestingly ‘the option method’ is built upon the premise that one can choose at any moment happiness ... interesting.

‘Tis not a [quote] ‘premise’ [endquote] that one can choose to be as happy (and as harmless) as is humanly possible each moment again – it is experientially evident that it be possible – and the main thrust of the actualism method is to be aware of the quality of such felicity (and innocuity), via enjoyment and appreciation of simply being so delightfully alive at this very moment (the only moment which is dynamic), inasmuch the slightest diminishment thereof is unavoidably noticed as to occasion an immediate attendance to whatever caused that diminution and thus resume being happy (and harmless) forthwith.

It all depends upon whether one is going to continue to be a victim of one’s moods or a victor – or, in the jargon, whether one is going to take charge of one’s life, in this regard, or not – and, yes, that too is a choice.

Your felicity (and innocuity), or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone.

RESPONDENT: Richard, before I hit the road again, I have a question that seems pretty important. Re-reading some of your selected writings, I rediscovered this:

[Richard]: ‘The ‘process’ was both prosaic and extraordinary: on the one hand I began undoing all the social conditioning that I had been subject to since birth and on the other hand I generated love for all and sundry. I examined all the social traditions and customs etc., one by one, and released myself from their iron grip. I diminished hate and anger and sadness and loneliness by surrendering to and living in love and oneness ... which is the best that a normal human could do by virtue of the socialisation process. I moved in and out of Sacred States of Heavenly Bliss and Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and immersed myself in the entire ‘process’ with dedication and resolution. I adopted the principle of pacifism (‘turn the other cheek’) and developed Goodness of the highest order. I cleansed and purified myself of all impure thoughts and deeds and worked both hard and industriously in my daily work. I practised honesty and humility in all my interactions with other people and pondered the significance and ramifications of the Divine Order’. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedwriting/sw-asc.htm).

If the activation of love, compassion, humility, goodness, moral purity, and a passionate faith in the Divine Order etc is not 180 degrees opposite from what you now recommend, it’s pretty damn close, no?

RICHARD: What I now recommend is essentially no different to what I have recommended ever since first becoming apparent on the thirtieth of October 1992 and which is basically the same as what the identity in residence recommended, to anyone prepared to listen at the time, when ‘he’ set about imitating the actual – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) in late July 1980 – on and after the first of January 1981 ... to wit: being relentlessly attentive to, each moment again, and scrupulously honest about, how that only moment of ever being alive was experienced so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as was humanly possible inasmuch any deviation from such felicity/innocuity was attended to with the utmost dispatch in order to live as peacefully and as harmoniously as ‘he’ could with ‘his’ then wife and children, in particular, and with anyone and everyone who came into ‘his’ presence.

And all that came about – albeit nowhere nearly spelled-out so clearly and concisely – more or less spontaneously on that day as during the PCE, where identity in toto was in abeyance, the affections played no part at all and, moreover, there was such an utter intimacy as to render any trace of a separation needing to be affectively bridged simply risible.

Furthermore, that way of living was so successful, for the first three months or so of that year, that ‘he’ was wont to exclaim, to all and sundry, that ‘he’ had discovered the secret to life (for that is how far beyond normal human expectations the felicitous/innocuous state which has nowadays become known as being virtually free truly is) and ‘he’ was perplexed as to why, it being such a simple thing to do, no-one had ever done it before.

Then an event occurred of such impact as to be the turning-point, in regards no longer going directly to what numerous PCE’s evidenced (namely that what is now known as an actual freedom from the human condition was possible here on earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body), and relates back to the initial PCE which set in motion the whole process wherein, unbeknownst to the experiencing due to a total lack of any precedent, it had devolved into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) when a new identity had all-of-a-sudden come into existence ... a grand ‘Me’, a glorious ‘Me’, a fulfilled ‘Me’ who was none other than the long-awaited Saviour Of Humankind!

That impactive event took place whilst keenly watching the sunrise casting its brilliant rays earthward, one otherwise-experienced-as-perfect morning in mid-autumn, upon seeing an ornamental bush thus lit, in the garden alongside the ex-farmhouse, luminously aglow, fiercely afire from within as it were, wherefrom it was revealed to ‘Me’ that there was to be a death and a rebirth and, consequently, a catatonic state ensued that resulted in ‘Me’ being carted off to hospital, and kept under intensive care for four hours, until coming out of it in a state of Radiant Bliss (which quite overwhelmed the duty-nurse by the way). ‘He’ was never to be the same again, as Divinity had been working on ‘him’ whilst catatonic, and from that date forward ‘he’ was permanently in a state of human bliss and love ... ‘he’ could do no wrong.

As ‘he’ had surrendered to, and thus lived in, love and oneness ‘he’ moved in and out of sacred states of Heavenly Bliss, Love Agapé and Divine Compassion; ‘he’ immersed ‘himself’ in the entire process with dedication and resolution; ‘he’ adopted the principle of pacifism (‘turn the other cheek’) and developed a goodness of the highest order; ‘he’ cleansed and purified ‘himself’ of all impure thoughts and deeds; ‘he’ worked both hard and industriously in ‘his’ daily work; ‘he’ practised honesty and humility in all ‘his’ interactions; ‘he’ pondered the significance and ramifications of the Divine Order; ‘he’ totally believed in and had supreme faith in The Absolute – ‘he’ never doubted the ability of That to bring about the Peace On Earth so long promised – and that ‘he’ was to play the central role in that Divine Plan no longer came as a surprise to ‘him’ as ‘he’ realised that ‘he’ had long yearned to be part of the Salvation Process.

The following more or less sums it up:

• [Richard]: ‘... back in 1981 I had umpteen number of peak experiences – sometimes two-three times a day varying from minutes to hours – and they were wild and woolly times. Somewhere along the line I had lost sight of the four hour pure consciousness experience [PCE] that had triggered my whole incursion into becoming free of the human condition and there was certainly a ‘difference in degree’ of the affective element in each experience ... ranging from virtually non-existent to full-blown grandiosity for the ‘me’ that was inhabiting this body. The PCE stayed pristine in its own domain, however, and stood me in good stead some eleven years later ... as I have recorded in ‘A Brief Personal History’:

• ‘It troubled me deeply that I was in such a situation because I seem to be driven by some force to ‘Spread the Word’ and that was never my intention all those years ago when I first had what is known as a ‘Peak Experience’ which initiated my incursion into all matters Spiritual, culminating in the ‘death’ of my ego and catapulting me into this Absolute State. My intent back then had been to cleanse myself of all that is detrimental to personal happiness and interpersonal harmony ... in other words: peace on earth in my life-time. Instead of that rather simple ambition, I found that I was impelled on an odyssey to be the latest Saviour of Humankind in a long list of Enlightened Beings ... and this imposition did not sit well with me’.

RESPONDENT: The method you now recommend (minimising ‘good’/’bad’ feelings, activating felicity/ sensuousness) is what you used only after the ego had already dissolved.

RICHARD: The method I now recommend is essentially no different to the course of action I have recommended ever since first becoming apparent and which is basically the same as the way the identity in residence recommended a normal life be lived, when ‘he’ first devised and put into practice what has now become known as the actualism method, on and after the first of January 1981.

Incidentally, that way of living/that course of action did not ... um ... officially become a method until early 1998. And it only came about because of being told to either send more information or draw a clearer map to paradise, on a mailing list set-up under the auspices of the teachings Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti brought into the world, for no other reason than (despite the fact that they are rife throughout most, if not all, of those teachings) any and all methods, ways, paths, and so on, were anathema to his readers/listeners. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You’re going to have to send more information or draw a clearer map to paradise.
• [Richard]: ‘(...) What ‘I’ did, eighteen years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective method of ridding this body of ‘me’. (Now I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). ‘I’ asked myself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ (...)’.

RESPONDENT: It worked, but *only when you were in an Altered State Of Being*, having permanently dissolved your sense of personal identity in an oceanic feeling of oneness with all creation.

RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding: what really worked, when the identity was that ‘Altered State Of Being’, was

(1) a continuation of the totally dedicated and/or devoted pure intent to evince what the PCE’s evidenced ... and

(2) a furtherance of the irreversible momentum, or inevitability, already set in place on day one as the process is, essentially, that of escaping from one’s fate and attaining to one’s destiny ... and

(3) a prolongation of the attentiveness as to how the only moment of being alive was experienced ... and

(4) an utter lack of dignity in being so far up oneself (narcissistic) as to render the term ‘egotistical’ a mere bagatelle in comparison ... and

(5) a sense of humour which, if nothing else, made possible (6) a delightful resurgence of the earlier felicity/innocuity which again brought about, in combination with sensuousness, an outstandingly ingenuous sense of amazement, marvel and wonder.

And it was that last-named – the wide-eyed wonder of naiveté – which resulted in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception).

RESPONDENT: To put it mildly, that [an altered state of being] is not my starting point ...

RICHARD: Neither was it ‘my’ starting point ... for instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘… but I have a lot of taxes to pay to the society, family, etc., which give me no time to sit and watch the rising sun ...
• [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, the ‘I’ that was made freedom the number one priority in ‘his’ life. ‘He’ was a married man, with four children, running ‘his’ own business, with a house mortgage to pay off and a car on hire purchase ... working twelve-fourteen hour days, six-seven days a week.
In other words: normal.
And all the while the enabling of freedom took absolute precedence over all other matters and dominated ‘his’ every moment’.

And for another instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I find myself in a situation where I am raising two children and I am married.
• [Richard]: ‘So? I found myself in a situation where I was married and raising four children.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I am doing my best to raise the kids – but how could I possibly be pleased with raising them only to be in ‘abysmal’ situation – only to live in a ‘grim and glum’ reality where the best they can do is live on the better side of misery?
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed ... being married and raising four children was one of the many incentives for the ‘me’ who was to get off ‘his’ backside and do something about the whole sorry mess.
And now, as a direct result of that altruistic action, the possibility exists for those five fellow human beings to also live fully (as is anybody else) if they so choose’.

RESPONDENT: ... and neither is it the starting point of anyone else around here.

RICHARD: I have had on-line discussions with quite a few self-realised beings (albeit mostly of the just-add-water-and-stir-thoroughly variety) ... plus several face-to-face discussions over the years.

Quite simply: one starts wherever one is at.

RESPONDENT: I well understand that you reject enlightenment as a tried and failed solution to the ills of humankind, and I understand why. BUT, my question concerns the method, not the goal. In one of our early conversations, you said to me that when your ego ‘died’ you were only seconds away from an actual freedom, if only you had known at the time that such a thing was possible:

• [Richard]: ‘... if I had known, back in 1981 at the moment of ego-dissolution, what I now know I would not have let the process stop halfway through its happening (...) by my reckoning it would have all been over in a matter of maybe 6-10 seconds (rather than 6 seconds plus eleven years)’.
• [Respondent]: ‘So electro-chemical ‘self-immolation’ is not just metaphorical, eh?’
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed not: it is all very, very real ... more real than anything has ever been’.
• [Respondent]: ‘You were really that close?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... I have written before about how I unwittingly discovered yet another way to become enlightened ...’.

So ... you activated the process of self-immolation by activating powerful passions.

RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this body activated the process of *partial* ‘self’-immolation – the ego-dissolution, or death of the ego, referred to in the above exchange – by activating love and compassion (and rapture and euphoria and ecstasy and bliss and so on) ... whereas the process of ‘self’-immolation *in toto* involved the deactivation of those antidotal pacifiers for malice and sorrow (and all those others).

RESPONDENT: Not innocuous felicitous feelings but powerful, red-hot passions.

RICHARD: The felicitous/ innocuous feelings are in no way docile, lack-lustre affections ... in conjunction with sensuosity they make for an extremely forceful/ potent combination as, with all of the affective energy channelled into being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible (and no longer being frittered away on love and compassion/ malice and sorrow), the full effect of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – is dynamically enabled for one purpose and one purpose alone.

RESPONDENT: No wonder you were able to engage the whole of your being in this process.

RICHARD: So as to inject a modicum of commonsense into your train of thought: the identity inhabiting this body was able to engage the whole of ‘his’ being in the process which led to ‘self’-immolation in toto, via first undergoing an ego-death/ ego-dissolution, primarily and ultimately because of pure intent.

And the key to unlocking such naiveté is sincerity, pure and simple.

RESPONDENT: And from where I stand, there’s little wonder that no-one else has.

RICHARD: Where one stands does, of course, determine what one sees.

RESPONDENT: (9 months of intense ‘self’-immolation vs. 10 years of mere reconditioning is what it comes down to as I see it).

RICHARD: Ha ... there is much more to an entirely-new model than just ripping the engine of the ole hog apart and giving it a reco so that it will be good for another few hundred thou or so.

Much, much more ... do you realise that what you are saying, in effect, is that all what is required for any realised/ enlightened/ awakened being, to become actually free from the human condition, is but a re-working what remains of identity (the deeper and most fundament part) after partial ‘self’-immolation?

RESPONDENT: So why, if you were mere seconds away from ‘self’-immolation using the original method, do you now recommend an altogether different one (almost 180 degrees opposite) that only worked after your ego had dissolved?

RICHARD: Hmm ... if what you really want is to become realised/ enlightened/ awakened then it is not all that difficult. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘There is a sure-fire way to become enlightened ... if that is what one really wants. It is important to realise, deeply, that not only can ‘you’ not find Love Agapé ... Love Agapé does not come to ‘you’, either. The way it works is that when ‘you’ become ‘love’ then Love becomes You ... Love Agapé is You As You Really Are.
Here is how to be Love Agapé:
1. First, get out of your head and feel deep within yourself, past the emotions, into the deeper feelings – the core of your ‘being’ – for there you will feel intense human love (the nurturing/desiring instinctual passion).
2. Identify totally with this love as pure feeling – live it as being it fully every moment of your day – and surrender your will to existence itself.
3. Your identity as ‘me’ as soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘being’) will transmogrify itself into the Absolute in an edifying moment of awakening as ‘The Truth’.
4. You will then realise that this is your ‘True Self’ ... the ‘Me’ that exists Timelessly and Spacelessly and Formlessly.
5. You will then be Love Agapé ... You will have come to bring Your message of ‘Truth and Love’ to a suffering humanity.
6. You will be utterly convinced that You will succeed because all the others who came before You were not as Enlightened As You Are.
7. The whole world has been waiting for You.
It is quite easy, really’.

And if that intense human love cannot immediately be felt (as in step No. 1 above) then the quickest way to activate it is to go deeply into personal sorrow (which can readily be done just by feeling sad about the whole sorry mess which is the human condition and empathy will take over) until it becomes universal sorrow – the essential pathos of all sentient creatures – whereupon it flips over and turns into compassion ... which passion, upon fully flowering in all its goodness and charity, becomes a radiant love for all suffering beings.

Then move on to step No. 2.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that using the first method would be *heaps* more potent than second because it engages the passions instead of (trying to) systematically undermine them – which, in my personal experience, only takes the wind out of one’s sails.

RICHARD: The actualism method is not about undermining the passions ... on the contrary, it is about directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself) in order to effect a deliberate imitation of the actual, as evidenced in a PCE, so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’.

Such imitative felicity/ innocuity, in conjunction with sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvel, and delight – a state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence whilst being a ‘self’) – and which allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, to operate more and more freely. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest.

All that was required was ‘my’ cheerful, and thus willing, concurrence.

RICHARD: Look, ‘he’ [the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body back in 1981] was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about.

RESPONDENT: The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not.

RESPONDENT No. 68: It does sort of give that impression.

RICHARD: It does far more than merely give that impression ... it is precisely what I am saying. For a recent instance:

• [Richard]: ‘... it is your choice, and your choice alone, each moment again as to how you prefer to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive)’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: That being the case, all that would be necessary is to stay aware, stay alert to what is felt, and if one catches oneself feeling something less than <good, excellent, perfect> one could just elect to feel <good, excellent, perfect> again. Gosh. No wonder you say this method is so simple, and you wonder what all the fuss is about.

RICHARD: Aye, it is so very simple that some find its radicality hard to understand ... for instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(...) After all, that’s the whole point of this, isn’t it? Not just to unravel the accrued identity, but to be happy and harmless. The method is incredibly simple: I am not happy now; I was happy a minute/ hour/ year ago; Ascertain what caused me to stop being happy; Get back to being happy as quickly as possible. No wonder this is so radical – it has none of the trappings and dogma that humans seem to need to create around such an elemental concept. Of course, sometimes simple things are the hardest to understand’. (Tuesday 6/05/2003 11:22 PM AEST).

Or that its utter simplicity escapes them:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I have spent a lot of the last 18 months thinking about actualism, but the utter simplicity of it has escaped me. Let me take a snapshot before it flies away again. The idea is to spend as much time as possible feeling good, great, excellent or perfect. The universe itself needs no work, it is already fine. The peak experience shows that when we are okay the universe is perfect beyond compare. Human life can be fantastic. The universe doesn’t need to be improved before people can be happy. All we have to do is eliminate our own misery and malice, which resides right here in the breast (or brain stem)’. (Sunday 1/05/2005 11:44 AM AEST).

RESPONDENT: Speaking for myself alone now ... it does not work/has not worked that way. Why I do not know, but I would like to find out.

RICHARD: Simply this: the method you have been applying is not the method on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

(...)

RESPONDENT: I do not experience it as possible to choose how I am feeling at any given moment.

RICHARD: If it be not you who is doing that choosing then who is? For instance: who was it who chose to [quote] ‘feel continually wretched and frustrated and miserable’ [endquote] whilst trying to hoist themself into the air by their shoelaces if it was not you? And who, for another instance, preferred to [quote] ‘gradually yet persistently add feelings of frustration and bewilderment’ [endquote], at the fact that the method you have been applying was not working, if not you?

Or, for yet another instance, who is it that decides, on occasion, to deal with the vicissitudes of life by [quote] ‘throwing a tantrum’ [endquote] if it be not you?

*

RESPONDENT: Nay. Feelings happen involuntarily ...

RICHARD: You may have missed the following yesterday as it was in a post to another:

• [Respondent]: ‘The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not.
(...)
• [Richard]: ‘... the identity in residence in 1981 was not surprised that others could not but, rather, that others would not (having a victim mentality, it turned out, ran much deeper than the singular mentation such nomenclature indicates). Much, much deeper ... so much so as to be past fixation, entrenchment, and well into being an impressment, an embedment bordering on an embodiment. (...) It all depends upon whether one is going to continue to be a victim of one’s moods or a victor – or, in the jargon, whether one is going to take charge of one’s life, in this regard, or not – and, yes, that too is a choice.
Your felicity (and innocuity), or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone’.

RESPONDENT: ... incidentally, Richard, how can they be ‘an hereditary occurrence’ and be of my choosing at the same time?

RICHARD: You do comprehend that you are your feelings/ your feelings are you (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) do you not? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘It has taken me a hell of a long time to understand the difference between *having* feelings and *being* those feelings. Because I have not clearly understood this, I’ve never quite got the hang of paying attention to feelings without praise or blame, and without notions of innocence and culpability, right and wrong, etc getting in the way.
This makes things very interesting. The moment I regard my ‘self’ as ‘having’ a feeling, I’m split down the middle and there’s a secondary reaction on the part of the social identity (an urge to "do something" about the feeling, which in turn evokes more feelings, and so on). Conversely, if I recognise that I *am* the feeling, it most often dissolves into thin air – and usually pretty quickly too.
This is great. It’s especially helpful with regard to anger and frustration which have been two of my biggest hurdles to date. Previously, when I caught myself being angry, annoyed or frustrated, identifying and paying attention to this feeling would NOT cause it to disappear. On the contrary, the feeling and the awareness of myself as ‘having’ it would sometimes become like a microphone and amplifier locked into a screaming feedback loop.
I’m really pleased that this is no longer happening. It seems almost too easy’. [emphasis in original]. (Thursday 28/10/2004 6:55 PM AEST).

And again there is a reference to how ‘almost too easy’ actualism is.

*

RESPONDENT: Richard, *IF* it is possible for anyone to feel excellent simply by choosing to feel excellent, why aren’t they?

RICHARD: Why ask me (and not them)?

RESPONDENT: It is not as if people through the ages have not wanted/ tried to feel good, is it?

RICHARD: No ... yet mostly when I have asked others they generally come out with some variation on the hoary ‘you can’t change human nature’ adage.

RESPONDENT: What was the difference between you and them?

RICHARD: I am none too sure there was any difference: I was a normal person; I was born of normal parents; I had normal siblings; I had a normal upbringing; I attended a normal (state) school; I obtained a normal occupation; I had a normal wife; I had normal children ... and so on and so forth.

RESPONDENT: The way you describe it, it wasn’t even that much of a struggle for you (found the secret to life inside the first three months???).

RICHARD: It was inside the first few weeks, actually, of putting into action what was startlingly evident in the four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) which had finally provided the direction my otherwise following-the-herd way of living was singularly lacking (although there was a six-month incubation period between the PCE and the application thereof).

I distinctly recall informing my then-wife at the time that I had ‘done it their way’, for 34 years and to no avail, and that it was high-time I did it my way (and when she asked what way that was I said that I did not know but that it would become progressively apparent with each step I took).

RESPONDENT: So why haven’t millions of others discovered that they can feel excellent by choosing to ...

RICHARD: Quite possibly – and I am not being facetious here – they were/ are waiting for someone else to do it/ show the way (for, despite many peoples huff-and-puff about leaders, there have always been pioneers, who have blazed the trails others follow, and always will be).

RESPONDENT: ... unless, of course, they can’t ...

RICHARD: It is not so much a case of they can not but, rather, that they will not.

RESPONDENT: ... [unless, of course, they can’t] without a radical shift in their understanding of self/ world/ reality *engendering* such change?

RICHARD: My experience with the peoples who have chosen to give felicity/ innocuity a go is, as a generalisation, that the necessary paradigm shift has usually been a gradual process of comprehension – not necessarily an instantaneous shift – and which paradigmatical change commences because of that choice ... and that choice mainly comes after a gestation period (which itself follows intelligent appraisal/ thoughtful consideration).

And, by way of personal example, I need only point to the six-month incubation period already mentioned.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: For what it is worth: a true rebel wears their motorbike helmet (for instance) without any protest/ without any resentment whatsoever.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••