Kuba: Richard summarised the experience of that “tether back to base camp” in his journal (article 9) :
Richard: It requires great fortitude and finesse to fly in the face of the social commandment: to remain a member of society at all costs. There is a pull of loyalties; old allegiances to relatives, friends, colleagues and acquaintances will tug at the heart, pulling one back, urging one to remain where one is. Loyalty, however, is a two-edged sword for it can cut two ways; there is the new allegiance to the purity of the peak experience, pulling one forward relentlessly, for herein lies release … and genuine peace-on-earth. The pull in two directions can be excruciating. On the one side is the sense of belonging, the warmth of relationship and the being acknowledged by the peoples one has always known. There is the loss of all that, with its ensuing grief – and guilt – at leaving them all behind. On the other side there is the knowledge that one will have reached one’s destiny, that one will have that perennial cheerful contentment with life as-it-is subtly buzzing inside one, and that the actuality of peace-on-earth and prosperity for all humankind is now possible. All this one knows, with a crystal-clear certainty, from the perfection of one’s PCE. (Richard’s Journal, Article Nine)
Kuba: The additional aspect of this is something like this :
That as ‘humanity’ ‘we’ are all huddled around that fire and suffering, and within that intrinsic suffering ‘we’ have made various bonds which would soothe (but never eliminate) the suffering – that is the bond of ‘humanity’, the relationships of the various identities to each other. And from within that bond, it is experienced as a selfish act, to proceed towards this new land and to leave all those ‘others’ still huddling together in the land of lament.
I understand intellectually that this is the exact mistake made by buddha, that ‘he’ would not proceed towards extinction until all ‘others’ were saved and as a result ‘humanity’ has persisted and suffering has persisted.
Hi Kuba,
What you overlooked in your analysis of ‘humanity’ –
Abandoning ‘humanity’ means ‘you’ abandon ‘your’ own humanity, which is ‘you’, the identity, who you have previously recognized as being rotten to the core. It means abandoning ‘your’ social identity, which ties you to everyone else’s appraisal, everyone’s praise and criticism, ‘your’ loyalty to kin, country and class, ‘your’ identity as a man, son, husband, employer, member of class, race, club, religio-spiritual and political identity and all the other groups you feel loyalty, connection and/or obligation to. For instance –
Kuba: I can’t believe I’ve never seen this, that the very action of asserting myself is rotten.
Vineeto: It was obviously the perfect time to see it, now that you are ready to put it into action.
Kuba: It makes sense now, there is a seriousness and a forcefulness to it, it has aggression at its root.
Vineeto: Indeed and a ‘man’ has to be aggressive or so you are taught. You discovered the way to channel the affective energy of aggression into affective felicitous and innocuous action. (2 Oct 2025)
Do you now prefer to retain your aggression, your desire (for the sake of the ‘highs’), your fear and nurture, your territoriality, your sense of belonging and, above all, your social identity? You experience, as a member of ‘humanity’, it being selfish to abandon humanity but you don’t even consider looking at it with pure intent, where the purity and perfection of the actual world is plain to see and yours for the taking – for the benefit of your body, that body and everybody.
This is what fear does to you – it defends mischief and misery and clouds your mind.
Kuba: But it is this unilateral and extreme action which is required which ‘I’ cannot quite accept, that this is the only way out, the way to end the ‘land of lament’ is for the next and then next identity to become extinct.
Are you looking for a new “way out” which leaves the identity intact?
Kuba: But it is that final and irreversible abandoning of ‘others’ that ‘I’ am not willing to contemplate. It still seems selfish to ‘me’, how could ‘I’ leave ‘them’ ‘back there’ suffering. (link)
What you are really saying is that you rather remain an identity, rotten to the core, than demonstrating by action that it is possible to live totally free from malice and sorrow, blithe and benign for 24hr a day, every day for the rest of your life, for everyone’s encouragement and confirmation that this is possible.
What you are also suggesting is to do nothing about all the wars and murders and child abuse, the lies and hypocrisy and treachery arising from the human condition (which is humanity in action) because it is supposedly “selfish to ‘me’”. “Back there” they are suffering already and there is nothing ‘you’ can do about it because you are, as ‘you’ are, still contributing to their suffering.
This is what fear does to you, the fear to do something unchartered, unmapped, unprecedented for ‘you’. You forget what you then “deeply and passionately care about” back in March –
Kuba: In short what ‘I’ deeply and passionately care about is to be innocence personified. To live that which the PCE demonstrated and in doing so to offer (and demonstrate) a solid alternative to the “hypocrisy, the lack of equity, the ignorant irresponsibility and the harm that was being done by all”. This innocence is what I (and I am sure others on this forum) detect from you and if I had not experienced it first hand I would probably have believed it to be impossible. (8 Mar 2025)
It’s ok, it is a natural reaction when you try to break through before you are ready – though it means that your arguments don’t make sense. It’s too early to even contemplate it, you could go to the “advanced base camp” first, then “camp 3”. (Uphill Mountaineering) Plenty of time to worry later. 
There is still an in-control virtual freedom available even if you never want to take the ultimate step.
Here is a reminder that ‘your’ morality what is ‘selfish’ is hopelessly skewed (being unselfish is not the same as ‘self’-lessness or non-‘self-centric) –
R: Most Religions and Spiritual Paths advocate putting the other before oneself … it is their way of preventing selfishness – which they assume to be identical with self-centredness. Yet it is self-centred to want to be a ‘good’ person and therefore gain one’s post-mortem reward in some after-life. Immortality for the self has to be classified as being the ultimate self-centredness. Self-centredness is translated as egotism … is there such a word as ‘soultism’? There should be!
Let us have a look at the practice of putting the other before oneself: Take us four sitting here – and presume we are all ‘good’ people – and I am not going to be ‘selfish’ at all. Therefore I am going to totally look after (Q) … I will put her before me in all circumstances. Now, (Q) is also a ‘good’ person and she is not going to be ‘selfish’ either … so she is going to put Q(1) before herself. However, you have also been brought up with this religious and humanitarian concept of putting the other before oneself … therefore you will put Q(2) before yourself … and Q(2) will be putting me before himself. We have come a full circle; do you see the nonsense that is going on? Because the end result of putting the other first is that eventually you get looked after anyway. If we all just stop this charade and start looking after ourselves then we will be a lot better off. It makes much more sense.
Q: Then nobody owes anybody anything …
R: There is no investment.
Q: … and nobody owes me anything, either.
Q(2): There is no relationship.
R: No relationship … right! It is a free association.
Q(2): The other way that happens is with love. It is like you are always relating … well one of the ways of relating is mainly through love. If you love another you put your love on them and they put their love on you.
R: And it intrinsic to the nature of love to put the other before yourself – it is part of love itself. However, if one digs deeply into love, one finds that love is so selfish that it is almost unbelievable that one could have been deceived by the apparent altruism displayed. It is utterly selfish; if you dig down under the layers of the ‘selflessness’ of love … it is so very selfish.
Q(2): Because there is this ‘I’ll love you if you’ll love me’ thing going on. It is a bargain. And if one stops the bargain you get the hatred … if the love is cut … or …
Q: Or just the absence of love.
Q(2): With the absence you get the cold … the cold treatment.
R: Dig another layer deeper and one finds that love supports the very sense of identity it purports to transcend. And with love, the self survives … to live another day. Everything that comes out of the self is designed to keep that self in existence … all the morality, all the humanitarian ideals … they all keep the self alive. The whole structure of society …
(…)
R: Years ago I had some religious people bail me up and attempt to convert me to their belief – it would often happen in those days – and they were saying that I should always help people; that that is what we are all here for is to help other people; to put the other person before oneself. I said to them: ‘Who are these people to be helped? Who are these ‘others’? What is going to happen to them?’ I would ask this because if one does do all this – only help others and never oneself – then one goes into an After-Life of some description. I said: ‘What about those people who are being helped? Where are they going to go to?’
Q: (Laughing) Oh! I like that question!
Q(1): Good question!
R: Well, if one wants to be a helper – a ‘good’ person – one needs a ready supply of victims, of helpless people. And where are those helpless people going to go to after they die? They are not going to go into some glorious After-Life because they have not been helping people … in fact, they have been sucking upon the helpers. So ‘do-gooders’ need a steady supply of victims in order to reach their After-Life of Rapturous Bliss.
And then I would say to them … because they would tell me I was being selfish … I would say to them: ‘But you want to go to your heaven when you die?’ And they would say: ‘Yes’. And I would say: ‘You are only helping other people in order for yourself to attain your After-Life of Heavenly Bliss. And is this not selfish?’ They would not like that one. The whole structure of morality hangs upon stuff like this … that is why there is something really going wrong within society. The whole morality is back-to-front. (Audiotaped Dialogues, Putting the Other before Oneself).
You can also watch the Out-from-Control video (link) where Richard very clearly says to ‘Vineeto’ “it is selfish to stay”. ‘Vineeto’ had tears in her eyes because the sweetness ‘she’ experienced was extraordinary –
Vineeto: I had known this sweetness from previous occasions – one such experience happened during the video-shoot of the ‘Out-from-Control’ DVD we present on the website. This sweetness always accompanied an experience of closeness, barely any separation to the other person (usually Richard), but also an experience that I was close to my destiny and an awareness that what I am doing/ longing for is not merely for my ‘peace of mind’, but that it is for everybody, for every single man, woman and child on the planet – for peace on earth.
This sweet longing has always propelled me forward to go all the way, to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles and fears and now I had the privilege to experience this sweet intimacy day after day, morning to night.
Cheers Vineeto