Kuba: And of course it goes without saying that those effects apply not just between Actualists but inevitably affect all of one’s fellow human beings. That when ‘I’ am ‘being’ felicity and innocuity and ‘I’ am ‘being’ naïveté, that ‘I’ have already affected others. As to how others are affected by the existence of actually free fellow human beings I am not too sure. Of course there is the negative aspect, and what I mean by that is that the absence of sorrow and malice will of course have a beneficial effect, essentially 1 less sorrowful and malicious entity in existence.
But I wonder if there is a positive aspect, that just like when ‘I’ am happy and harmless ‘I’ inevitably bring others with ‘me’. Is there something intrinsic to the existence of actually free humans that pulls others closer to perfection and purity. This would certainly supply motivation to proceed. It would be so very worth doing. (link)
Hi Kuba,
First the obvious reasons which everyone can understand.
*You would not be writing on this list if Richard had not discovered the actual world and written about it extensively. Tangible?
*The Direct Route was opened by Richard and Peter and Peter became actually free one day after. Peter thus confirmed that Richard is not a freak of nature and that no-one has to go via enlightenment to become actually free.
*Vineeto benefitted from the Direct Route, confirmed after Peter that it is safe and confirmed that an actual freedom is as available for females as it is for males (of course!)
*Justine became actually free (later withdrew the publication of it) on another continent without having met Richard – proof that it is possible anywhere in the world.
*Grace and then Pamela became free – confirmation that women are as keen to be actually free as men.
*in 2011, a person of Indian birth and upbringing came for a visit and “was actually free of blind nature’s instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof less than 24 hrs after landing.” (Richard, List D, Rick, 31 Dec 2011). They demonstrated, to many people’s astonishment, that the rapid (and sudden) way is indeed possible for someone with sufficient pure intent and urgency. (Richard, List D, Rick, 3 Dec 2009)
*2015 to 2018 three more people became actually free, and forum members reported they have benefitted and drawn inspiration from their reports and correspondences (to an extent they would not have, if the persons had been not actually free).
*Also Bub and Scout recently lamented (and many others before them) that actualism isn’t very successful because only so few people (sic! 10 people in 26 years of its inception and publication) have had success – and for them virtual freedom does not count as success in that it would inspire them to get more confidently involved).
You can see, when you look more closely, that the whole forum only exists because so many people have dared to care and cared to dare to go all the way to self-immolation. Furthermore, by coming out of enlightenment Richard most likely destroyed the possibility for anyone to become fully deluded –
RESPONDENT: I would describe it as the top of the pyramid.
RICHARD: The capstone of that pyramid – The Absolute – having never been, upon the extinction of ‘Being’ itself (aka the grandiose identity/ the aggrandised affections indwelling via having possessed this flesh and blood body) in 1992, only remained apparently existent per favour an anti-actualism/ pro-spiritualism blockage/ diversion created by my second (de jure) wife’s ‘presence’ … as in ‘her’ very ‘being’ (which is ‘being’ itself).
RESPONDENT: I can’t electronically discuss this any further as the matter is much more complex and contains extremely sensitive issues.
RICHARD: Okay … I might say this much, though: did Mr. Franklin Jones’ physical death in 2008 signify the last of fully enlightened/ fully awakened (as in fully deluded/ fully hallucinated) ‘Beings’ to bestride the real-world … to be meddling in human affairs, to incredible ill effect, for all these millennia now past?
Put differently, why are the subsequent crop of so-called enlightened/ awakened beings of the just-add-water-and-stir variety? (A Long Awaited Announcement)
+++
Kuba: It was not so much that I am concerned with what ability this body would have in assisting others in becoming actually free. It’s more that I can see the positive aspect that ‘I’ have on others by being happy and harmless, it is an active effect, those ripples are actively doing something beneficial.
So I guess the ‘fear’ is that once I proceed all the way to actual freedom that any ‘link’ will be cut. And so any active benefit will no longer be possible. The only benefit will then be that others can likewise go all the way by knowing that it is possible.
Ha, how skilled ‘you’ are to downplay the magicality of paradise on earth, and to increase the possibility for peace on earth for many more people to come and for future generation.
Kuba: But I guess what I am trying to get at is will there be an active benefit for others “in the meantime” whilst I am actually free. Will the existence of this flesh and blood body free of the instinctual passions and the identify formed thereof actively benefit others “in the meantime”. And yes furthermore will it assist them ultimately by pulling them forward in a way that is more than just the fact of another person having done it. Kuba: Well at least I have pinpointed another objection haha. Edit : It seems the best way to find this out is to go and interact with others whilst in that utterly delightful place 1 (link)
You are right, Kuba, this is really an objection coming from the one who wants to stay in existence as in “look, ‘I’ can still be useful”. It must be feeling-backed because it looks so silly (or gullible) to me, after all the processes you have undertaken in order to become actually free.
It’s all right, of course, for ‘in the meanwhile’ but on sensible dispassionate, if not PCE-inspired, deliberation, what do you reckon which benefits outweigh the other? And remember, being out-from-control is not a safe and stable condition – either one keeps going forward or falls backward. That was Devika/Irene’s lesson for ‘Vineeto’.
+++
Emp: You’re not a bodhisattva.
But on a more serious note, I think it’s far more beneficial to have more actually free people. (link)
Kuba: This is funny although at the same time it’s not a laughing matter as that is the reason humankind is in the mess that it is in to begin with! It seems what I am circling is the fact that ‘I’ cannot do it for ‘me’, but now it’s clear that ‘I’ cannot do it for ‘humanity’ either.
I don’t see how “it’s clear that ‘I’ cannot do it for ‘humanity’ either” because ‘your’ ‘self’-sacrifice will manumit your body from its dominator and will allow you to report experientially how wonderful it is to live in the actual world. Ah, rationality without common sense just cannot see the bigger picture! Can you at least see the limitation ‘me’ is bestowing on your perception?
Kuba: So there is that jump from ‘humanity’ into actuality and it means leaving all that behind. Which means there has to be utter confidence that this course of action is ultimately beneficial for all, and not just in an intellectual manner but as an overall experiential seeing, this is what I seem to be circling.
The “overall experiential seeing” happens when you are either in a PCE or in an outstanding excellence experience where pure intent is allowed to flow freely. Presently you seem to be arguing from a non-engaged, almost dissociated, intellectual position. For comparison –
Richard: […] 3. Due to ‘her’ naïve intent to be as intimate and without prejudice as possible – which, in conjunction with the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity that is part-and-parcel of being out-from-control had resulted in the actualism method segueing into the actualism process – ‘her’ cheerful and thus willing concurrence allowed pure intent to dynamically pull ‘her’ evermore unto ‘her’ destiny. (Hence the “dynamic, destinal virtual freedom” nomenclature).
4. This moment-to-moment experiencing of a caring which is not self-centred/ self-centric provided ‘her’ with the experiential convincement that actualising such caring, via ‘self’-immolation, was the only solution to the human condition; this ‘hands-on’ understanding as a dynamically present feeling-being – an impressively distinct contrast to having been abeyant during PCE’s – left ‘her’ with absolutely no choice (lest ‘she’ be forever “rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic”).
5. Since a near-actual caring is, of course, epitomised by a vital interest in the suffering of all human beings coming to an end, forever, as a number one priority, then ‘her’ single-minded focus was essentially centred upon the most immediate way of ensuring this long-awaited global event could begin to take effect the soonest … to wit: bringing ‘her’ own inevitable demise, at physical death, forward into a liminal imminence.
6. Because the means ‘she’ elected to utilise towards these ends was the near-actual intimacy which goes hand-in-hand with a near-actual caring (per favour that afore-mentioned absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity which typifies being out-from-control) it is apposite to defer to what Vineeto herself wrote on the 20th of January 2010, only fifteen days after her pivotal moment/ definitive event, as its refreshingly simple directness speaks for itself. Viz.:
• [Vineeto]: “(…). Further it was obvious for me that it would be Richard who would facilitate and trigger my transition into an actual freedom because he was the most obvious person with whom a near-actual intimacy would change into an actual intimacy – simply because Richard had been my guide and mentor for the last 13 years and particularly so for the period since I stepped out-from-control.
As I have written to No. 5 recently –
‘The final clue was again about caring, a caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster. Only when I cared enough to give all of ‘me’ to another person, to give them what they want most, was I then ready to give it to the one I cared for most, the one I was closest to, and then I was able to leave all remnant concerns and inhibitions of my identity behind.
And that’s what happened”. (Direct Route, No.20, 20 Jan 2010).
(Incidentally, her words “to give them what they want most” refers to my oft-expressed emphasis on the necessity of a female replicating my condition – for those oh-so-vital ‘core of civilisation itself’ reasons spelled-out elsewhere on my portion of the web site – and it speaks volumes, to those males having reservations about going all the way due to the popular wisdom that what women want is loving relationships, that in the handful of daring pioneers women out-numbered men by a 4-to-1 ratio). [emphases added]. (Richard, List D, Srinath, 13 August 2016). (to access tooltips go to the original).
Kuba: ‘I’ will not give ‘myself’ permission to allow self immolation without this confidence. Which is one of those ‘frustrating’ things. That this utter purity and perfection is at the fingertips and ‘I’ am not willing to give ‘myself’ permission to exit the scene and allow it irrevocably. (link)
I do appreciate your honesty Kuba, it allows to discuss your latest objection point by point.
Cheers Vineeto
.
.
Private email, 5.10.2018)
