That is unfortunate because that is the definition of illusion
If you can describe what you mean in a different way somehow, maybe that will help
Yes, I hope to do be able to adequately explain why I find those definitions of illusion troubling/ faulty. Off the cuff I would make a mess of it. Might come off as a bit incoherent.
Something best to go into at a later time, I think.
We tried in the past but I think the following may be an unavoidable-to-agree-with way to desribe it:
You can go to the store and buy chocolate with a $10 USD bill.
If you instead take a photo of a $10 USD bill, develop the photo, and try to pay with this photo, you won’t be able to. The cashier won’t accept it as legal tender. The reason is that one of the $10 USD bills is an object, while the other $10 USD bill is an illusion of that object, which illusion is created by the photo.
I think it’s unavoidable to say that there is some difference between the $10 USD bill, and the $10 USD bill in the photo. This is not avoidable – clearly they are not the same thing.
The question then is, what is this difference?
If we use words like ‘genuine’ then we perhaps end up arguing about what ‘genuine’ means (though it can be noted in legal terms this particular example would be called “counterfeiting” 
). If we use word like ‘existing’ or not we can get tied up in existential arguments.
I think a simple way to put it is that the “$10 bill” in the photo is somehow a facsimile of, a representation of, or some ‘other-ness-pointing-to’ of a $10 bill, without quite being a $10 bill itself. No matter how hard the “$10 bill” in the photo tries, it can’t ever be a $10 bill. Even though it appears to be a $10 bill – it isn’t.
In general terms: an “object” made by an illusion is somehow a facsimile of, a representation of, or some ‘other-ness-pointing-to’ of an object, without quite being that object itself. No matter how hard the “object” made by the illusion tries, it can’t be the object itself. Even though it appears to be that object – it isn’t.
In terms of the ‘self’: the “self” is illusory because it is a facsimile of / representation of / some ‘other-ness-pointing-to’ actual self-sufficient-in-and-of-itself consciousness. But it isn’t quite self-sufficient-in-and-of-itself consciousness. No matter how hard the “self” tries, it can’t be this consciousness itself. Even though it appears to be that – it isn’t.
Not sure if this helps or even makes sense 
But maybe can further something.
[NOTE: Edited to make the wording a bit clearer.]
This last bit seems to be the stumbling block. Actualism as far as I read, is not about realising I am an illusion/not genuine/a fraud. Actualism so far has in a very fundamentally radical way been the opposite of that; you, in whatever way you exist, are given/give yourself permission to be happy and harmless despite the socially instilled shame, guilt, etc.
Further to that, you don’t need to pretend to be good. You are already as good as it gets by most metrics. Indeed, every single person who has stuck with actualism is displaying this moral goodness. Indeed, in an email from Vineeto over a decade ago, she asked the rhetorical question " do you really think that Richard would have done all of this if he wasn’t already a good person?" (Paraphrasing from memory here).
So, specifically, and to be 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the much walked path of “realising I am an illusion” , which is the Zen family of beliefs, am I ashamed of being a fraud/illusion/not genuine? Or any I specifically ashamed of things I was taught to be ashamed of?
I think that Richard would be on the later approach, shame and guilt are socially instilled.
Even if that is in the womb. It’s not intrinsic to being a self. I am not born ashamed of being a self, so I wouldn’t characterise shame being so fundamental.
1 Like
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it’s actualist morality to link the two.
“I am some sort of illusion, thus all my shame comes from that.” Or worse," I should be/am ashamed naturally because of that."
It’s really a cunning reversal of the 180 degrees, and one is heading straight back into spiritualism.
It’s a psychic self sacrifice. Not something to be realised.
My ‘fraud’ comment largely comes from this:
“Pride has to be seen for what it is – a demand for recognition and validation of one’s identity and a refusal to be exposed as the fake and fraud one knows oneself to be deep down inside. As a feeling it is but an ultimately futile attempt to masks one’s deep fears and insecurities with the continuous need for praise from others.”
I agree that the ‘realizing I don’t exist’ has been trod by spiritualists to no avail. But I don’t think that means it’s not relevant that ‘I’ am an illusion. It’s just a part of the picture.
When I told R+V that I felt that I was perched on a narrow ledge with a chasm open beneath me, Vineeto told me that both the ‘chasm’ and the ‘ledge’ don’t exist. They are illusions of ‘my’ invention.
As far as the relevance of shame goes, we can talk about which emotions are ‘base’ in the sense that all animals experience them, but these ‘higher level’ emotions that depend a bit more on thought / conceptualization of self are still built on a base of the deeper emotions. Shame is still dependent on disgust or self-hatred, for example.
It’s just a question of layers - I can initially remove the superficial reasons I feel shame, and then I find deeper reasons I feel shame. Beneath that is the emotion of disgust itself.
1 Like
“Every little ‘me’ waging wars against other little ‘me’ because they are so precious. Whereas they are just the same product of evolution and animal passions, with the same hiding place, the same hunger, the same dirtiness. You can’t be serious!”
This looks a lot like a realization to me. Sure there’s still a decision to be made to allow self-immolation to occur, but the realization is a step along the way.
1 Like
I am hesitant to agree or disagree.
In the final moments of ‘Peter’ it was something he was doing that triggered the event. ‘He’ was waving his hand in front of Richard’s face, as if Richard didn’t exist. He saw how silly this was! Richard was right there!
He didn’t realise he was an illusion, he directly saw his actions as being silly. It was an action which stopped. Actualism is all about actions. Mental, emotional and physical actions.
Or to put it another way, and to echo Vineeto, (and to remember what she told me); I am not locked out of perfection, I am the lock itself.
Which is can be twisted easily into “realise you are the lock!”. But no, that’s not it. Locks need keys, (to dangerously push this metaphor 
), and that key is pure intent accessed by naivete.
2 Likes
The best realizations come because of experience. Experience based on action or observation. It gets to the point where things are so obvious that we can’t lie to ourselves about ‘this or that’ anymore.
I think one way of looking at the actualism method is that it is a method which allows for sparkling clarity which is otherwise impossible within ‘humanity.’ Every other path in history has been distorted & twisted by ‘being,’ because ‘I’ was always too scared of death to see what is right in front of me.
Pure intent, and happy & harmless, allows for a clarity which makes it possible to clearly see what is going on. The self abhors being seen, and when it comes down to it does not exist in actuality. At some point, only one of these can maintain: I either spiral deeper into delusion (as Irene did), or I immolate.
2 Likes
It was seeing, while literally walking down an actual path, that the actual was the safe path. The actual, literal, physical path he was walking on. It was an action.
One could say he “realised”, but again that is a conflation with spiritual “realising”.
I have done that before.
“Realised” I "don’t exist ". It lasted about a day.
This example of Peter is the perfect example of seeing the illusion. He saw that ‘he’ was creating a dream, while right here was a physically-existing genuine world.
This is somewhat illustrative regarding realizations, but Richard says more about them elsewhere:
Q: Hope is always in the future … it is a way of escaping.
R: The mind is a fertile breeding ground for fantasies and hallucinations; if one backs it up with hope, trust, belief and faith then anything weird can eventuate. Instead, make full use of a confidence born out of the peak experience; the surety that comes from a solid knowing … an irrefutable knowing, not a flight of fancy or some religious epiphany or spiritual visionary occurrence.
Q(1): What part can realisations play?
R: A realisation is not always a fact; realisations can be a stepping-stone to evince a fact. A person has an existing mind-set and a realisation is a way of fitting whatever we discuss into that real-world paradigm.
Q(1): Yes, I can’t go beyond that at each step.
R: Given the grip that the pre-existing mind-set has on one’s reality, a realisation is a way of accommodating a new concept. Then maybe a week, a fortnight or a month later a practical actualisation occurs and that particular realisation has been the preparation ground for that consummation to happen. The realisation creates a preparedness in the old mind-set to receive the actuality.
Because it’s ‘me’ that takes each step toward becoming free, these ‘realizations’ are essential steps toward gradually changing one’s worldview.
1 Like
Ah, yet perhaps he wasn’t actually waving his hand?
I am pointing out that Actualism isn’t some special knowledge that one realises. Because that isn’t genuine direct experience.
Which you understand.
Exactly.
Yes, I love that passage.
The realising is still a product of, and within the human condition.
One can realise all they like for one’s entire life, and never be free.
It will just keep going.
Actions are key.
It’s probably not possible to become free without having PCEs, in other words having firsthand experience of the actual / firsthand experience with what one is dealing with.
But it’s still useful having a good mental map of the situation, or analysing that certain things make logical sense (as we are doing in this discussion).
Genuine firsthand experience is always the best, but if one doesn’t have firsthand experience with certain things it’s ok to start with those mental maps, maybe make whatever realisations along the way as things start to ‘make sense,’ and then those realisations & whatnot can be replaced with direct experience as the direct experiences are experienced (that was fun to type!)
Sure, and it has a certain fun factor to creating those maps.
Indeed, if it were not fun, it would be silly to do it.
It’s a funny thing starting out from a ‘me’ because I’m already deluded from the start… all the acculturation, plus instinctive beliefs.
So gradually as we add some experience & read a shitton of the AFT, these realizations - some of which are indeed false - change my worldview which over time, with the critical component of pure intent in place, brings the actual world nearer and nearer. And as that happens, some of the previous realisations are revealed to be not so accurate, or just not as mind-blowing as they once were, and more and more direct experiences mean ‘a worldview’ starts to be replaced by experience.
1 Like
Yet it’s not a effective mental map in the long run, unless it is a map of a very wide and wonderous path!
What ultimately distinguishes actualism is the radical, down to earthness of it all.
More and more I can see that I can’t have it both ways. I can’t on one hand have these complex yet ultimately normal maps and realisations, and be actually doing something about it.
The former gets in the way, because it seems I have done something. I get to keep all my precious realisations in more refined and sophisticated circles of complex speculation.
Anyway, back to an actual question; how is shame manifesting for you specifically?
Funny observation; we have had an extended conversation which was sparked by talking about shame. In much the same way the psychologist said in his article, after 25 years, talking about shame only deepens therapy, rather than resolves it.