From the 21 September to the 14 November 2017 Dona and Alan stayed in​​ Ballina and met up with Richard and Vineeto almost every day for 3-4 hours.​​ They invited questions to be put to​​ Richard and Vineeto from those interested in an actual freedom from the human condition.


PLEASE NOTE: The replies are not verbatim reports of what either Richard or Vineeto said. For one thing Dona and Alan are both feeling beings so any recollection of​​ what was said was, inevitably, ‘slanted’ by their beliefs and prejudices – we only hear what we want to hear and interpret it as we want to interpret it – and include comments that were not voiced by either Richard or Vineeto.​​ 


INFORMATION:​​ Geoffrey became actually free in September 2018 and Questioner 3 in November 2018. Their reports of becoming actually free, together with those of others and various descriptions of PCE’s can be found​​ HERE

References to “Slack” are to the previously operating discussion forum using the Slack app in the “Actual Freedom” workspace.​​ 

References to “Yahoo” are to the Actual Freedom list on Yahoo (no longer available)

A moderated, public actualism discussion group is currently operating on Zulip​​ [LINK]


30 Sept 2017


Alan: "Richard's 'indolence' is exacerbated by chronic lower back pain"

I have this "belief" that when​​ someone is actually free and they have the experience of sensuosity, that there would only be comfort in the body. I wonder how Richard explains the contradiction. Alan do you know? Can you ask him?

It may not be a contradiction to Richard, but I would like to be straightened out. Thanks!


Dona: This was answered on slack​​ [LINK].​​ There are different types of pain, physical and mental (psychological). Physical is in the actual world​​ [1], you touch something hot and you feel the pain and possibly burn yourself if you don't pull away fast enough. Or you break a bone..etc.


[1] Vineeto subsequently pointed out that feeling beings never experience the actual world but they experience the physical world see Richard's correspondence​​ HERE




anyone became free on their own (I.e. without a partner)?


Dona: the woman of Indian origin who flew in and was​​ free in 24 hours was single (she had previously been in a relationship), and at the moment she became free she was with Richard.​​ LINK

Craig was alone at the time of becoming actually free, and is married with a family. Everyone else was in a partnership/relationship, and with Richard at the time of their becoming free.



Regarding giving herself to herself I was thinking in terms of "doing it for this body..." if there was something there that could help on altruism... but if the one she cared the most was not "this body" then the question isn't relevant.


Dona: It was for another (that is what altruism is). She said she cannot give herself to herself.


If I met​​ Richard I would ask him: “When you were living a virtual freedom and you noticed yourself slipping back into normal, what​​ specific​​ ingredient did you apply more of to get back to happy and harmless?”

Basically it’s about how to get back to feeling good (for all of us who are not virtual free = can’t do it consistently). 


Dona: for clarification, Richard was out-from-control virtually free, which is a shift, a “different way of being”. He said he only had one instance of “slipping back to normal”, which only lasted a few minutes, and he didn’t do anything to get back to being out-from-control.

It seems from your question you might be referring to “in control” virtual freedom, where someone is feeling good at this moment, and each moment again for the rest of​​ their lives. Richard skipped right over this, and right into “out from control” virtual freedom.


Alan: Richard lived the out-from-control virtual freedom for about 9 months before losing his ego and becoming enlightened for 11 years. It is not necessary​​ to become out-from-control before becoming actually free (see Dona’s reply below).



My questions, by order of importance

1. How critical is out-from-control? Can one self-immolate anytime or does one have to be in an out-from-control virtual freedom to do so? If the second, can the out-from-control state required be of any (short) duration, for example minutes/hours (I’m thinking about the case of the girl who became free in 24 hours: was she out-from-control when it happened, and for how long?)​​ LINK
Should one then attempt to self-immolate while not being out-from-control, or should one prioritize getting out-from-control?
Once out-from-control, should one attempt to self-immolate or should one let the ‘ride’ go to its conclusion, whatever time it takes? 


Dona: being out-from-control (a different way of being) is not necessary prior to becoming actually free. 

The only "prerequisite" is to commit to feeling​​ good this moment and each moment for the rest of your life.


2. If getting out-from-control (and staying so) happens via letting pure intent live one’s life, what role does the activation of altruism play? Is it critical in getting out-from-control or​​ later: for self-immolation?


Dona: we weren't really sure what you were asking, please rephrase this question.

Please understand... There are no set rules. Each person went about it differently, and only 2 were out-from-control prior to being free (3 if you include Richard, though he went through 11 years of enlightenment in between)


Alan: Altruism cannot be “activated” at will. It is something that comes as required, when required. It has nothing to do with becoming out-from-control and is only “activated” at the moment one becomes actually free.

3. What to think about the ‘epidemic’ of ‘actuality mimicking ASCs’ (I’m speaking mostly for myself here haha), especially in people with no ‘buddhist’ background and no knowledge of what the ‘affers’ did? Is it​​ because of too much ‘trying’? Because of ‘too soon’? It happened to me also while I thought I was out-from-control, is it a sign I was not at the moment of the ‘attempt’, or that I was not at all?


Dona: I asked you in slack for clarification, and you replied, saying basically were you forcing it? Both Richard and Vineeto said yes. 

 Dona's comment/question: I  am wondering if you're confusing a PCE with "out-from-control"? The accounts I recall you mentioning on slack referenced you having PCEs... Have you​​ since been "out-from-control"? 


Alan: Yes, “trying” to get to an actual freedom is ‘me’ jumping in, taking control and (almost inevitably) results in an ASC, whether it be an actuality mimicking one or something else.

4. I’d love a clarification on the​​ ‘sweetness’. We had a conversation with Alan on the topic (august 22/23), If you recall it Alan…


Dona: Alan was not able to find this reference until just before Richard and Vineeto showed up... And was not clear on your question. 


Alan: We discussed​​ this at some length a few days ago. It was something which took Richard completely by surprise when it first occurred in late 2009. It is the experience of purity personified (at that time only Richard), previously only accessible while experiencing a PCE.​​ It was described differently by each of those who experienced it (not just as “sweetness”) – “being bathed in intimacy”, for example.​​ 

5. We do not have access to the reports of the other people who got actually free, can we assume those reports to be totally consistent with the ones we have, and not bring any further information? I understand it might be that those people do not want to publicly share information, but if there is anything that might be of value, could it be shared with us while preserving their anonymity?


Dona: In all cases since Richard, everyone's experience has been pretty much the same... A peaceful "shift" from real to actual (in an instant).


Alan: Prior to becoming actually free, each person will have different experiences largely​​ dictated by their backgrounds and beliefs. At the moment of becoming actually free – as witnessed by Richard on four occasions – the experience has been identical.

6. What is R and V opinion about the general state of affairs in actualism? 


Dona: it's going great.


Is it going ‘according to plan’


Dona: there is no plan.


 or are they surprised not more of us are getting actually free? 


Dona: Richard is surprised there are so many.


Do they have a general comment about why it might be so? Are we​​ obviously doing something wrong?


Dona: nothing wrong at all. Richard is pleased with the progress.

The only thing that he and Vineeto had to say that could be seen as "wrong", is that people are trying to "jump to the end" before making a commitment to feeling good this moment and every moment again. 


Alan: ​​ I am in complete agreement with what Dona has said – and is as near to a verbatim report as is possible. Richard rather likes how Peter put it, which was something like - Unless one can commit to feeling good each moment again for the rest of one’s natural life, one may as well give up now


1 October 2017


Okay one question I did have was whether near-actual caring was utilised by all persons to become actually free or whether it was something unique to Vineeto's self-immolation (and perhaps Peter's also)?


Dona: Vineeto "coined" this term when people asked her to explain her experience of becoming actually free. She said that near-actual caring is what can set altruism in motion/action, which is needed for self-immolation. Without that "motivation" for "this body, that body and every body" it is impossible to make that leap.

As far as she can see, everyone (in some way) did utilize near-actual caring.


Alan: Richard suggested Vineeto be very careful​​ when using the term as it could lead to confusion – which it has, particularly so in my case lol

To become actually free it is necessary to use something outside of ‘myself’ – ‘I’ cannot eliminate ‘myself’. It does not matter what the “something” is – a caring as near to an​​ actual caring as is possible as an identity can muster, as happened for her and Peter. Doing it for this body, that body and every body is another possibility i.e. not for ‘me’. They likened it to the quote from Archimedes –​​ “give me a​​ lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world”​​ –​​ the “fulcrum” is ‘outside’ of the earth.


This second question is more of a confirmation re: whether my understanding is right:
I hit a bit of brick wall when I realised recently that for self-immolation to occur it had to be more than just 'me' intending to disappear and jumping into the actuality, I have experienced in PCE's. It has to involve my really wanting to bridge the separation that exists between myself and others​​ (this and other bodies). So I cannot just ignore feeling caring and sweep it under the carpet like a dirty secret. Awareness of those feelings is crucial for self-immolation to eventually occur. I can 'dare to care' rather than dissociate from those feelings. Not wanting to enter an intimate relationship or being afraid of falling in love is a sign of such a dissociation. Eventually I realise the limitations of feeling caring and also realise that if I really care about the person I'm with - and every person alive today, myself included - I will have to give up living in the real world.


Dona: yes, it is important not to sweep any feelings under the carpet, as well as not to dissociate from them. 

Not wanting to get into a relationship because of fear of​​ love/caring is a sure sign that we are not willing to deal with these feelings. And until we do (deal with them - any feeling), we cannot become actually free.


Alan: Richard stressed that he has never advised anyone to stop “feeling caring”. The world would be a poorer place without feeling caring (my words).



To be honest, AF is not a top priority for me (yet).

But I’d sure have a lot fo talk about if I were in direct contact them.

Basically if I’m feeing good, I feel less of an urgency to move forward. As if I am complacent … even though I know I could be aiming for more.

I guess this could be a question: how to make myself move forward? I suppose Richard would say ‘watch the news’ … and that doesn’t satisfy me. Is it because I’m less compassionate​​ than the norm? or have developed a distance from the general pain of humanity?


Dona: their answer was pretty straight forward... Make AF your top priority.


Alan: Richard has only suggested watching the news a few times and only in relation to seeing the​​ misery and mayhem which exists in the real world (if one needs reminding) if that is what you meant.​​ 



I'm curious about empathy and near actual caring. Richard said near actual caring is acutely empathetic... but on the site it's written that​​ empathy does not work because you get too tangled up with the other's feelings to be sensible (something to that effect). Could you ask​​ them to go into more detail about how near actual caring is empathetic and why it works (whereas 'regular' (?) empathy doesn't)?


Dona: Richard does not recall every saying that near actual caring is acutely empathic, and we tried to find it on the website and could not. Could you supply the link (post it on the general thread, or privately to Alan). Thanks.


Alan: He presumes you were referring to his discussion with Q3 which was specifically to do with the psychiatric profession advice on empathy.​​ LINK





The issue is not whether he experiences pain. As stated pain is a normal physiological response to a noxious stimulus. The question is chronic pain. . If one is living the experience below (snippets), I have a hard time understanding how one can experience chronic pain simultaneously. That's what I am hoping to have answered.

I do believe that he is "sensuosity". If that is the case at what point did he stop feeling sensuosity and instead feel pain? In his journal he writes about the movement of his body, arms swinging, the feeling of his own movement. When did that stop? Why? If we are living the body in a "perfect", actual world, I think it deserves clarification.


Dona: Richard has not stopped feeling sensuosity, it is his continual state.

This​​ LINK​​ contains much of what Richard is talking about, that sensuousness and pain can co-exist.


He also related a story about his second wife having severe pain that​​ occurred monthly. At one point she decided to try the actualism method (feeling good this moment and each moment again), and reported to Richard that even though there was still pain, she did not stop "feeling good". 

I also have experienced this myself.​​ Just because I have physical pain, that didn't stop me from feeling good.


Alan: I can also confirm that it is possible to remain feeling good while physical pain is occurring- the most recent example just over a week ago being toothache (I did of course take painkillers to alleviate the pain, as does Richard. It would be silly not to)

Richard suggested the following web page might be of use


My other questions:​​ 

What ever happened to Peter? 


Dona: He has moved away from Ballina to live with another person.


How did it come that he left the convivium?


Alan: Peter did​​ not leave “the convivium”, by which I presume you mean the short period from late 2009 to early 2010 during which time both Peter and Vineeto became actually free.​​ 

“The convivium” happened quite by chance. Peter and Vineeto were taking their annual holiday and were intending to take their boat upriver and moor in a secluded spot for the duration. I think Grace said she would like to join them. Pamela and Tom heard about it and asked if they could join them in their camper van on the river bank. Richard was​​ further upstream on his boat and intending to return to Ballina for a prearranged meeting with correspondent No 4 (on mailing list D​​ LINK.​​ Richard was persuaded to join in provided No 4 was amendable, which he was, and so ensued the magical events which then unfolded. All quite serendipitous.


He and Vineeto wrote a lot about coming and being together, but what was it like for them to move apart?


Dona: feeling being Vineeto and feeling being Peter made the decision to stop living together as a ‘couple’ ​​ before they became actually free. 


Alan: All the participants in the convivium were individuals, no couples.​​ 


 Are Vineeto and Richard having sexual encounters? 


Dona: they did not reply to this (my assumption is a definite yes)


Alan: It would be pretty silly not to lol


Vineeto and Richard subsequently confirmed that neither of them were currently sexually active. They have a platonic association.​​ 


Do they consider​​ themselves a couple? 


Dona: No. "A couple" has so many connotations that do not apply to them. They are two independent people,  living together in the actual world. Richard calls it an association.


How would they describe their lives now in retirement and actually free?


Dona: indescribable. They are enjoying life beyond anyone's imagination.


What is new or different for them now as compared to when they wrote about becoming actually free? 


Dona: they live in the actual world, which is always new.


Alan: ​​ Richard described it as “seeing himself”, which in no way implies they are carbon copies – they are very different. Vineeto described it as a ‘knowing’ the other person as herself – having the exactly the same experiences [my words, I cannot recall​​ her exact words]​​ 


Do they experience curiosity? If so, is it different in actuality vs. reality? And if so, how? If not, do they have anything to say about curiosity?


Dona: yes, they are both very curious about many topics. Richard spends much of his day​​ researching things of interest. 

They said that the difference is that they are not curious about things like what's going on in other people's life... It's more world topics. 


Alan: Richard was interested to know how these questions and their answers will assist you in feeling good each moment again?



If you don’t have enough questions to ask (hahaha this is picking up steam), maybe ask (even if it is not yet relevant for most of us) if any of the actually free people have become fully free. We only know about Richard and Vineeto, and she did it through intense interaction with Richard. I’m just wondering about the others. Have they done it? Did it require interaction with Richard and/or Vineeto?


Dona: as far as they know only Richard and​​ Vineeto have become fully free.




It seems like its trickiest for me to maintain feeling felicitous and innocuous amongst a group of people. Especially in a group where I know others well and I'm expected to socialise e.g. at a party of friends or a family gathering. I seem to easily get swept up in the thrall of good/bad feelings (mostly good, but what goes up must come down) before I know it. It seems to be a combination of vibes, the stoking of feelings/instincts related to nurture or belonging - and​​ also social fears. Any suggestions re: how to tackle this?


Dona: their suggestion is to not aim so high, start with maintaining feeling good... Then work your way towards felicitous and innocuous.

Vineeto also suggested avoiding those social gatherings.


Alan: Yes, a number of times it was mentioned that most (if not all) on the list are aiming for the end result (too high as Dona said) without doing the basics. ​​ Her answer to your question - do you feel good each moment while in these gatherings. If not,​​ it is silly to aim to feel felicitous and innocuous (aka happy and harmless) if you are not even feeling good all the time.



Do they have any insights into social anxiety?


Dona: Richard told a story of his early life, that he was extremely shy, and was forced into a situation where he had to speak to a large group. The way he was able to deal with it was to tell a joke, get people laughing and then he was able to enjoy it and became delighted with it. Social anxiety never returned.


Any advice on​​ work feeling like an endless grind, and the power balance between companies and employees where the individual's well-being is not really valued, and is​​ readily sacrificed for ever-increasing pressures and efficiency (reaching breaking point for some at least where I work, with increasing mental health issues)?


Dona: he had a similar experience... Working somewhere he dreaded being. He realized that he was stuck in that situation, as he had a wife and children to support, and it was up to him to feel good​​ about his situation. He was in a "no choice" situation (he had to work), yet he could choose to feel good.


Alan: He found himself “clock watching”, especially on a Friday, yet he could be doing the same work at the weekend and enjoy it. He decided it was​​ silly to spend his time (which is a precious commodity for all of us) feeling bad when he could be feeling good. When one has no choice (i.e. It is necessary to work to supply the necessities, support one’s family etc) and accepts that, it makes it easier​​ to choose to enjoy it.


Any tips for how to employ actualism without it becoming a 'method' or 'practise'?


Dona: it is a method.


Any insights into what causes the resistance to feeling good? I just thought of one now that it doesn't seem to provide​​ purpose to 'just' feel good (perhaps this is just to an identity) - it doesn't seem to answer the longing for the meaning of life?


Dona: not wanting to feel good is something to investigate with the actualism method. What stopped you feeling good?


How to​​ commit to feeling good when so many (often unknown) bad things can happen in the future - cancer, death, and so on.  To take an extreme example, if someone is running over my leg with a car, am I supposed to feel good while my leg is being broken? There's​​ so many fearful things my mind can imagine.


Dona: they said to look at what you're doing. You are wasting this precious moment (the most valuable thing you have) worrying about something that might (or more likely, might not) happen many years from now... Is that what you want to use this moment doing? 


How to tune into the stillness of time without it becoming something imagined by the identity, or a belief / concept? I can only seem to get a sense of it sometimes from the DVDs, but it doesn't work from​​ memory / imagination / contemplation. It seems to require a specific ambiance... but 'I' can't get to it on my own (what I imagine is not it - it's something completely different from the norm).


Dona: the only way to"tune into the stillness of time" is to become actually free (or in a PCE). 


Alan: The way to “tune into the stillness of time” is to practice the actualism method – how am I experiencing this only moment of being alive. Once that has been done for a sufficiency of time one can choose to feel​​ good each moment again.​​ 


I know you suggested they wouldn't want to, but is there any way you could ask them directly if they would do any more DVDs? They're so valuable to me I'd feel I'd missed an opportunity if I didn't ask again.


Dona: I did ask them again, and they both said they have no plans on doing any more DVDs. 




RICHARD:​​ Now, as the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was in an out-from-control virtual freedom for something like five months – although not named as such back then, of course, nor thought of in those terms – I can readily report how ‘he’ was more empathetic during that period than ‘he’ ever had been in all ‘his’ 34 years of existence. So much so, in fact, that​​ I would be inclined to characterise a near-actual caring as an acutely-empathic caring.
This acutely-empathic characteristic of the near-actual caring which prevails in the out-from-control way of being is, by virtue of not being self-centred/ self-centric, universal in its​​ scope. [...]

I'm curious about empathy and near actual caring. Richard said near actual caring is acutely empathetic... but on the site it's written that empathy does not work because you get too tangled up with the other's feelings to be sensible (something to that effect). Could you ask them to go into more detail about how near actual caring is empathetic and why it works (whereas 'regular' (?) empathy doesn't)? 


Dona: when Richard was out-from-control he experienced empathy to a heightened degree, and saw it as a valuable tool, that assisted him in his movement forward. He could experience that others were caught up in the same human condition he was in, and know the only way was to be free of it. To be of assistance to himself and others was to eliminate the human condition in himself.​​ 

Vineeto found it a valuable tool as well, as prior to that she had blocked herself off from feeling the sorrow and malice of the human condition, and once she allowed herself to be empathic ​​ she was then able to know for sure that she didn't want to be here, and the only way to help them was to get out of it herself... To show others that it is possible. 

The reason he says near actual caring is acutely empathic is that you are getting as close, as a feeling being can, to another. To experience the human condition operating in others.​​ 

Both Richard and​​ Vineeto agree that it is easy to get "tangled up in others feelings" (note: it is almost always not their feelings - it's that they spark the feelings in you, but it often feels like it is theirs), so that might have been just a "warning"... Though we could not find the link to that either... Could you please supply it?


Alan; Dona has done well to relate what was said and I don’t think I can add much. It is the experiencing (feeling?) the human condition in others and knowing the only solution is to end it​​ – in oneself. He felt it like he never had before – hence acutely-empathic. (The spelling and hyphen were the reason we did not find it yesterday)



Yesterday with Q3


​​ Q3: It seems like its trickiest for me to maintain feeling felicitous and innocuous​​ amongst a group of people. Especially in a group where I know others well and I'm expected to socialise e.g. at a party of friends or a family gathering. I seem to easily get swept up in the thrall of good/bad feelings (mostly good, but what goes up must​​ come down) before I know it. It seems to be a combination of vibes, the stoking of feelings/instincts related to nurture or belonging - and also social fears. Any suggestions re: how to tackle this?

Dona: their suggestion is to not aim so high, start with​​ maintaining feeling good... Then work your way towards felicitous and innocuous


Isn't felicitous and innocuous a scale ranging from good to perfect, rather than a specific level of happiness or harmlessness? That's the way I've understood it, so yes the​​ attempt is to feel good in these situations rather than aiming for anything higher before this happens.

Just to put my follow-up question here again. Its more a matter of clarifying a definition. I'm using felicitous and innocuous (happy and harmless) in the sense of a scale ranging from good to perfect. When I'm feeling good, there is no immediately discernible malice or sorrow I can identify. 'Aiming too high' implies that the words 'felicitous and innocuous' refer to a specific and superlative state rather like feeling excellent or experiencing perfection. Is this so?


Alan: We could not ascertain any difference between “scale” and “level” – in the context you have used them. You seem to be implying that felicitous and innocuous (happy and harmless) is a​​ measure of how one is feeling – it isn’t. It is a level on the scale​​ 😊

Richard also suggested that the way to avoid getting “swept up in the thrall of good/bad feelings” is to continue to feel good (commit to it) each moment again. Then you will have feeling good as a ‘bottom line’ and any diminution in feeling excellent will be to feeling good, from where one can easily discover why the diminution occurred. It is something we discussed today in relation to my current experiencing so the last part is what​​ Richard said to me.​​ 



Jordan Peterson said something in a clip that I really liked: (paraphrased): "you can't solve a problem that you haven't grasped, and once you do understand it, the solution is obvious and simple. The solution and understanding happen together". 
I've been doing this lately with sorrow. Trying to keep  sorrow pure, without it turning into grief, or depression is quite a challenge. Without it slipping into anger, or guilt, or even sadness. The funniest thing is just how hard it is to remain with sorrow. I end up feeling good, a soft, comfort starts to grow. It makes me think, "how can I maintain  feeling good, if I can't maintain something more natural (sorrow)?" It's a skill. To be able to discern what a feeling is, is to be able to​​ stay with it and understand. The natural progression is to feel better, simply because the discernment and the understanding lead naturally to the solution.

Because of trying this, when I read the reminder of how the actualism method works, and about working from necessity, I could feel sorrow about the system of exploitation (banks owned by already insanely rich people getting even richer). 
Looking through the pictures of my childhood and the arrival of each of my brothers, I could see that sorrow was growing in me, but turned into anger.

I'm pretty sure this way of sticking with a feeling only works with sorrow. Malice would be too difficult I think.

And it goes back to the discussion on commitment. Id Est: How can you give something up if you haven't even understood it? How can you know, for sure, that you really want actual freedom? Because it's in the words themselves: "freedom" from what?


Dona: Answering your last question first – freedom from the human condition. I gave Richard and Vineeto a brief​​ synopsis of what's going on with you. They 'get' that you're in a lot of sorrow which is a normal part of grieving, though they wonder why you feel that's more "natural" than feeling good?

They said that you cannot ever get the solution to sorrow  until you're out of the human condition! It is impossible. It is the core of the human condition! And, Actual Freedom is the only way out. 

They suggest that in the meantime... don't resist feeling good. 


Alan: Sorrow and malice are equally part of the human condition. As such, both are “too difficult” while a feeling being.​​ 



to keep with my rant on effort, here's an hypothesis: it's easier for "me" to put on the effort to bust my ass working (even though i don't like it) because it relates to "my"​​ desires, ie: the desire of every being: keep existing and reproduce. those are tasks fundamentally related to the way we are biologically and socially programmed. on the other hand, it's a lot harder to put the same amount of effort towards a task which is​​ not aligned with such imperatives. it doesn't make (intuitive) sense and we are intuitive beings by default. unconditional happiness and harmlessness don't do shit for evolution. so this thing could naturally require twice or thrice the effort. therefore,​​ speaking about commitment, maybe we do require something strong like that (although it seems counter-intuitive and artificial) to ground us and redirect us again and again towards making the effort. so it's about having the commitment and then keeping with the integrity needed to stick to it, not in a moral sense, but in a pragmatic one.


Alan: “unconditional happiness and harmlessness don't do shit for evolution."

Au contraire, Felipe. An actual freedom from the human condition​​ is​​ the next step in human evolution. When I viscerally appreciated that that was so, when Richard said it the other day, it was a seminal moment. I reported it in my notes:

The second was when Richard was expounding (in his, as usual, delightful manner) on the survival instinct and​​ that an actual freedom was the next evolutionary step for mankind. Although the survival instinct was absolutely necessary to get all of us to where we are today (and is an extremely powerful instinct), it is not only no longer necessary it is detrimental.​​ WOW – I ‘got it’. ‘I’ am not only no longer required, ‘I’ am – as a fact - a hinderance to evolution and peace on earth for this body, that body and every body.


well, i was coming from the evolution as we commonly know it, which is driven by selfish genes trying to survive and replicate. granted, human intelligence has been an immense​​ leverage to our species, but it hasn't fundamentally touched on the animal brain which comes before it. i'm not arguing that actual freedom could not be possibly the next step in evolution (i agree with that spirit, actually, as we are the main menace to our species); i'm arguing that, according to the current state, it is such a different paradigm that does not align at all with the current understanding of how evolution works or how we feel it in our core. so, it's specially difficult to make it to come about.

Alan: Richard’s view is similar to what I said to you, above. He presumes that your “selfish genes” refers to the book​​ The Selfish Gene written in 1976 by Mr Richard Dawkins, in which he builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's Adaptation and Natural Selection.​​ If his theory were to be correct – that every cell in the human body is governed by a “selfish gene” – the hoary saying “you can’t change human​​ nature” would be factually correct. Richard went ahead and did it anyway – and became free from the human condition.​​ 



The following are Alan’s replies to Martin on Slack. It will be interesting to see whether Richard/Vineeto agree.

MARTIN: Is there a specific factor which allows one to feel good, like an abandonment / letting go for example? Does it require a sacrifice of sorts to feel good?

ALAN: It requires “sacrificing” feeling bad. ‘I’ have a vested interest in continuing to feel bad – reinforcing ‘me’.​​ 

​​ I find as an identity what I fundamentally want is love (perhaps a selfish impulse), and feeling good would require going in a different direction than the biological drive.​​ 

Love is an attempt to bridge separation – it is not “fundamental” – and certainly “selfish”.​​ 

So it needs something else... which is what? Altruism?

It “needs” ‘me’ to agree to stop feeling bad. As has already been stated, altruism (for an actualist) is not a volitional action and is only required/happens at the pivotal moment of becoming actually free. One cannot feel altruistic.

Also, love seems to hold the promise of meaning, whilst feeling good doesn't. I think what I really want is meaning.

Yes, love does “hold the promise of meaning” for the feeling being and it is extremely beneficial to explore love fully. It is however a chimera, hence it is a “promise” – it does not deliver the ‘goods’, which one can only discover if one allows oneself to fully experience love.

There's a sorrow from not having purpose/meaning to life, and that's one thing that prevents me feeling good.

The “sorrow” is because ‘I’ am forever separate from the actual world (aka paradise) and love holds the “promise” of ending that separation. ​​ 

‘I’ prefer to feel bad (sorrow in the current example) which “prevents me feeling good” as it reinforces ‘me’, rather than to feel good which does not do so.

Alan: Richard/Vineeto suggested the following addition to what I wrote to Martin, especially regarding my first reply which, although accurate, might not be​​ of much assistance to someone fairly new to an actual freedom, which I am presuming Martin is. 

The past has already happened, the future is yet to happen. This moment is one’s only moment of being alive so why waste this precious moment (of limited number) feeling bad, when one can choose to feel good. It is well explained on this page – about half way down starting “RICHARD: You say: ‘Richard, I suppose the question that I ask is – what is the most effective way to deconstruct my mumbo jumbo belief system’

Reading this page might also assist





Srid :

Here, people partake in cultural activities involving music and art. I find these things very hard to relate. After having become actually free does one lose interest in these ‘social’ activities? (I can see the aesthetic appreciation will remain, but there is also the tug of emotions and sociality around these themes, which I suspect is what is keeping people hooked).

Will actual freedom make people incline themselves towards say being a computer geek than an outgoing artsy woman?


Dona: Richard and Vineeto were also confused (as I was) as to why you used a female pronoun with "artsy". I assume you knew that Richard​​ made a living (during his first marriage) doing artwork/ pottery and considered himself an artist.

He and Vineeto both stated that whatever talent you had as a feeling being doesn't go away. If you were a musician, painter, writer, or computer geek ...etc.. all those talents would still be there. The way in which you perform your craft might change. For example a musician might start to write/play more happy songs. 


Q6 :

I joined Slack so I could ask a question. I have a question for Richard. Is reincarnation possible at all? Would Richard say reincarnation is "real" but not "actual"? Is it possible for feeling beings to reincarnate, or not at all, it's all a lie? Did Richard have memories of past lives when he was enlightened? Thank you.


Dona: Richard stated that reincarnation is not actual. While Richard was enlightened, he had no memories of "personal/identity" past lives, though he had memories of past reincarnations of "a supreme being"


Alan: Yes, he said that while he was enlightened he experienced that there is reincarnation but only in the sense that the Supreme Being (by whatever name) is continually reincarnated in every body. There is no ‘individual’ reincarnation. Therefore he could not have “memories of past lives”.



Ah okay for e.g. on a scale of heights from 1-10ft, 7ft is a certain level. When you say 'felicitous and innocuous' is not a measure of how one is feeling, but a level on a scale - what level is it and on which scale?


Alan: We have each confused the other lol. ​​ It is happy and​​ harmless which is a ‘point’ on the scale not felicitous and innocuous.

As Richard said in the quote you provided​​ “feeling​​ good/feeling happy/feeling perfect are the felicitous and innocuous feelings”.​​ In your original post you said​​ “It seems like its​​ trickiest for me to maintain feeling felicitous and innocuous amongst a group of people”.​​ So you were saying you were unable to feel good (forget feeling very good, feeling great, feeling excellent or feeling perfect). The solution – apply the actualism method to find out why you stopped feeling good - with the aim of feeling good each moment again.


Here's a question for Richard and Vineeto. Thanks to alan and dona for your service to the community in transmitting these.


Dona: you are welcome, it is helping me very much, so please keep the questions coming.

I'm missing the connection between the commitment to feeling good each moment again for the rest of one's life (on the one hand) and the 100% willingness to self-immolate, which is required for​​ actual freedom to ensue (on the other).
I see how the former leads to dissolution of the social identity and instinctual passions by investigating the assumptions and beliefs that detract from or interfere with feeling good. But this is not a direct connection between feeling good and self-immolation. Is there a more direct connection? If my desire is to be free of the human condition, why commit to feeling good each moment again? I stipulate that it's more pleasurable and just feels better, but why does it​​ lead to self-immolation?
(I feel I'm unable to commit to feeling good each moment again for the rest of my natural life, because in my experience, feeling good is not always in my control. If this is an error, how do I gain the experiential understanding​​ that it is in my control?)


Dona: Richard said there is no connection at all between feeling good each moment again and actual freedom. You can become actually free right now. But... In the meantime, while you're living your life not actually free, why not​​ feel good? As he says, this is your only moment of being alive, why waste it feeling bad?

Vineeto interjected that if you cannot at least commit to something as basic as feeling good, how could you possibly commit to being actually free? 

As far as your last question, they were both wondering (and me too) under whose control is it (feeling good and feeling bad)?


Alan: Nothing much to add. Anyone can become free at this moment. Whoops, I didn’t become free. What shall I do in the meantime, until I become free. Seems pretty silly to feel bad at this only moment I am alive. May as well feel good. Hey presto, my life is way, way better than normal.


Unfortunately their follow-up suggestion - regarding the recognition that this is the only moment I'm alive - doesn't seem to help me feel good. I raised the issue of meaning because I think the difficulty for me partly lies in the overall meaning of life (a yearning / angst /sorrow which doesn't seem to be satisfied by trying to feel good at this moment).
A​​ lot of the things preventing me feeling good seem to be general things like this that are basically ongoing and related to my basic condition, which is why I get confused by Richard framing the method in terms of being triggered by particular events (although often events trigger bad feelings, most of the time there is just a general malaise - as in the sorrow of life / the burden of life, or the absence of purpose/meaning).
They seem to acknowledge this here: "Dona: They said that you cannot ever get the​​ solution to sorrow until you're out of the human condition! It is impossible. It is the core of the human condition! And, Actual Freedom is the only way out."​​ 
Do they have any comments on the above? Thanks very much for relaying the questions, and for your comments and notes!


Dona: similar to the answer to Johnb (above), if you cannot even get to committing to feeling good each moment, how do you expect to find the meaning of life? Only when you are fully actually free (vs basic actually free) do you discover the meaning of life. In the meantime, why not feel good?


Alan: The​​ “sorrow of life / the burden of life, or the absence of purpose/meaning”​​ is caused by ‘me’ being forever locked out of the actual world (aka paradise) – and ‘I’ know it! The same applies to your next post –​​ “I think what I really want (at the core) is meaning / love / purpose”.



so it makes sense that that was part of feeling-being vineeto's blocking herself off, which she had to overcome to become free.


Dona: for clarification it was out-from-control Vineeto that used it as a tool. 

Both Richard and Vineeto say is best to not use empathy in an individual sense (as a tool). As a feeling being it's too easy to get caught up in it. Though, perhaps in a universal sense it could be useful (feeling the pain all of humanity – e.g. watching the news). 


I would suggest adding an addendum or an editor's note at the links above (and maybe other places empathy is mentioned) relating to the value it can have as a tool, as i (and maybe others) got the impression it was just something to be minimized


Alan: As Dona said it is only useful when one is fully out-from-control/in a different way of being, and one can use that ‘acute empathy’ as a tool to experience the plight of the human​​ condition and aid the activation of altruism (my words).​​ 

As such neither Richard nor Vineeto consider it would be helpful to adopt your suggestion.




About the absence of connection between the “commitment to feeling good for the rest of​​ one’s life” and AF…
“Feeling good” is only ‘in the meantime’ (before AF).


Alan: How about feeling good each moment again for the rest of your life? It is not just​​ “only ‘in the meantime’ (before AF).”,​​ it is a way of life so superior to normal as to be unimaginable to a ‘normal’ person.

Do you see that instead of committing to feeling good for the rest of your life you have belittled it to​​ “​​ only​​ in the meantime”​​ [This is my comment, not Richard’s]


But could it not be said that the “Commitment”(to feeling​​ good) trains one to commit to AF, and that the “For the rest of one’s life” part trains one to accept the irrevocability of AF (no return ticket)?


Feeling good each moment again certainly assists in the possibility of becoming actually free. It is one commitment – to feeling good for the rest of one’s life. You have over complicated it.​​ 


So there is no connection in the sense that there is no prerequisite to AF (anyone can become free right now if only that is what one wants), but is the commitment to feeling good not only for ‘the meantime’ but a facilitator to the decision to become AF?


The commitment to an actual freedom from the human condition comes from the experience of the PCE. Those who cannot remember a PCE (and everyone Richard has talked to at length remembers one – or at least a perfection experience) have a sense of “there must be more to life than this”, almost certainly caused by the ‘forgotten’ memory of a PCE.

By using the abbreviation “AF”​​ you are watering it down and turning it into something else. If you write it out fully it makes no sense:


“is the commitment to feeling good not only for ‘the meantime’ but a facilitator to the decision to become actually free from the human condition”.​​ 


Not feeling good each moment again means one will be feeling bad (for some if not most of the time). Feeling bad is part of the human condition. If you can’t even end one part of the human condition (feeling bad) how can you possibly end it in it’s entirety?




What will it take for me to go the​​ rest of the way to af?


Dona: Richard was confused by this question, as it sounds like you think there are steps, or "a way".

Actual freedom from the human condition is a pivotal/decisive moment.

You are either actually free or you are not (full stop). It​​ is not possible to go​​ the rest of the way”.

Since we cannot eliminate ourselves, by ourselves (you cannot pull yourself up with your own bootstraps) he suggests that you set this intention: "I give myself permission to allow it to happen."



Alan:​​ We did not have a great deal of time to discuss questions with Richard and Vineeto so these answers, even more than usual, are much more from my impression.



Ha I’m afraid I’m gonna have to argue on this one.


Alan: No need to be “afraid”. ​​ I’m​​ having fun and discovering more about myself.


Geoffrey: About the absence of connection between the “commitment to feeling good for the rest of one’s life” and AF… “Feeling good” is only ‘in the meantime’ (before AF).

Alan: How about feeling good each moment again for the rest of your life? It is not just ”only​​ ‘in the meantime’ (before AF).“, it is a way of life so superior to normal as to be unimaginable to a ‘normal’ person. Do you see that instead of committing to feeling good for the rest of your life​​ you have belittled it to ” only ‘in the meantime’” [This is my comment, not Richard’s]


Richard pretty much agreed with what I said.​​ 


As one is not ‘feeling good’ when actually free because one is not ‘feeling’ at all, ‘feeling good’ is indeed only in the meantime. This is not “belittling” it.


I was merely pointing out that it is not “only” - which I stressed by putting it in bold. It is worth doing even if one goes no further.


Alan: Feeling good each moment again certainly assists in the possibility of​​ becoming actually free.


This was indeed my question: in which way does it assist (I thought it would) since Richard said “there is no connection at all.”


The better phrasing would have been – there is no direct connection.


Alan: It is one commitment –​​ to feeling good for the rest of one’s life. You have over complicated it.


I might have indeed. Yet the question is in which way is it​​ one​​ commitment (to feeling good​​ and​​ to become actually free, since there is no connection between the two?)


Ah, but I did not say committing to feeling good and committing to becoming actually free is “one commitment”. You split one commitment (to feel good for the rest of one’s life) into two – “feeling good” and “for the rest of one’s life” – and then complicated it further by suggesting each part could train one for different things. You later try to complicate it even further with:

could it be said that the “each moment again” (which I weirdly omitted in my previous question about the connection between this commitment and AF) is a way to train one to experientially assert that it is always now - and consequently a facilitator to the invocation of destiny?


You have now taken one simple phrase – the commitment to feel good each moment again for the rest of one’s life – split it into three parts and are suggesting that each part is used to “train” one in three different things. Can you manage to make it even more complicated?

Richard said over-complication is common and the cause is that people cannot accept that bringing about peace on earth (agreed by most to be the pinnacle of human achievement) can possibly be so simple. So they invent complications. You have excelled – not sure you beat me though lol


Alan: By using the abbreviation “AF” you are watering it down and turning it into something else. If you write it out fully it makes no sense: “is the commitment to feeling good not only for ‘the meantime’ but a facilitator to the decision to become actually free from the human condition”.


Wait what? Writing “AF” instead​​ of “actually free from the human condition” is watering it down?


It is ‘watering it down’ in the sense that it makes it easy to forget that one’s aim is to be free of the human condition. It is ‘reducing it’, making it sort of matter of fact, no big deal​​ – it isn’t, it is a major thing. I wish I could remember exactly what Richard said but that’s the best I can do now. ​​ 


And I don’t see, at all, how this phrase makes no sense.


Alan: Feeling bad is part of the human condition. If you can’t even end one part of the human condition (feeling bad) how can you possibly end it in it’s entirety?


Well I am not suggesting feeling bad lol. But it is gonna happen now and then (less and less) as it is indeed part of the human condition, until one is actually free. Are you sure we are supposed to​​ end​​ “parts” of the human condition? (was this Richard’s wording?)


I did write a better wording on slack last night:

Feeling bad is part of the human condition. If one can't even stop feeling bad, how can one possibly hope to​​ eliminate it in its entirety.​​ 


That post also requires further clarification. One cannot stop (as in eliminate) feeling bad entirely until one eliminates the human condition in oneself in total (i.e. end ‘being’) as it is part of the human condition.​​ Choosing to feel good each moment again means one very seldom ‘feels bad’ but it has not been eliminated – hence the “for 23 hours 59 minutes of the day” or “99% of the time”. For example a few days ago I became irritated when Dona didn’t fulfil my expectation and Dona was angry with me the other night when I woke her.


another question…There is no mention of altruism on the “rapid way” page.​​ 

Here comes an hypothesis which struck me while I was contemplating: Altruism is the use of​​ space​​ (the fulcrum is outside of the earth/ the other body is outside of this one), while the invocation of destiny/now is the use of​​ time… to achieve the same result.​​ 

What does Richard thinks?


The immediate answer was “there is no mention of altruism on many of the pages on the website. ​​ They thought your “hypothesis” was, again, over-complicating things. The “fulcrum” suggestion was by way of a metaphor from Vineeto when she was trying to explain how it requires ‘something’ outside of ‘ourself’ to become actually free – ‘I’ cannot do it as an ’I’ cannot end itself. Altruism comes in only at the pivotal moment of becoming actually free from the human condition as it requires a stronger instinct (doing it for the benefit of this body, that body and every body) to overcome the instinct for ‘self’ survival.​​ 




would you be interested in hosting a Google Hangout :video_camera: (or live online conference of some sort) with us? I​​ know you don’t have good internet :internet_explorer: access; perhaps we could arrange a meeting room :office: in a local coworking space (in Ballina) to facilitate this.



Another query: Is the reason they are not planning any more DVDs to do with​​ the financial aspect? If we donated to cover costs and for their time would they be happy to do any more? Thanks


Alan: They can see no possibility of either their participation in any sort of ‘conference’ or more dvd’s being produced. They cannot do anything to help others become actually free – other than what has already been done.​​ 

Perhaps a bit of background information would be useful here. Earlier this year Dona and I were discussing what we might do for the winter – both to comply with visa requirements and to visit somewhere more clement than the UK in the winter. We had discussed the possibility of going to Australia (Dona gets to add at least four more countries plus another continent to her ‘list’) and I wrote to Vineeto asking if we might meet​​ up occasionally. She agreed and we did meet up. It was not planned to meet up every day and there are no firm plans to meet up again when we get back from our visit to the Great Barrier Reef next week.



It seems like its trickiest for me to maintain feeling felicitous and innocuous amongst a group of people. Especially in a group where I know others well ...

Dona: their suggestion is to not aim so high, start with maintaining feeling good... Then work your way towards felicitous and innocuous ...

Alan:​​ We have each confused the other lol. It is happy and harmless which is a ‘point’ on the scale not felicitous and innocuous ....


Okay Alan, but “happy and harmless” is synonymous with “felicitous and innocuous” and shouldn't be a 'point on a scale' either​​ - anymore than being felicitous and innocuous is a point on a scale. ​​ I understand the general 'don't aim too high .... feel good first' advice though. I agree with that.​​ 


The advice of Richard re: feeling good when I'm with people and then spotting any​​ diminution is good. However I was wondering if he can say anything specifically about feeling good in social gatherings. Perhaps something to do with intimacy in such contexts or vibes perhaps? Those are only my suggestions - but whatever he and Vineeto thinks is relevant.​​ 


Re: avoiding such social gatherings - I'm not very much into doing a lot of socializing these days. Avoiding these gatherings would - in a sense - be trying to seclude myself and not living with people as they are. Shouldn't actualism​​ should be practised in the marketplace amongst people? When I do socialize I am feeling good for the most part - not like I'm having a horrible time. But it does seem to be tricky to maintain that feeling good. I fall prey to good and bad feelings intermittently, for variable periods of time. This is not the case when I'm by myself, in one-one encounters or amongst smaller/more intimate groups. And yes I do try and spot the diminution in feeling good in these settings, but it seems to be trickier. ​​ A clear​​ answer of why I am not feeling good isn't obvious. Often I find there is a lot of 'noise' or 'basketful of feelings' phenomenon going on. I suspect I need to get more clarity here on what is going on for me feelings-wise. Any insights that they have specifically about their feelings amongst groups of people, back when they were feeling beings would be useful.


They took it back to the simple fact – you feel bad at some point in “social gatherings”. All the rest is obfuscating that simple fact. What stopped​​ you feeling good?


Claudiu :

I have a question. When I first visited Richard and Vineeto they talked about a 'common consciousness', experiences where they knew, without having to ask, that the other was generating the same consciousness as them (i.e. a fully free one). But it was a temporary thing, they had only done it a few times. From one of your notes recently it sounds like it has become a permanent thing - is that the case? If so can they go into what it was like, i.e. what led to it becoming permanent. And also curious about any speculations they may have as to what it means, whether newly free people can do it, whether it will help other people become newly free or fully free, etc.


What I wrote may well have given you the wrong impression.

They said nothing has changed from the first time you visited.




I got two questions if you don't mind:

From the DVD video clip:

RICHARD: [...]​​ And then when you get into the habit of it -- it is surprisingly easy to get into the habit of it. I know that the identity all those years ago that used to be inside this body (and i’m talking about 1981) … when he discovered that, he went around telling people that he discovered the secret to life. That’s how brilliant it was -- he walked around in a state​​ of wide-eyed wonder, 23 hours 59 minutes of the day .. he used to say. He figured that this was it, he had arrived and he couldn’t work out why other people hadn’t … and why he hadn’t been doing it for all those years. 

The video clip can be viewed here:​​ VIDEO

1: What made it so surprisingly easy for Richard to get into the habit of it [enjoying and appreciating each moment again] when it's so difficult for most people?
2: What was it he discovered [the secret to life]?



1: He didn't like feeling bad, and liked feeling good. Also the PCE experiences that he remembered spurred him on because he knew what he was looking for.

He mentioned another day that since he was​​ aiming for the actual world that he experienced in his PCEs, he used those "feelings" as his guide. That he would imitate them as closely as he could until he "got there".

2: "the secret to life": this was said by Richard when he was virtually free (out-from-control) and not yet Actually Free. He used it then as a figure of speech. He told us today that he didn't actually find the ‘secret to life’ until he became fully free.



1: Why it is​​ “so difficult for most people”​​ is because of the resentment at being here (see further below).




What is the difference between ‘feeling good’ and ‘enjoying and appreciating’? If they are the same, why is ‘feeling good’ described on the website as a ‘general sense of well-being’ but ‘enjoying and appreciating’ is​​ (understandably) evidently not?


For instance, right now I’m feeling good--and the ambiance is such that there is peace, and not agitation. But I would not say I’m enjoying or appreciating being alive (at the moment). There is a difference.


DONA: both Richard and Vineeto stated emphatically that they are not the same. Feeling good is the "base line", which is somewhat passive.

Enjoying and appreciating is active... Actively endorsing your commitment to being alive.

They spoke about each humans "resentment" to being here, always locked out of paradise. 

Enjoying and appreciating is the first active movement towards taking charge and seeing you are not a victim of your moods.


ALAN:​​ I was incorrect when I said committing to feeling good each moment automatically leads to enjoying and appreciating. It did for me. Richard explained it. When one is feeling good enjoying feeling good, appreciating this moment of being alive ‘cements’ [my word] the experience of feeling good. Craig said it (Richard agreed with your statement Craig, which also answers your question):

Enjoy each moment of being alive, and appreciate each moment that it is this moment of being alive.

The reason why most people have difficulty enjoying and appreciating this moment is the basic resentment of being here – expressed as “I didn’t ask to be born”, “excuse me for taking up space”, “life is a vale of tears” etc. I had already investigated and eliminated this basic resentment so, when I committed to feeling good each moment again (this time) I​​ was enjoying and appreciating being alive straight away and assumed it was “automatic”.



Would richard or vineeto comment on this?  I am experiencing myself as an ongoing assumption of being in a group.  


Dona: Richard could not wrap his head around​​ this statement and didn't want to proceed any further with your comment until this is clarified.

Could you please restate this? Who is the one making the assumption (you or the group)


Where every action is an automatic response to what i want my role to be or how i think others view my role.  
Seeing myself from this vantage point leads me to regard my life as one in a bubble of my own making.  Not accepting the bubble as actual alleviates the stress and helps me see the thin film blocking intimacy and peace.  Yet the bubble remains.
(clarification of the 2nd paragraph)
Seeing the bubble helps me disengage from the automatic responses and see myself as more autonomous and time as more immediate.  But the automatic responses continue.


DONA: Vineeto did respond to this part, though she was also a bit confused as to what you are pointing towards. She sees this as you saying you feel that you are on "automatic response", and wonders why? If you are seeing it, why do you allow yourself to continue to do it?  

Perhaps you would like to rephrase this comment (and they both wondered what your question is... As there didn't seem to be one).

I saw you posted something to clarify this on slack that we didn't see until we left Richard and Vineeto... But perhaps start new... And ask a question (or more than one)


ALAN: Yes, five people spent a little while trying to understand what you meant, particularly the first sentence. Mick thought it implied blaming others and there was general agreement on this. Your posts this (my) afternoon are helpful in explaining what you mean but I think further explanation of what you mean in your first sentence would be helpful.




Oh I have a question! This is something that only occurred to me a few months ago. When reflecting upon​​ the phrase "enjoying and appreciating each moment of being alive" it occurred to me there was another sense of the word appreciate, namely the first and second definition below:

ap·pre·ci·ate  (ə-prē′shē-āt′)
v. ap·pre·ci·at·ed, ap·pre·ci·at·ing, ap·pre·ci·ates.
1. To recognize the quality, significance, or magnitude of: appreciated their freedom.
2. To be fully aware of or sensitive to; realize: I appreciate your problems.
3. To be thankful or show gratitude for: I really appreciate your help.
4. To admire greatly; value.
5. To raise in value or price, especially over time.

So my question is, was that aspect part of what was intended, or was it just the non-affective portion of the 3rd (thankful) and the 4th (to value) definition that was meant?


To clarify my question, I always thought the expression meant "each moment of being alive, enjoy and appreciate"
Whereas a few months ago I began to wonder whether there was intended an aspect of... (to split it into the individual parts) Enjoy each moment of being alive, and appreciate each moment that it is this moment of being alive. If that makes sense?


Dona: your clarification is correct... Perfectly put​​ 😃



​​ A few questions!

DONA: Richard talked about “feeling good” as the third choice (vs​​ feeling good and feeling bad). Also Vineeto pointed out to me that I was in “good feelings” (when sensing the meloncholy) and not feeling good. What I got, and have a sense of now, is that “feeling good” (sense of well being) is “something different”. Richard even said, “it’s too bad that it’s the same word” (feeling).

[EDITORS NOTE] Dona corrected what she put in the parenthesis... It should have been “good feelings and bad feelings” not “”feeling good and feeling bad”.

Could Richard say more about how exactly it is “something different”?


Dona: They are not good or bad feelings as in there is no direct opposite. 

Good feelings: love, compassion, sympathy...

Bad feelings: anger, hate, jealously, greed...

Feeling good: general sense of well being.

What other word would be more appropriate?


Dona: felicitous


Alan: I don’t think they had another word, certainly Richard.​​ 


The identity has a “vested interest” in feeling good and bad feelings because those ‘substantiate’ the identity. Is that correct?


Dona:​​ yes


Alan: No. This caused a bit of discussion between Vineeto and Richard (and us to a lesser extent). I used to think this also so it was great to discuss it today. When feeling being Vineeto was virtually free (the still-in-control variety) - feeling good each moment again – the identity occasionally sought a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ feeling in an attempt to ‘verify’ [my word] itself. That is the only way in which it could be said that feelings might be used to “substantiate the identity”.

Feeling good’ being​​ a “third choice” is also something the identity does, so how is it that consistently feeling good ends up making the identity “insubstantial”? Or is it the examination of beliefs necessary to maintain feeling good that renders the identity insubstantial (and not feeling good per se)?

Richard: Bits and pieces of the identity are falling off as you rewire – as you see through various beliefs. As they disappear, that is a part of your identity going. Large chunks can fall off until you get to the stage, as​​ (Q) says; ’I am getting very, very thin. ‘I’ am insubstantial’.​​


Dona: it is​​ the investigations of beliefs that he is referring to. 

(Dona's side note: I have realized the value in first feeling good before investigating the cause of why I was feeling bad... So, there in that, feeling good can lead to rendering the social identity​​ insubstantial...BUT. (and this is a big BUT)... Only if you do investigate it. Often it is easy to forget that once we're feeling good 🙂


Alan: It is very important to appreciate that any “whittling away” is only of the social identity. ‘Me’ as ‘being’ cannot be whittled away or reduced – ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are me.​​ 

Is this the ‘indirect’ connection between the commitment to feeling good and actual freedom: that this commitment to be honoured requires the examination of beliefs, that this​​ examination constitutes a ‘whittling away’ at the identity, and that this ‘whittling away’, making the identity ‘insubstantial’, opens the possibility of self-immolation?


Dona: Richard got what you're saying, but still says that you feel good because it feels good. There is no connection (direct or indirect) with feeling good and becoming Actually Free.

 Whittling away at beliefs does make the social identity "smaller", but does NOT get rid of (or lessen) feelings. It might eliminate some of the "triggers", but not the feelings themselves.

Only becoming Actually Free does that.


Alan: LOL. They both thought you are still trying to over complicate things. Instead of a direct connection you are now trying to find an indirect connection. There is no connection​​ – direct or indirect. As has been reported above it is the ‘social identity’ which can be rendered less substantial, by the investigation and elimination of (mainly) beliefs and especially any ‘Truths’.


As you can see by our replies your questions led to​​ a lot of discussion and there is still some uncertainty between Dona and I, so the subject will be ‘back on the table’ tomorrow. Keep them coming!


NOTE The above illustrates how important the ‘warning’ at the top of the page is. Please, no one take these​​ reports as being verbatim. I recall Richard saying at one point we would be doing well to remember 10% of what was discussed. He may have been overly optimistic!



I want to know 1) if my experience of the self as described is apt? 2) what​​ considerations may allow me to pop that bubble?
 my automatic responses don't have anything to do with not listening or not wanting anyone to know my ignorance.
My automatic responses are me imagining and/or assuming myself a part of this or that group.  An example is walking past someone and feeling an uncertainty as to what I'm expected to do.  Should i greet them and how so? Or should i ignore them?  Another example is when i consider a particular issue.  Even before i consider the issue, i assume a role​​ i want to play.  And when considering it, i try out the role in my imagination. Often it's in super subtle ways that can easily go unnoticed.  Examples of the roles i play include the voice of reason, nice guy, leader, hero...   And this is ubiquitous for​​ me.  I am always figuring out and trying out a role.
I have begun coaching myself on being "roleless" and allowing myself to freely enjoy this moment.

 Maybe my question is just how deep are these automatic assumptions.  I think that even if i were on a deserted island i would still have these automatic responses i described and clarified above.  I think that even if i were raised by wolves, i would have them.  I think that it's innate and not conditioned.   I will continue to recognize the automatic responses and correct them as they come up in the way i already described.  I'm pleased with the process.  If i choose to pose the question later, I'll have to think of a concise question whose answer would give me some insight.  Tx anyway dona and alan.  Really i was hoping my post would ring a bell and spark a conversation that you would then relate in your notes.  Because, unless it rang a bell i knew it would be confusing and not worth the effort.  I should have framed the issue better.


Dona: based on your​​ description above both Richard and Vineeto said you are talking about the social identity. It is not innate, it is taught to us by our parents, extended family, friends, society and developed by ourselves. Every society has different "rules". If you were born in a different part of the world you would have different "automatic assumptions/reactions" to situations.


 (Dona's side note: i recall someone on the list mentioning that in India it would be an insult to thank a friend/relative for doing something​​ for you, whereas in the US it would be an insult not to. 

Alan and I are finding that out just between the US and the UK. For example in the US it's rude to eat with your knife, yet it's normal/expected to do so in the UK.)


Alan: There was a similar response as previous. If you can see you are having these “automatic assumptions” you can choose whether to have them or not. They are not ‘hard wired’, nor are the instinctual passions – two living proofs of which we are at present talking to every day.


In the spirit of becoming vitally interested in the actual world, i pose the following.  How can the actual world become even more still?  Peter mentioned this happening last time i was there.  And one of you related Vineeto saying something similar.  Do you recall writing or should i look for it?  
As i understand, stillness is simply the lack of temporal movement.  It is always now.  Time doesn't move.  Given that time has never and will never move in the actual world, how can the actual world become even more​​ still?


Found it:​​ 

Alan: At one stage there was a ‘shift’ (change) in the ‘atmosphere’. Vineeto asked if I had noticed that it had become more still. I could but I am not sure if Richard or Dona did. She suggested a ‘resistance’ had gone in one or​​ both of us. I certainly (and I think Dona also) definitely came closer to the actual world which is what she was sensing I think.


Dona: Vineeto was referring to Alan and I (feeling beings), as she noticed a "stillness in us" (lack of a lot of mental activity).

Richard and Vineeto said that the stillness in the actual world is constant.  Though they do notice if events change, for example, the river might get calmer and they will notice it being stiller. 


Alan: Yes, the actual world cannot become more still let alone “even more still”. Changes in the physical ambience may be noticed – events changing in time.​​ 

I was particularly interested in how Vineeto noticed a change in the ‘atmosphere’. As Dona said, - one or both of us had become “more still”. As she​​ is incapable of detecting any psychic changes she suggested it might be a change in the electromagnetic field. Please note - this is only speculation. When sufficient people become actually free there might be some who are interested in investigating and discovering whether such a ‘sense’ can be ‘explained’.



Alan: ​​ A bit of clarification from yesterday’s answers.

As well as the social identity the ego can also be ‘whittled down’.​​ 


Ask them if self immolation is the same conscious action as​​ choosing to feel good after falling below one's baseline?

Alan: No. The motivation for self immolation is altruism. Richard wondered if you have used altruism to get to feeling good?



All these clarifications and the conversations are helping me(or 'me' ?) a lot .. Thanks a lot for this generous initiative and as per Actualist paradigm, I'd be silly not to take this opportunity to ask a few questions !
Here are a few of my questions. Would be great to get some clarifications :
1). Richard clarified that there are no prerequisites as such to becoming actually free, but I recollect something from Richard "Naiveté is a necessary precursor to invoke the condition of innocence". ...hence my confusion here - on one hand it appears there is a prerequisite and​​ on the other none !


Alan: It was again emphasised that there are no prerequisites to becoming actually free. Anyone (with obvious exceptions) can become actually free at anytime. What one does in the meantime is to ‘imitate’ an actual freedom as much as​​ possible including feeling good each moment again and fostering naïveté. Such actions may well facilitate becoming actually free but they are not necessary.


Dona:​​ Richard and Vineeto both said that you're jumping the gun. Have you committed to feeling good this moment and each moment again for the rest of your life? If you cannot do that, then don't be concerned about needing a prerequisite to actual freedom.

And naivete is the condition of innocence. Where in there did he say it was a prerequisite to becoming actually free?


Vineeto subsequently pointed out that naiveté can be experienced by feeling beings, innocence is only possible when you are actually free.

2). Richard spoke about focusing on thrill to go past fear while on another occasion, he said something like he just sat down with fear for 3 days , without doing anything at all and let fear wear itself out, so there seems to be 2 different strategies for tackling fears - using thrill or just sit it out - Is it like there are different kinds of fear for which these strategies are suggested?


Dona: to clarify, it was a panic attack. His three day ordeal was not a strategy. He did go into the thrilling aspect, then the fear came up again, and he did it many times (he was quite animated when he was telling us the story!) until all he could do was put his hands in his pockets and whistle a tune until it subsided on its own. That was the last time he ever had a panic attack.


Alan: It would be helpful if you (or anyone) would provide actual quotes with a​​ link to the webpages. Richard thought you were referring to what he said about a panic attack. I have searched for it on the actual freedom website and I think this might be what he was thinking about which is in the Direct Route Mailout, written by Vineeto:

VINEETO:​​ Richard has described one of those panic attacks during his own out-from-control period as experiencing himself as if ‘sitting on a huge mountain of dread with his hands in his pocket whistling a tune’


Or it could have been this passage from my conversation with him:


RICHARD:​​ Dread ... yes. Existential angst, I called it. A terrible sense of foreboding ... however, just like the panic attacks, nothing untoward happens. There is just dread. I once sat with dread for three days and nights until it wore itself out ... it packed its bags and went out the door – presumably to find a more susceptible host – never to return again.


I think they are talking about the same experience.​​ 


3). Richard has clarified about what innocuous and felicitous feelings are : "the felicitous feelings are those that are of a happy and carefree (blithesome feelings of​​ great​​ delight and enjoyment) nature; the innocuous feelings are those that are of a harmless and congenial (gracious feelings of ingenuous​​ tranquillity​​ and affability) nature."

My question is : Since felicitous feelings are of​​ great​​ delight, this means there is a more energetic component to it and since innocuous feelings are of​​ tranquil​​ nature, so it seems​​ to have a less energetic component to it, so how could one be feeling more energetic(felicitous) and less energetic(innocuous) at the same time ?

Dona: It is almost impossible to feel one without the other. If you are felicitous, you are​​ innocuous (and vice versa). 

Alan: like others you are over-complicating things and probably ‘aiming too high’. Start with feeling good each moment again. You are attempting to differentiate between two feelings which cannot be separated. One cannot be happy without being harmless and one cannot be harmless without also being happy.​​ 


Dona: Whittling away at beliefs does make the social identity “smaller”, but does NOT get rid of (or lessen) feelings. It might eliminate some of the “triggers”, but​​ not the feelings themselves. Only becoming Actually Free does that.


Nice, I can see that. Like Q11 reports above there are a bunch of social identify beliefs around the feeling of love--leading to things like pining---and one can work towards getting rid​​ of (or lessen) them like I have predominantly done with love--but the feeling of love​​ itself​​ is not necessarily gone while still being an identity because the feeling and the identity is one and the same thing.


Dona: this was a great question, as a long discussion arose regarding the "diminishing" of feelings, such as love. 

First of all, pining is not a belief (social identity or ego), it is a feeling that goes along with love, part of the whole package.

Vineeto spoke of  her experience of experiencing (romantic) love and removing it from her life, she had to see the whole picture, the whole "fairy-tale" that went along with it... Both the good and the bad feelings... The whole thing. Once that was experienced fully, she no longer had to walk down that road again. Though (romantic) love still existed within her, she no longer experienced any aspects of it. 

Though, she still then had to fully experience other types of love... Parents, family... Etc.


John CM:

Are there two types of an actual freedom; a basic one and a full one? If that's the case what is the difference?

Martin replied with a quote: 

RICHARD: Upon a full actual freedom from the human condition (a.k.a.: a meaning-of-life freedom.), where one is that very benevolence and benignity personified,​​ it is part-and-parcel of being aware/ of being conscious; with a basic actual freedom (a.k.a.: a peace-on-earth freedom.)– such as my first 30+ months and Vineeto’s first 9+ months – there is that awareness/ that consciousness, of literally being benevolence and benignity, on occasion.

It's a good question to explore further though, particularly as he previously wrote to Tarin that there is no freedom other than with pure intent, and there may be other differences between the two types than the one above.


Dona: the quote from Richard that Martin posted is still accurate. 


Alan: Tarin said​​ he had eliminated pure intent or it was extinct (something of that ilk) hence Richard’s post to him.



Tx for re-asking my question.   reading their answers got me thinking.  The correct question i should have posed was:  does the psyche instinctually​​ form groups to be a part of?  Would a human child raised since infancy on a deserted island by robots still form groups to belong to?


Dona: another opportunity for a long discussion came with this.

Bottomline:  If there is no group to form then that instinct would not be activated/needed.

Alan: Richard was intrigued to know what ‘group’ would be formed with two robots? We are born with two instincts – self survival (selfism) and group survival (altruism). Gregariousness (the ‘herd’ instinct) is also part of the instincts. If there is no group to belong to we cannot create one.


Alan: It is very important to appreciate that any “whittling away” is only of the social identity. ‘Me’ as ‘being’ cannot be whittled away or reduced – ‘I’ am my feelings and​​ my feelings are me."


Is it possible to get a clarification on this one, because the website frequently says to minimise the 'good' and 'bad' feelings as part of the method ("lessen their grip and reduce both the prevalence and duration of them")?
The​​ answer might be implied in a following Q&A:

Dona: [...] Whittling away at beliefs does make the social identity "smaller", but does NOT get rid of (or lessen) feelings. It might eliminate some of the "triggers", but not the feelings themselves.
Only becoming Actually Free does that."

So when they said "‘Me’ as ‘being’ cannot be whittled away or reduced" are they referring to the​​ potential​​ for feelings, which may not currently be active and thus lying dormant (if one is successfully minimising them)? After​​ all, not all feelings are active at one time.


Dona: yes, you've got it 


John CM:


RICHARD: "please be assured that not only will there be a ‘bloodless revolution’ (i.e., non-destructive) but it will be a non-disruptive transition as well – e.g., no food-shortages or fuel-shortages; trains, coaches, planes, ships, and so on, still operating, no loss of creature-comforts, &c., &c. – when the global spread of actual freedom/ actualism eventually takes place"

Will be? This statement seem quite "prophetic"​​ to me, and therefore looks like a mere "belief". How can anyone know for a "fact" that anything at all will come of actualism on a grander scale. At this point in time I can't see any signs of it. I'm not sure how to swallow a statement as speculative as this actually seems to be. 

since he ends  with saying that "when the global spread of actual freedom/ actualism eventually takes place". I can't see this for being anything else than "prophesizing". Perhaps ask Richard what he meant here?


Dona: if you have experienced a pure consciousness experience ( PCE), then you would have seen the inevitability of this happening... It is self-evident.


Alan: Richard and I had great fun getting to the bottom of this one. It becomes very clear if one reads the quote in​​ its full context. Vis:


RICHARD: A rule-of-the-thumb check as to whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is of the quality of the consummate nature inherent to pure intent, as reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site,​​ is by having the capacity at-that-moment to experientially ascertain, thereby, the verity of (for example) the following postscriptum.


• [Richard]: (...). P.S.: Also, briefly, in regards to your ‘armed rebellion’ observations: please be assured that not only will there be a ‘bloodless revolution’ (i.e., non-destructive) but it will be a non-disruptive transition as well – e.g., no food-shortages or fuel-shortages; trains, coaches, planes, ships, and so on, still operating, no loss of creature-comforts, &c., &c. – when the global spread of actual freedom/ actualism eventually takes place’. ~ (Message № 19801).

In other words, it is the consummate nature (i.e., the impeccable quality) of the overarching benevolence and benignity inherent to the utter purity of the pristine perfection welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude which informs, experientially, that a global spread of this completely original consciousness (a totally new way of being conscious) would, ipso facto, be both a non-destructive and non-disruptive transition.

Furthermore, there would also be the capacity at-that-moment to similarly apprehend, experientially, how it can now be said – as I happened to mention on a couple of occasions during the pre-arranged foregathering here, earlier this year, of half-a-dozen subscribers to this forum – that due to the overarching benevolence and benignity being demonstrably available immanently in human consciousness, nowadays both​​ masculinely and femininely, and thus potentially accessible per favour naïveté regardless of spatial extension, there is no longer any reason why there cannot be a global spread of the already always existing peace-on-earth in our lifetimes. (More on this​​ in those Footnotes № 5 and № 6).


Alan: We finally settled on – when one has that​​ “active connection” it is seen as ‘inevitable’, when such connection is lacking it is seen as a prophecy.​​ 



Another question: How to reconcile choosing to feel good with knowing the human condition sucks. Do have to pretend to like the human condition / being here?


Dona: Are you asking if you would like (or pretend to like) the human condition? No one is saying that. What Richard is saying is to feel good "despite" the human condition. When you can do that, you will see that you can take charge of​​ your life, that you aren't stuck in your feelings. 

He also quoted something he's said before "can I emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable". Meaning... Yes, there is injustice in the world, and I can do nothing about it, so what is feeling bad about it going to do? Nothing. So why not do what I can do for myself... And the best thing for me is to feel good.... it feels good to feel good. 




Hello! It has been a while since I've posted but maybe someone can help me with this​​ question I've been thinking about lately. With everything settled in my life I've come back to reflecting on self immolation. Just today the full import of psychologically and psychically self immolating hit home. And now it causes me to feel a deep fear and loneliness and there's an urge to want to pull back and just live a second rate life (which I know I can't now). My question though is why is it that now it is possible to self immolate without having a PCE? And also why is it that now it is safer to do​​ so than before? I remember reading about this somewhere on the website. This deep fear that I feel brings about thoughts of going crazy or insane (as in end up in a psych ward and unable to function) if I were to do it and that is one of the major thoughts holding me back. I appreciate any link or explanation. Thanks!

Craig: perhaps you were thinking of the suggestion that it's possible to access pure intent without a PCE?

Yes sorry this is what I was thinking of. But if pure intent is accessible without a​​ PCE then wouldn't it amount to the same thing? (Idk if i replied correctly in this)


Dona: there was a woman who came to visit Richard who could not remember a PCE, and she became actually free. That is why Richard said that someone can become actually free without first having a PCE.​​ 

Though Vineeto "warns" that it is important to remember a PCE (chances are you've had one, and it's not accessible in your memory, because PCEs ​​ are non-affective and it seems are stored in a different part of the brain). This way you know where you're aiming for, you get the "flavor" of the experience.​​ 

Q13, I suggest (Dona speaking) that you get back to feeling good and investigate your fears and loneliness. Commit to feeling good each moment, again, for the rest of your life and keep looking at whatever comes up to stop you from that (feeling good).​​ 


Alan: The only reason we could think of for why you have the impression it is “more safe” is that the “Direct Route” has been shown to be possible and it is no longer​​ necessary to go ​​ through the delusion of enlightenment (insanity) to achieve an actual freedom from the human condition.

The feelings of fear and thoughts of going crazy or insane are not at all unusual and are the survival instinct (selfism) in operation.​​ ‘I’ will do anything (literally) to continue ‘my’ survival, which is why the stronger instinct for group survival (altruism) is necessary for self-immolation



My 'issues' with Richard's claims have mainly been about what he considers the universe to​​ be. For example, he says the universe is a friendly place, but then why the hurricanes?

Yea Q4, my only hope of sorts in this regard is that Richard is talking about friendliness in a specific sense - which I cannot see yet. He is pretty clear that the physical world cannot ever be perfect in the sense that nothing bad would ever happen. I just hope I get one shroom from somewhere n get my brain rebooted to see what he means


Dona: Richard most often uses benevolence and benignity...

Here is how he defines​​ these words:​​ 

Inherent to such perfection, such purity, are the values (properties plus qualities equals values) of benignity – ‘of a thing: favourable, propitious, salutary’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and benevolence (as in being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous, and so on)


Isn't considering the universe friendly also an anthropomorphic projection ?

I really have no issues with the universe being a marvellous, amazing n wondrous place (I only had a mini-glimpse of this 2 days back) but my issue is with the usage of the word friendliness - when it comes to malevolence, harmfulness​​ or malice, it is being anthropomorphic but when it comes to friendliness, then it’s not..Wouldn't it make more sense to consider the universe to be a neutral place - I mean isn't innocence about neutrality than friendliness/hostility ?


Dona: Richard does​​ not consider the universe neutral... It is dynamic and in constant motion.


Alan: Richard recalls discussing this with you several years ago. Perhaps you have kept a record of the conversation? He has used the word “friendly” in the same sense as benevolent and beneficent.​​ 


Hmm..If Pure Intent is about friendliness, then how do you explain hurricanes, cancers, specie extinction and ultimately life obliterating on earth when the sun explodes ?

My question is an intellectual one - If one is in a PCE and is​​ getting ripped of by a hurricane or the sun is gobbling one up - what is friendly about Pure Intent or the universe here ?

This is why I'm considering that Richard means friendliness in a specific sense which I've not grasped yet.


Dona: yes, the specific​​ way is defined above, as benevolence.


Alan: An important qualification is “intrinsically” - or “ultimately” or “inherently”. The universe has no interest in an individual life - you or me or anyone. Your comments seem more to me (Alan) as more relating to​​ a Creator (God by whatever name) – as in how can a benevolent God destroy his creations.​​ 



Can you ask Richard about this:

From the AFT front page:

One can become virtually free from all the insidious feelings – the emotions and passions and​​ calentures – which fuel the mind and give credence to all the illusions and delusions and fantasies and hallucinations which masquerade as visions of The​​ Truth. One can become virtually free of all that which has encumbered humans with misery and despair and live in a state of virtual freedom … which is beyond ‘normal’ human expectations anyway.​​ Then, and only then, can the day of destiny dawn wherein one becomes actually free. One will have obtained release from one’s fate and achieved one’s birthright … and the world will be all the better for it. [Emphasis added]

Does he mean a virtual freedom is required before one can self-immolate?


Dona: no, there is no pre-requisite to becoming actually free from the human condition.

Though, while you are waiting to​​ become actually free, why not live it as closely as humanly possible? That is virtual freedom.​​ 



I resist because i don't think I can be happy without validation. ​​ And one needs to earn validation. Yet i also resent needing to earn it.


Dona: I asked Richard if the need for validation was inherent (instinct), and he said he didn't think so, it seems to be a "psychological need"... The good news there is that it can be eliminated now.​​ 

He said the "need for validation" comes from us "knowing" we are a fake/fraud and we need others "validation" ​​ to prove we aren't (though deep down inside we don't believe them anyway).


Can you ask them about the role of pure intent in the final moment? ​​ Craig was mostly aware of himself as a barrier and then that barrier​​ disappeared.


Dona: IDK if Craig utilized pure intent.


​​ Grace was told to aim for Richard. Can you ask him to explain that aiming for richard?​​ 


Dona: Richard said he used the analogy of golfing, and said that when you're "teeing off" you cannot see the hole, but there's a pole with a flag on it to aim for. For her to think of him as that pole/flag and aim there.


Alan: It was to aim for where Richard is.


​​ Vineeto gathered up pure intent and tried to dust away the remaining "cobwebs" and cautiousness. ​​ What is that process? ​​ 


Dona: out-from-control Vineeto did this (emphasis on out-from-control/in a different way of being.)


And was she focused on self immolation the moment it happened because i gathered she wasn't?​​ 


Dona: she was always focused on that,​​ yet at that moment it wasn't her primary focus. She was enjoying a great time with Richard and Peter.


​​ It seems there is no one way in which it happens. ​​ Maybe you can go over the various ways in which it happened. ​​ What were they focused on the very moment it happened?


Dona: I assume you know Richard's story. Only Richard and Vineeto were there to give their stories.

Richard has told us stories about Pamela and you've read Peter's, and the woman who came in to visit, but he only knows his side, not what​​ they were focusing on.

It does seem like everyone has a different way.


Alan: The one thing common to all of the people becoming actually free was that it required something outside of ‘themselves’. Vineeto previously gave the analogy of a ‘fulcrum’ and a​​ ‘lever’ which I posted. Altruism.



Have you discussed pure intent much while you've been there? Have you been able to get a sense of what it means experientially?


Dona: it is something that is experienced in a PCE... The benignity and benevolence​​ of the universe. It is a "phrase" that feeling-being Richard came up with to use as his "guide" to his goal of actual freedom from the human condition.


Alan: I am fairly (not 100%) certain that I have experienced it previously. One particular occasion was​​ last year when I was close to becoming actually free – only for ‘me’ to resume the controls In a big way and turn it into an actually free mimicking ASC.



Could you ask Richard and Vineeto if they are set on Q11’s ‘precious’ to indeed be​​ the last copy of the “final print-run” of Richard’s Journal? 
Yes, I’m still talking about Craig’s proposal of a ‘deluxe’ hardcover print. 
With some print-on-demand service like Lulu it wouldn’t cost them a dime, and might even make them​​ some​​ money. I’d buy one.


Dona: They are open to the possibility, If someone is willing to do the research on it and report back... They will consider it. 


 Alan: ​​ The money they make from selling the (small number) of e-books on the website helps to cover the costs associated with running and maintaining the website, so there is a concern that selling a hardback book at reduced income would impact that income. Perhaps someone can ascertain what the income from such a hard-backed book would be. Vineeto said she did not wish to be involved in the production and sales – she is currently responsible for the website and any sales therefrom. Any decision would be up to the directors of the Actual Freedom Trust.​​ 


‘Abandoning humanity’ is a big thing. It’s apparently ‘my’ major objection these days. “I have to go down with the ship! or else I’m a rat”. 
What identity wants to be the rat, and not the honourable captain/sailor? 
‘I’ am so much into tragedy.


Dona: Richard and Vineeto had 2 different experiences of this. Richard had​​ these thoughts, and then realized that there was nothing he could do to help humanity if he went down with the ship.

Vineeto said she didn't have this thought. In her experience she couldn't see why if someone experienced the malice and sorrow of the human​​ condition, and then experienced a PCE, they would know that their only option was to self-immolate.


Alan: I mentioned what feeling being Vineeto said on the Out From Control DVD about being responsible for humanity and then realising it was selfish to stay – there is no rat deserting the sinking ship. Dona made a remark which had us all laughing – humanity has already sunk!


Continued on Slack​​ HERE



If death is oblivion​​ then suicide ends your suffering?

Richard: The oblivion/ extinction of ‘being’ at physical death is entirely without benefit in regards peace-on-earth whereas the oblivion/ extinction of ‘being’ at this moment in time is entirely beneficial to the host body and of a facilitatory benefit to all other bodies


Dona: Richard and Vineeto said the same thing as was quoted (above) ... Suicide would not help anyone. Self-immolation while the body is still alive could possibly benefit many.

Alan: And benefit this body. Suicide is the extreme example of the harm ‘I’ am prepared to do – manipulate the body to end its life to end ‘my’ suffering.



Please ask Richard about his opinion on what benefit (if any) being an artist gave to his journey. Which medium (sketches, painting, pottery/sculpture) did he find was most conducive to "letting the art do itself". Did he continue to create art at all?


Dona: He said he wouldn't be where he is now if it weren't for his artwork. When the painting started to paint itself (and​​ later that happened with his ceramics), that inspired him to want to live his life that way (letting life live itself).

He preferred drawing/painting, but found it was difficult to make any money with those, so he did pottery to earn money.

 He stopped all his artwork when he became enlightened, though he did paint a few times when he was with Devika because she asked him to. 


Alan: He confirmed he could still turn to pottery if he wanted to earn some money. He also pointed out that these posts on slack would not be happening had it not been for his experience of the painting doing itself.



Vineeto can still imagine? Can you go into more detail? I thought imagination was an affective thing


RICHARD: The disappearance of imagination itself,​​ however, at the moment of becoming (newly) free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof does seem to be species-specific, not idiosyncratic, and thus a feature of the affective faculty/its epiphenomenal psychic facility; indeed, the extinction of the entire psyche is the hallmark of an actual freedom from the human condition and, as the difference between imagination and hallucination is a difference of degree, and not of kind, it would be indicative of not being actually free if it did​​ not disappear, totally, completely and utterly.

RICHARD: No, I would not call a non-affective​​ conceptualising imagination ... although there are many who do confuse conceptualising with imagining.


Dona: I posted this correction on slack:​​ Richard made a distinction between: picturing in his minds eye, imagining something (that isn't actual), and believing something. He lost the ability to picture in his minds eye while he was enlightened,  Vineeto can still do that. When they became actually free he and Vineeto lost the ability to imagine anything which isn't actual (making something up), and also believing something.


Alan: ​​ Yes we both got it wrong.​​ 


I'm interested​​ in Vineeto's experience of work as a meaning of life free person. (I assume she is doing some work from a comment in the notes, I may be wrong). Does the experience of the sensations dull at all? As in, there is presumably a preference not to be working, so like Richards "toast analogy" (warm toast with hot melting butter is preferable to cold toast with congealed butter), is there a difference between not being at work and being at work? (Aside from the obvious location etc).

Dona: no, work does not dull her sensations. 

She enjoys the work she does, and there is a preference not to work, but she attributes that to being close to retirement. 

Other than they are different activities, she doesn't see any difference with working and not working (BTW she works​​ from home, so being at work is the same place as not being at work)

I asked her if there was a difference from working now and working before she became actually free. She said yes... That before, though it was for money, she also did it for a sense of self-worth and validation and expectation.

Now she works because it's a fact of life, she needs the money.


Alan: She stressed that becoming actually free did not mean people would want to stop working. She works now partly because she enjoys it and partly for money and she is “winding down” to retirement in a couple of years.​​ 



Recently I discussed framing my understanding of my experience in terms of a movie film (old school reel to reel), with each frame being it's own distinct experience, rather than​​ being the product of multiple experiences "stacked" on top of each other. The question is about the terminology of psychiatry/psychology being the default in the discussions about actual freedom, rather than being unique to the discovery of actualism. For​​ example, we use the terms "repression", "disassociate", "delving deep into the psyche", etc which are all psycho-analysis terms. They seem to be at odds with (what I call) Richards simple method (feeling good, noticed not feeling good, get back to feeling​​ good, and work out the event that happened to end feeling good).
There seems to me to be more merit in a new and radical way of describing the psyche, rather than relying on terms invented and popularised by psycho-analysis .
More of a discussion point, and statement I guess. It seems odd though that the first page of the AFT says that it's new and surpasses psychology and psychiatry (among other things), yet much of the discussion is still coached in terms and thus the understanding of the psyche created by Freud et al.


Dona: Richard wants to use as many terms as possible that are understood by most people. Yes, he's used words that could be seen as "psychological", yet the premise of actual freedom from the human condition is far removed from any psychological teaching. 

Of course people will read into anything what they want to, no matter how carefully something is written.


Alan: Vineeto thought you are reading what is written on the website using your old terms of reference (not her phrase). It requires​​ a new way of looking at things, a new paradigm. An actual freedom from the human condition is something completely new in human history and therefore requires a new way of looking at it.

Richard said he was no expert on psychology/psychiatry and had read​​ little. He has not written with psychological reference except occasionally e.g. the difference between suppressing and repressing.​​ 



What does it mean to let the moment live you. Vineeto asked a similar thing in OFC video that 'but still I have to do​​ something, otherwise everyone would automatically be actually free'.

This was asked in the context of there being no control already - that things happen of their own accord anyway, so might as well let go of control n let the moment live you.

For instance if I'm walking down the street n my eyes wander off to stare at a beautiful woman, it would mean that I should let that happen because thats the moment living me

Of course it is sensible not to stare, so I don't lol


Dona: see the answer to the question​​ above on his artwork... The painting painting itself. That is how he wanted to live his life. It is the opposite of "live in the moment", as that focus is on the ”self" being in control of it. Letting the moment live me, takes "me" out of the picture (which is the aim of actual freedom).


Alan: Letting your “eyes wander off to stare at a beautiful woman” is not allowing this moment to live me.​​ 



I’m finding that my need for social company is greatly diminishing (in everyday preferences as to how I want to spend my time) - yet it has not gone away totally, for deep down I do harbour a fear of being ‘left behind’ (eg: getting sick and dying alone instead of being helped by others).
How do the experienced (years lived > 50) people here relate to this?


Dona: Richard and Vineeto (being experienced people) said they don't think about it at all, though they don't live alone... Which got us into a discussion about autonomous. 

It does not mean to live alone, or not engage in social activities. 

Far from it. He​​ uses the word to mean that once you are actually free from the human condition you no longer need another person for your "wants and needs"... As there are no "wants and needs" anymore. 

He has often said that if a man and a woman cannot live together in​​ peace and harmony 24 hours a day there is no chance of peace on Earth.


I, Dona, had a question about addictions and if someone in the actual world would have them.


Richard and Vineeto both have "habitual actions" and preferences (like coffee and​​ tobacco), but they are not done for psychological "needs/wants", it's a matter of preferences. At one time Richard had a bad reaction to coffee and he immediately stopped it without any problems. Vineeto said that she's had headaches for a day or so when stopping caffeine/coffee, but that's the body's reaction.


Alan: Habits are often categorised as ‘addictions’ and most ‘addictions’ are psychological.




BTW just out of curiosity : Can Peter form images in his mind's eye now ?


Dona: Vineeto was​​ not there today, but Richard was pretty sure Peter was still able to do that.



Richard has mentioned plans to write fiction: "For instance: having successfully established a co-authorship agreement, with a (currently nameless) convivialist, for my first foray into fiction-writing, the novel I initially signalled four years ago will indubitably set a new standard for classic literature: an unabashed and uninhibited exposition of both male and female sexuality and intimacy."​​​​ 

Being creative is probably a better word than imagination...?​​ 


Dona: yes, Richard was going to write a non-fiction novel, but he needed a co-author, who was a feeling​​ being, who could add the affective content to the story. He said he had the plot, but needed some "drama" in it (my words), and he could not do that part.​​ 

I suggested that he was still able to be creative. He said, "Yes, very creative."​​ 

The conversation​​ about "imagination" referred to imagining something and then believing it, like witches and elves, and god ...etc. which neither he nor Vineeto can do.


Alan: For some reason it does seem difficult for us feeling beings to imagine being without the ability​​ to imagine lol. Perhaps this quote from Richard explains it best.


RESPONDENT: (I suppose I am asking whether conceptualising is actual or just a feature of the identity).

RICHARD: I can intellectually conceptualise (formulate, configure, theorise, and so​​ on) – as in 2+2=4, for instance, or ‘if this, then that’, for another – as it is the intuitive/imaginative conceptualising (visualising, idealising, romanticising, fantasising, and so on), which is a feature of identity.



Geoffrey [replying to a question on slack -​​ Link]:

Although this should not be strictly​​ required​​ right?I was thinking I might use these ‘heroic’ tendencies for self-immolation, but it seems to go the other way around (blocking me)... or are they just misdirected? Hmm.

Was I indeed “invoking an archetype” when trying to self-immolate altruistically? Hmm. I’ll have to think about this. Thanks!


Dona: Richard said that "going down with the ship" was not an act of altruism. There is nothing altruistic​​ about that. Using the heroic archetype would probably not work (for invoking altruism).


John CM:

I'm just not sure "how" it's done since, I don't seem to get to the bottom of things. I also lack the energy and focus to remain with an issue for any longer​​ period of time. "there is no point, I'm not getting anywhere".

I mean when I earlier tried to investigate a strong emotional response to something I wrote in this chat. I after a while got the answer "I'm disgusting". But was that how I felt? Or was that just a reply in my mind that I wanted to hear? I couldn't understand that at all, even if I felt really bad in the situation. I feel really confused and frustrated when I start thinking about myself. What is true and what is fiction about myself? It's a freudian hell trying to understand myself - it feels like I'm "speculating" when investigating; almost like dreaming up things about myself.

I can't make any sense out of how I feel many times, and I can't get myself to really create time to ponder upon an​​ issue for a very long time before I run out of energy to do so and begin to feel really frustrated. At least now I'm trying for a few minutes here and there, but I feel resistant towards the process.

I remember Vineeto explaining the process of her own self-investigation somewhere but I can't find it.


Dona: I think this was answered on slack​​ LINK. If you have any further questions on this please post them.



​​ (regarding the eliminating the​​ SI at the time of a actual freedom)

Dona posted:​​ 

​​ The SI, ego and Instinctual passions all are eliminated at the time of actual freedom (basic/newly). You are referring to the "shadow identity" that Vineeto and Peter have discussed (and possibly Craig).​​ It is not the "full SI" and has no control, it is just "habits" that remain (I'm probably not making this very clear)

Alan posted:​​ 

The social identity is not eliminated on becoming newly free. As I understand it what is eliminated is 'me' as being and with that goes the affective element of the social identity. Using my above example of a flash of anger, the habitual (the social identity) bodily reactions of a 'flash of anger' might still occur but there will be no affective response and, most importantly,​​ no psychic 'spear'.


Dona: I posted a correction to this on slack ​​ I said that the social identity was eliminated when someone becomes newly actually free. Richard said that a shadow identity still exists (which I took to mean that it was just a "shell").​​ Richard said that it is all still there, though no longer with any affective "control/influence".​​ 

I also assumed that once the shadow identity left, that was becoming fully free, but Richard corrected that as well. Vineeto eliminated the shadow identity​​ 3 months before becoming fully free.



For Richard: Does he have a drawing or painting (or photo of it) that "painted itself"? If so, can I see it?


Dona: no, he doesn’t.​​ 



I am going to live with this question. It is working so far: ​​ Can I be actually free right now?


Dona: Richard was wondering (as I think Craig was as well), do you think you are actually free and don't know it? If that's the case, then that's impossible... You would know it.​​ 

If you're asking if you can 'become' actually free... Now... Then yes.

Since you use 'be' instead of 'become' he thinks you're stating the former.



Can you ask Richard if it would actually be easier to become actually free by visiting him since pretty much everyone that has so far has done so by seeing​​ him? Also I ask since him and Vineeto are both pure intent personified then would that make it easier to access?


Alan: For some reason your question did not get included on the list of questions for today so this is my response. There have already been some replies on slack and Craig has proved that being in the presence of an actually free person is not necessary.[1]

So far as accessing pure intent outside of a PCE is concerned there is some evidence that physical presence is not necessary but as yet​​ there is insufficient evidence.  ​​​​ 


[1] EDITOR’S NOTE. Craig became actually free in 2016, while not in the presence of Richard, although he did meet with him for half a day in 2015 during the prearranged get together of half a dozen interested persons. Q3, who was one of the participants also escaped the human condition in November 2018 while not in the presence of Richard.  ​​ ​​​​ ​​​​ 

Geoffrey became actually free in September 2018 without ever having met Richard.





What is the nature of that “step” between eliminating the shadow identity and being fully free? Not that it is of any immediate interest to us lol, but Richard and Vineeto being the only fully free people on the planet, it would be a pity to have this knowledge disappear if some meteorite were to fall on Ballina. (I’m so bad at justifying my curiosity haha)


Dona: Vineeto wants to clarify that she did not eliminate anything, it retired (no longer necessary).

Craig posted many quotes on slack regarding yesterday of her experience (from Yahoo). They describe it best. 


Alan: Richard did not have any similar experience. Only Vineeto had this experience​​ and as Vineeto said, it was not “eliminated”. Similarly the identity cannot be “eliminated”. Richard suggested a simile of a pizza – a slice cannot eliminate the whole pizza as the slice will remain. A ‘self’ cannot eliminate ‘itself’.



how are Richard​​ and Vineeto health wise? how is Richard's back going? I don't recall Vineeto having any ailments to ask about..  Just in general, how are things going physically. How's Richard's "dream" of outliving the French lady going? I guess the lack of the 'stressor' may be ageing them differently. Do they ever get health checkups with a doctor?Did Richard turn 70 this year?


Dona: Richard and Vineeto are in great health, other than Richard's chronic back pain (which first started when he was 24, and later was found​​ to be a constriction of his L5 vertebrae, pinching his sciatic nerve). 

Both Richard and Vineeto said that their doctors (yes, they have checkups) said that they are very healthy (for their age).

Yes, Richard still aims to be a supercentenarian (over 110). His father lived to be 105, and his mother in her late 90s... So he's got the genes for it.

Regarding stressors... Yes, they can see a benefit. Stress puts a strain on the body, and they don't have that.

Yes, Richard had his 70th birthday this year. 


Alan: They are both certain that the lack of ‘stressors’ (assuming you mean the ‘stress hormones’) due to being free from the ‘being’ which causes the stress has been extremely beneficial to their health.



Interesting case for low carb high fat:

What​​ does Richard think of the overfeeding paradox which contradicts with his ‘not eat so much’ advice in the correspondences?


Dona: Richard doesn't see any contradiction to what he said.​​ 


Alan: We had an interesting discussion about this and Q4’s question on stressors. Can you reference where Richard advised someone to “not eat so much’? We had to guess which correspondence you were referring to.


I'm investigating a bunch of things at the moment and came across what Dona conveyed a while ago. I have a doubt​​ about this:

Dona [paraphrasing Richard] Whittling away at beliefs does make the social identity “smaller”, but does NOT get rid of (or lessen) feelings. It might eliminate some of the “triggers”, but not the feelings themselves. Only becoming Actually Free does that.

My question: if whittling away at the beliefs eliminates some of the triggers and is not sufficient to eliminate the feelings themselves, what is left to trigger the said feelings? 
All feelings arise from a trigger. I'm not really sure I understand the above point anymore.


Dona: not all feelings arise from a trigger, there are, 'floating feelings', that have no apparent cause. 

(Dona sidenote: what is it you are really asking? )


Alan: I had not come across the expression “floating feelings”​​ before and a search did not find it on the website. They said that as we are feeling beings sometimes a feeling can happen for no apparent reason, as Dona said. But beware of using it as an ‘excuse’ for not investigating the feeling.​​ 



Sometimes in media or when I was back at school I would see people who identified as 'goths'. They would dress in black and wear black makeup, and would feel resentful and disgusted of the 'positive, happy people'.  The positive people were portrayed as empty, shallow, superficial and particularly inauthentic, and were the kind of people who read affirmations to themselves in front of the mirror with a sickly pasted on smile.  I read something similar with cabin crew staff on airlines who had to put on a fake smile and a jolly mood all the time, which they found wearing over time and led to them being less fulfilled (according to this particular article).
I'm wondering if Richard and Vineeto can flesh out the key differences between 'positive thinking' (or what I call​​ 'positive feeling') and actualism?


Dona: there was a little bit of confusion with your question. You use the example of people putting on a "fake smile". Then you ask about positive thinking, and then positive feeling... ?

Actualism definitely has​​ nothing to do with any of those. It is seeing there is a third choice between good feelings and bad feelings... It's "feeling good". 

All those others don't work because you are always caught in the swing of good/bad  feelings.


Alan: Feeling good each​​ moment again for the rest of one’s life is completely new - the third alternative. It has never been proposed before and requires a new paradigm to understand it, as Q4 realised yesterday.


Another question, can you explain what they mean by sincerity? I've read lots of the definitions and descriptions on the website but I don't really understand what it means, how it comes about, or how practically it unlocks naivete?


RICHARD:​​ Sincerity is to be in accord with the fact/being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity (as in being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous).

The word ‘sincere’ can be traced back to the Latin sincerus, meaning ‘whole’ or ‘pure’ or ‘sound’, and which is arguably derived from the roots ‘sin-’​​ (one) and ‘crescere’ (to grow) in that the Latin ‘sincerus’ originally referred to a plant which was of pure stock – not a mixture or hybrid – and thus came to mean anything which was genuine (as in ‘true’ or ‘correct’) and not falsified, adulterated, contaminated.
Thus sincerity is to be in accord with the fact/being aligned with factuality/staying true to facticity (as in being authentic/guileless, genuine/artless, straightforward/ ingenuous).


Alan: Richard expands on how being sincere is to be the key which unlocks naiveté in this exchange with Srid​​




I find it much easier to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive and to keep up my affective awareness while I'm out on​​ my "walks". But in-front of the computer or even worse, in a social context, I find it incredibly difficult to stay aware of my emotions and eaatmoba. Is it even possible to never forget about it?


Dona: first of all, actualism is not a practice of always​​ being aware of your feelings, it is about noticing when there is any diminution in feeling good (affective awareness).

Yes, in the beginning it is difficult when there are distractions. And, add to that we're in the habit of feeling bad, so that usually it​​ "feels normal". It takes "breaking an old habit" to get into a new one.

Richard and Vineeto stress the importance of committing to feeling good this moment and each moment again for the rest of your life... That will assist you greatly in getting into that new habit.


Alan: As you have written it your question does not really make sense. If I rewrite it like this it may make more sense [this is from me not from Richard or Vineeto]:​​ 

I find it much easier to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive​​ and to​​ [keep up my affective awareness]​​ continue feeling good​​ while I'm out on my "walks". But in-front of the computer or even worse, in a social context, I find it incredibly difficult to​​ [stay aware of my emotions]​​ continue feeling good​​ and eaatmoba.

It​​ is not about “keeping up my affective awareness” or “staying aware of my emotions”, it is having an affective awareness (attentiveness) so that any diminution in feeling good is spotted more and more easily. It is well explained in the exchange with Claudiu which I referenced on slack.



Also relevant to remember that a lot of the actualism process consists of excising socially learned beliefs... guess where we pick those beliefs up! I don't think the lesson is to stay away from any social interaction,​​ but more to see it for what it is: people very much caught up in emotion, ego, etc.


Dona: this was Q14's reply to JOHN CM's question above (difficulty remembering to feel good in social events). And Richard and Vineeto agree here, it is beneficial to get​​ out and interact with people and other situations in order to "see what comes up". 

It's easy to be an 'armchair actualist' (my term), sit at home all alone, and think that all's good, you have no triggers any more (because there's no one, or anything, there to trigger them). 

Also Q14...  see you are also doing what you say others are doing (caught up in emotion, ego...).


Alan: “Armchair actualist”. LOL ​​ I like it Dona.




So, more questions!
(following on my question about the “step” between eliminating the shadow identity and full actual freedom:)

Dona: Vineeto wants to clarify that she did not eliminate anything, it retired (no longer necessary). Craig posted many quotes on slack regarding yesterday (of her experience (from Yahoo). They​​ describe it best.
Alan: Richard did not have any similar experience. Only Vineeto had this experience and as Vineeto said, it was not “eliminated”. Similarly the identity cannot be “eliminated”. Richard suggested a simile of a pizza – a slice cannot eliminate the whole pizza as the slice will remain. A ‘self’ cannot eliminate ‘itself’.

Very interesting, thanks! Especially the pizza metaphor. “A slice cannot eliminate the whole pizza”. Wow, 
1. Can the same be said about the ‘cleaning’ of social identity patterns before actual freedom, that they are not “eliminated”, but that they “retire”, being “no longer necessary”? 


​​ Dona: the social identity is made up of your "beliefs about who you are" (more information here:

Once you see through those beliefs, they are gone/eliminated. Like once you realize Santa is not real, that belief is gone. 


Alan: We​​ weren’t too sure what you meant by “social identity patterns”. As Dona said, beliefs (Truths are especially important to discover) can be eliminated. Habitual reactions can be recognised and abandoned if they are not beneficial. See also this page​​

Richard particularly drew attention to the warning at the foot of the first answer, including the pop-up:

• [Richard]: “(...) the social identity cannot safely be whittled away unless there be the pure intent to be happy and harmless, each moment again, born of the PCE, because this socialised conscience, the moral/ethical and principled entity with its inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (cultural values), has been implanted for a very good reason.

It is there to control the wayward self which lurks within the human breast ... which is why dedication to peace-on-earth is paramount.”
Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 25b, 24 Jun 2003

2. Can this be linked to one’s pure intent, which renders ethics/morals ‘superfluous’?


Dona: Richard and Vineeto​​ caution everyone not to attempt to eliminate/untangle any of the moral/ethical (social identity) beliefs without first bringing in pure intent (see above warning). Is that what you're asking?

3. “Similarly the identity cannot be eliminated” suggests that​​ the identity also “retires”, being “no longer necessary” at the moment of self-immolation, is this indeed correct since we’ve learned that the ‘thinning out’ and the ‘becoming insubstantial’ concerns the social identity and not  the identity itself? (or was this just Alan’s phrasing? sorry Alan if it was haha).


Dona: the ego and Instinctual passions are eliminated at the time of self-immolation. You can "thin out"  the social identity, but not the Instinctual passions. I am not sure about the ego, since that is the "thinker" part of the Instinctual passions. I will need to ask them that. Though... Thinning out the social identity should keep you busy enough : )


Alan: The ‘identity’ – ‘me’ as ‘being’ can only cease to ‘be’ in its entirety. You can’t keep even a little slice of the pizza as that ‘slice’ is ‘me’. I found it a very useful simile.

4. Is living in (still-in-control) Virtual Freedom not having the feelings being ‘triggered’ almost ever, because of the cleaning of the beliefs that triggered those​​ (following on Srid’s question)? If so, is it what makes the identity being “no longer necessary”?


Dona: in-control virtual freedom is not being affected/triggered by your GOOD and BAD feelings ... And you are 'feeling' excellent 23 hours, 59 minutes of​​ the day. (**note the distinction in the type of feelings). There might be an occasional good/bad feeling come up, but it is dealt with quickly. And since someone in that state is feeling excellent, it usually only pulls them down to "just feeling good".

I​​ don't know what you're asking in the last part "If so, is it what makes the identity being “no longer necessary”?  Are you asking if it's necessary to be in- control virtually free before actual freedom? I don't think that is the experience of everyone who​​ is actually free.


Alan: An in-control virtual freedom is about maximising the felicitous feelings and minimising the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings. Feelings are only eliminated upon becoming actually free. ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’. This is​​ a very, very important point to understand at an experiential level (my words but I am certain Richard would agree). It seems a simple statement but I am only beginning to grasp an experiential understanding of it. You seem to be trying to split the identity into bits (different slices of the pizza so to speak) and wanting to deal with them separately (only my impression as I can see it in myself). The whole caboodle has to go. What one can do “in the meantime” is choose to feel good each moment again. It​​ is so vastly superior to a ‘normal’ way of being to make it more than worthwhile even if one goes no further. If everyone felt good each moment again there would be peace on earth.​​ 

5. About the answer to Srid’s question:

Dona: not all feelings arise from​​ a trigger, there are, ‘floating feelings’, that have no apparent cause.

Do those ‘floating feelings’ have their source in the psychic web? (vibes without apparent source, currents?) Is this the reason why Virtual Freedom can never be 100% but only 99%?


Dona: I should have added the word "free"... " Free floating feelings". They may arise with no particular cause. Vineeto warns not to use the psychic web as an excuse not to investigate... Either way the feeling is you.

Until you are actually free, you are​​ susceptible to your good and bad feelings taking over.



srid: : if whittling away at the beliefs eliminates some of the triggers and is not sufficient to eliminate the feelings themselves, what is left to trigger the said feelings? All feelings arise​​ from a trigger. I’m not really sure I understand the above point anymore.
dona: [paraphrasing Vineeto] not all feelings arise from a trigger, there are, ‘floating feelings’, that have no apparent cause.
dona: (Dona sidenote: what is it you are really asking? )


Dona, what I was really asking is same as what I was actually asking. I could not find anything in the AFT site talking about Vineeto’s “floating feelings”. If anything it only contradicts it. For example when Richard describes the actualism method​​ as tracing back the trigger which made one go from feeing good to not feeling good, there is an implicit knowledge that all feelings (that bring one down from feeling good) have a trigger.


Dona: Vineeto said she has had what she calls "free floating feelings" with no apparent cause. Though, obviously you wouldn't know that until you investigate it. So investigate all feelings.


dona: [her words of what Richard and Vineeto said] […] Richard and Vineeto agree here, it is beneficial to get out and interact with people and other situations in order​​ to “see what comes up”. It’s easy to be an ‘armchair actualist’ (my term), sit at home all alone, and think that all’s good, you have no triggers any more (because there’s no one, or anything, there to trigger them).

Since I have plenty of experience in this area it is worth pointing out that there is an opposite-side to being ‘armchair actualist’ (AA). I call it ‘forced extroverted actualist’ (FEA). 
Given that I’m more intelligent above the norm, and thus more cunning, at various points in my time I deliberately set out to address the habitual withdrawal with a conscious effort to ‘go out’ or ‘fit in’ or ‘mingle with people’.
My investigations revealed that AA was motivated by the desire to avoid the bad feelings associated with people, and FEA was motivated by the fear of being left alone. And that neither is optimal in the long-run. So, if neither is optimal, what is the solution here? The actual solution here is to prioritize feeling good. Which means feeling good​​ right now​​ doing whatever. What happens in the next moments--be it being on one’s own or being with people--will be dictated by that moment. “I” do not have to “make a decision” as to whether I want to stay alone or go with people.


Dona: Richard emphasizes​​ that actualism is to be practiced "out in the marketplace". 

He is not only talking about social events, he stresses (many times) that actualism will bring forth peace on Earth and that can only begin to happen when a man and a woman (because that is the​​ genesis of humanity) can live together in peace and Harmony 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 


So another question I have, which naturally follows from what I wrote above, is this: 
Do those last two sentences in what I wrote immediately above signify what Richard meant by “let the moment live you” or Vineeto meant by (and she told me this more than a few times in Ballina in 2013) “give yourself permission to feel good now”?


Dona: Alan answered that on slack, I think you agreed it was not the same.


Alan:​​ Just checking – you do see now that​​ “let the moment live you”​​ and​​ “give yourself permission to feel good now”​​ are different things?


John CM:

When I "enjoy and appreciate each moment of being alive". I quite easily get to a state of mind where I don't feel​​ much of anything at all. I can't say it feels good since I don't feel anything in particular. 
I feel "blank" or perhaps "quiet/still". Perhaps it would be accurate to say that I feel completely "neutral". In the beginning when I first experienced this back in 2015-16, I got a bit worried and was very negative about it - and because of that I haven't been back feeling like this, until this last week, when I have really spent my time, all day long "eaaemoba". This time it struck me, that I will stop worrying about something being wrong with how I feel - for when I came to think about how I normally feel when I don't engage in trying to feel good now - feeling anxious, restless, and agitated - compared to that, yeah well, this lack of "mood" that I'm currently experiencing is a thousand times better!
What I have noticed when feeling like this is that a lot that usually triggers "me" does not trigger me (or not nearly as often). I can be out walking, going into a crowd, socializing and much of the usual anxiety​​ I feel in these situations is gone or not felt as strong as it normally does.
So what I wanted to ask is if what I experience is normal since I don't feel much of anything at the moment. Of course I'm triggered from time to time, by some event or even by​​ some thought in my mind, but in a general sense, I feel quite "blank" when nothing is going on. Is this normal and if so is the next step now to feel "good"?


Dona: if you are feeling a thousand times better then that is definitely good. 

I think many people have set "neutral" as their baseline. 

Keep with that until you are able to bring it up to perhaps "feeling ok"... Then maybe to "feeling good". Don't worry about the details in the beginning because you'll get too bogged down could fall back too easily​​ (setting too high an expectation).

You're doing a great job! 


Alan: Yes, Richard put it as “get acclimatised” to feeling “blank” or “quiet/still”. Enjoy it for what it is – a thousand times better than what you were previously experiencing. Once sufficient acclimatisation has taken place and been established as your “base line”, have a go at feeling good knowing that, if you do not immediately succeed you will only ‘fall back’ to feeling “blank” or “quiet/still” and not all the way back to​​ “feeling anxious, restless, and agitated”.




Do Richard, Vineeto and Peter remember that precise time(before they became newly free) when they took that 'once in a lifetime' decision to self-immolate ? What I'm looking to understand is at what stage in their feeling-being days this decision was taken and the time interval/delay after that up to self-immolation. 
My understanding is that Richard took this decision after that planting seedlings incident (where his seminal question felled his world view), but he became newly free the next day (when he came back to his home and fell on the steps)


Dona: Richard stated that the time when he was planting the seedlings was when he became actually free, though when I read out the passage you posted (about it being the next day), he then stated that was the time. Richard's recollection prior to self-immolation is sometimes sketchy 🙂

But, if you're asking when he "decided" to take the steps necessary to self-immolate, it was approximately 6 weeks prior when a woman came to him asking to be his disciple. He then took stock of what he was doing and where he wanted to go.

Vineeto said the decision was made at the time she was in the bathroom dusting off the cobwebs.

Peter was not there to comment.


Alan: Richard’s experience​​ is only relevant to someone who is enlightened and perhaps not even to them. Richard is not entirely clear on the detail of the events which happened – it is too long ago – and suggested his report on the website is more reliable.

Peter and Vineeto’s reports are also on the website.


Dona (clarification on Geoffrey)... Can the ego be "thinned out", or are they too linked to the Instinctual passions?


Dona: Richard said you can become less "ego-centric", "ego-centered". He stated that the lines between the​​ ego and the social identity are blurry, so it is difficult to say which belongs to which 'category'... For example the belief, "I am a good person". This is both ego ("I am"), and conscience (social identity).


Questioner 3:

Can they clarify the relationship between feeling caring and empathy?


Dona: empathy is "feeling caring" (as well as sympathy, pity, love and compassion)


Alan: Richard was quite surprised you asked this question as he considered he had fully covered the topic in his replies to you last​​ year.


Another question. I'm assuming Vineeto, still talks to her family and​​ friends from before she became actually free. Have they noticed a dramatic change in her such that they don't feel she is the same person? Does she have less interest in meeting with them now that the affective bond is not there - on the contrary - are the interactions with these same people more interesting and intimate now that there is no emotional interference?


Dona: Vineeto's family is in Germany, so she has little contact with them. She says now there's no sense of obligation to write or talk with them, and has little in common with them so their communication is minimal.

As a feeling being, she did have a sense of obligation to stay in touch.

She recommended you ask Craig this question since he has a family and friends and co-workers (etc) that he deals with regularly.



A follow-up question for them:
How did Vineeto deal with the free-floating feelings?


Dona: Craig answered this on slack and she agrees. The caution still holds to not use that as an excuse not to investigate.




How​​ does planning differ in Actual Freedom? How do they approach unknowns in planning?

Do they make plans? If they do, does it differ significantly from the way they dealt with making plans pre-actualisation? Or is it as simple as feeling felicitous/innocuous​​ throughout the process from start to finish? Part of why I'm asking is that I've found some of Richard's descriptions of time interesting - eg: only now is happening - and I'm curious how that might effect thinking about the future.


Dona: Richard​​ (Vineeto was not here today) doesn't think about the future, as that doesn't exist in the actual world. Only this moment exists, which is eternal, but not static... It is dynamic. It is events that change/move (not time)

Yet, plans are made in the same way​​ as they were before, if something is needed (for example groceries), he knows he would need to get to the store while it's open, and get the things he needs. If he has an appointment, he knows when he needs to be there. Every day when we're about to leave​​ we "plan" to get together the next day. 


Alan: We had a bit of difficulty understanding what you were getting at. Planning for something does not cause any problems.​​ 

Richard wondered if you were confused by his statement that only this moment exists. The concept that time does not move is a difficult one to grasp.​​ 

RICHARD: There is no next moment ... there is only this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space. I can intellectually know that there possibly will be a now that is presumably​​ going to happen (and that there was a series of past now-moments that did happen) and can plan according to the probability that certain events are likely to occur (that the banks will be open tomorrow at 9.30 AM, for example) based upon those past experiences. But there actually is no future (or past) whatsoever as I sit here now.


Just like​​ us feeling beings an actually free person assumes that certain things will happen to enable planning to take place. It is assumed that the sun will ​​ rise in the sky (due to the earths rotation) tomorrow for example.



A question for us actualists including Craig and other free persons:  Would starting from the premise that the universe is already and always perfect EITHER as evidenced in a peak experience OR just as a belief that one wants try on for size be helpful?
Would the practitioner begin to question and gradually disregard all beliefs and habits that get in the way of eaatmoba and gradually accept all the facts that prove the universe is indeed already and always perfect?


Dona: we were wondering if you were asking this question for yourself or someone else? He wondered if you've ever experienced a PCE? if so, you wouldn't need a "premise" or a "belief" about the perfection of the universe, you would know it experientially.

If you are asking for someone else (as in helping someone) Richard has stated many times that he is not to be believed... And suggests that you don't ask someone to believe anything either. Perhaps you can approach it by having the person remember a PCE ... Then go from there (without the need for a belief about it).


Alan: Here​​ is what Richard has written many times about believing him:

RICHARD: Yes ... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end​​ up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at​​ length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written.

Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path.

As for taking it as a premise – for someone who is unable to currently recall a PCE, as the PCE obviates both the need to take it as a premise or as a belief – the words written on the Actual Freedom Trust website should be sufficient to convince any person with a modicum of intelligence that there is a prima-facie case worthy of further investigation.



I'm curious what they think of this way of putting things, with regards to the nature of the self. Basically I experienced 'me' as sandwiched between two things: the senses​​ (raw sensory input) and the mind (the flesh and blood mind that is the ultimate source of pure intent, if I understood Richard's post here correctly:

​​ "[...] the benedictive/ liberative impetus, or agency as such, stems from and/or flows from that which is​​ totally other than ‘me’/ completely outside of ‘me’ [...] namely: that flesh-and-blood body only being thus apperceptively conscious (i.e., apperceptively sentient)."

That is first there's raw senses, then these go 'out' into 'me' where I feel and think things about it etc, but this isn't pure awareness, this also goes 'out' towards the flesh and blood mind. So the process of being conscious doesn't end with 'me', 'I' am not the (actual) mind.
When a PCE occurs I often experience it as a connection being made, like something coming from 'behind' me and connecting to the 'front', and then I​​ have the experience of the mind being aware of itself directly. In terms of the sandwich metaphor it's that 'I' am gone so the 'bottom' (the raw senses) connects to the 'top' (the actual mind) and then it's the mind being aware of itself, because the raw sensory input is the mind also, in fact. 
Now in this scenario everything but the 'me' sandwiched in the middle is actual. You have the entire universe where things actually exist, which is what the senses pick up. And then the 'top' is the actual mind which is what is intelligent and actually does any cogitation and thinking (as I see it 'I' don't actually put things together, the mind does all the work, 'I' just arrogate the mind). The instinctual path is to increase and grow this 'me' that's sandwiched between everything, to try to control everything to make it like 'I' want it to be so it suits 'me', etc., basically trying to create 'my' own little universe to suit 'my' needs. The actualist path however is to recognize that all 'I' can do is mess things up in this middle, and that the more 'I' get out of the way the better everything works, so the idea is to get out of the way as much as possible. 
Looking at it this way also makes it clear that there's all of infinitude and eternity and actuality and 'I'​​ am just this small insignificant thing in the middle, which means 'I' don't really matter at all. And things work better without 'me' anyway. So the thing to do is to 'be' (as this thing sandwiched in the middle) that which allows the rest to function as much as possible... and that way to do it is to be my own best friend, like myself no matter what, be naivete, enjoy and appreciate each moment of being alive as much as possible, etc., because this nice, naive, kind, and liking self, is very wont to let things happen as they will. 

Dona: Richard got the metaphor you are using, and basically it is accurate. If it helps you​​ see it that way, he sees no problem with it, though it's not a metaphor he would use or find useful.

He did comment that 'you' are not a​​ "small insignificant  thing". You don't exist in the actual world.​​ 


Alan: As Dona said, if it is helpful for you to look at it that way that’s fine, so long as you see it is a metaphor. For a feeling being his or her ‘mind’ is also in their ‘inner world’. He presumed you meant an “actual mind” to be the brain of an actually free person in action. A feeling being cannot experience an “actual mind” other than during a PCE.

'I' can't thin myself out, but 'I' can be this way until 'I' can agree to let 'me' go away forever, at which point that connection is made permanently (since nothing is there to stop it anymore), and that's actual freedom.


Dona: he was not clear on your statement, "’I' can't thin myself out"... Since you definitely do that, by seeing your beliefs about yourself (ego) and your social identity. The only thing that cannot be "thinned out" is the Instinctual passions.



Following Claudiu's question, i'd like to ask what happens after correctly applying the actualism method to reach a virtual freedom: is it that one becomes a felicitous and innocuous self or is it that the self thins? iow, is one at the presence of a more amicable self or rather at the progressive absence of a self? i ask because i've read mixed signals here and the aft​​ website about it, and perhaps it needs a little clarification. lately, the consensus here in slack seems to be that it's a case of a felicitous and innocuous self, but then there are instances like this one:

RICHARD: It is possible to be virtually free, virtually perfect, virtually pure. To be sure, to live the ultimate requires more than the abrogation of the right to be the social identity, but something quite remarkable is possible before the event. One can, because of pure intent, voluntarily forsake the social identity, and go into exile, into self-retirement, whilst remaining in the market place. One does this by examining all of one’s beliefs – masquerading as ‘truths’ – and watching them vanish as if they had never existed. One can observe oneself in one’s moment-to-moment activities as one goes about daily life.​​ Gradually one notices that ‘I’ have grown rather thin, as if withering away, until ‘I’ become merely a shadow of ‘my’ former self​​ ... causing very little trouble and then only occasionally.​​ [EMPHASIS ADDED]


Dona: Richard said it is BOTH ... Not an either/or. As you become​​ felicitous and innocuous you will be "thinning yourself" as well. And as you thin yourself you will become felicitous and innocuous... They work together. 

Someone who is in-control virtually free (which is what it seems you are referring to), is both felicitous and innocuous and has thinned themselves out to where there isn't much of the ego/social identity left, and their ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feelings are no longer dominating their lives.



Is wanting to actually see another actual human being a form or aspect of altruism?  IIRC, both Peter and Vineeto write that each self immolated to see an actual human being (or experience actual intimacy with a fellow human being) and secondarily they knew self immolation was for the benefit of every body.  It seems to​​ me that seeing another person as actual is totally to that actual person's benefit just as seeing every body as an actual body is to every body's benefit.


Dona: Vineeto was not here today, but Richard does not recall either Peter or Vineeto self-immolating to "see an actual being". The day before Peter became free he wondered what it was like for Richard in the actual world (is that what you're referring to?).

Yes, they did say that self-immolation was for "this body, that body, and every body")... That is​​ altruism (sacrificing yourself for others)

Richard does not think that wanting to actually see another actual human is a form or aspect of altruism. What is the sacrifice in that? 


Alan: I would only add to what Dona said that a feeling being (other than​​ in a PCE) cannot “see” anything in the actual world, bodies included.



John CM:

I'm currently trying to initialize "eaaemoba" all day long.  I'm not doing any kind of "investigations" since it feels like I'm only speculating about myself, and thus​​ I only end up frustrated and confused, and also:
"I don't even know how this so called investigation is done, why bother?"
I wonder, if I can continue doing this [eaatmoba] without any problems, until I get a firm sense of what an investigation actually is, and how it's done, and until I feel ready to do it?


Dona: Yes. As Alan posted on slack, take things slowly. If you are able to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive (eaatmoba), then that is great. Don't push yourself because that could possibly lead to frustration, and then you might give up. When you're ready (and only you will know that), then perhaps you can start to investigate.



On the website, Richard talks about the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre, bonhomie and so on) being activated in conjunction with sensuousness.
He puts in brackets after the word sensuousness "(delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on)". If these were affective they would just be more feel-good words and not specific to the senses, so does his use of them after the word 'sensuousness' suggest they are physical enjoyment/pleasure/relish etc.?


Dona: Those descriptive words are also sensual descriptions. The taste of food can be delectable, or have gusto or zest. You can appreciate and relish the colors of a sunset, for example.



I have not had a PCE and can't remember having had one as a child either. Did he use any specific techniques for helping people remember forgotten PCEs?


Dona: Richard has​​ written quite a lot on the topic, you can find most of them here (there are arrows after the question to go to the page with more detail):

Also, there is a slack topic section on PCE training that is quite helpful.



There must be definitely some physical and actual  'mechanism' occurring in the body somewhere that leads to the experiencing of a 'being'.. So even though that 'mechanism' itself is actual, but what it produces (a 'being') is not actual ?..That sounds about right. This would mean that the 'mechanism' has to stop for the 'being' to be not experienced.


Dona: I added this in because even​​ though I've asked Richard and Vineeto this myself before, I still didn't have a grasp of what they said. 

The 'mechanism' is the instinctual passions (not actual) and produces feelings which are also not actual.

There is nothing to 'stop' because there was​​ nothing there to begin with.

They equated it to a computer (which I've used myself, but still got bogged down with this). The hardware is the actual body, it exists in the actual world. The software is the 'being' and is not actual and does not exist in the actual world. It can be deleted. 


Alan: Yes, I may have misled you with my answer. The synapses firing is caused by the feeling being, just like the release of chemicals such as adrenaline. I also ‘got it’ tonight.

The coding for the instinctual passions is contained in our DNA and is ‘loaded’ in the same way as computer software can be installed from a DVD (or floppy disc if you can remember them​​ 😀). The instinctual passions (the software) form the identity. Richard previously wrote about it:

RICHARD‘Primarily the identity within is the affections (the affective feelings) – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – as *the instinctual passions form themselves into* a ‘presence’, a ‘spirit’, a ‘being’ ... ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself. MRI scans, and all the rest, cannot detect a phantom being, the ghost in the machine. (...) Put expressively the affective feelings swirl around forming a whirlpool or an eddy (which vortex is the ‘presence’, the ‘spirit’, the ‘being’): mostly peoples experience ‘self’ as being a centre, around which the affective feelings form a barrier, which centre could be graphically likened to a dot in a circle (the circle being the affective feelings) which is what gives rise to the admonitions to break down the walls, the barriers, with which the centre protects itself.
Those people who are self-realised have realised that there is no ‘dot’ in the centre of the circle ... hence the word ‘void’. [emphasis added]./private/var/mobile/Containers/Data/Application/7F539614-3F96-4A0C-9F63-6C96AA733AD5/tmp/WebArchiveCopyPasteTempFiles/footnote-link.jpg​​ 


I put it in that expressive way because it is not possible to separate out the feeler from the feelings it is ... just as it is impossible to separate the whirlpool or the eddy – the vortex – from the swirling stuff which is the cause of it (a whirlpool or an eddy – a vortex – of water or​​ air, for example, is the very swirling water or air as the one is not distinct from the other) ... hence ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’.


As the identity is software it can be deleted, as Dona said. Richard suggested liking it to flashing the bios of a computer chip – the hardware (the brain) is unaffected but the​​ operating system (‘being’)​​ is deleted and it is as if it has never been – only it can never be reinstalled.​​ 




​​ is Richard still hacking (learning/ programming in) JavaScript ?


Dona: no


Also what are Richard and Vineeto’s opinions/thoughts on the relationship between​​ diet and inflammation ?


Dona: Richard wondered if you've been tested for H pylori bacteria, which is known to cause inflammation.



Just asking what his experience is like sitting there right now, how would he describe it

Richard: Primarily, of the​​ infinitude this physical universe actually is ... as this flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto) I am proprioceptively conscious of being just here, right now and, as such, the other somatic perceptions currently in operation – tactile, olfactive, visual, audile – are direct: this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the mid-winter ambience; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; these retinas are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form; these eardrums are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air.
Further to that this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling​​ along in neutral as all the while there is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array’.




Yes. I have one. I'd like them to critique the following statement:

Self immolation can and will only be accomplished when one has 100% unwavering and undiminished intent and desire for actual intimacy with a​​ fellow human being and the awareness that one is doing this for everyone.  Without those things self immolation can't occur.  So the sincere actualists purpose in life is to orient him/herself towards a 100% unwavering and undiminished intent and desire while eaatmoba.


Dona: both Richard and Vineeto said there are no set rules for becoming actually free from the human condition, which can happen now without any prior "conditions".



I was waiting for Richard’s answer to Q9’s question… but I can’t​​ wait any more hahaha.
1. I wonder if it is strictly necessary to specify: actual intimacy “with a fellow human being”.​​ Why not intimacy with ‘nature’? Why not intimacy with an ashtray? Why not intimacy with anything actual (a human body is not more actual​​ than anything else)? Why not just ‘actual intimacy’ without a qualifier? 


Dona: yes, you can have an intimacy experience with anyone or anything. But as far as that being a condition for becoming free of the human condition, no. 

Isn’t it the same difference that between an ‘Intimacy Experience’ and an ‘Excellence Experience’?


Dona: the difference between those two experiences is that an intimacy experience usually involves another person.


2. Does ‘actual intimacy’ mean the same thing than ‘ending the separation’? Could “desire for actual intimacy” be replaced by “desire to end the separation” and the statement remain correct?
I’m thinking about this quote by Craig (slack sept.23)

Craig: There’s something I’ve been wanting to mention for a few days that​​ I’m just having time to write about now. I was reading my journal entries around the time that I became newly free, and I realised that in the time since May 2016 I have started thinking about the process differently in hindsight to how I apparently experienced it at the time. The way I have written and thought about it since then is phrases like ending being, ending the feeling of being. But at the time it occurred my focus was on ending the feeling of separation, bridging that separation, in order to experience ongoing intimacy. When I succeeded, I did so by ending being because being evaporated right in front of my eyes. So it looks in hindsight that I did so by ending being. This also basically maps to the way Richard describes actual freedom. Now I can’t be sure if I started describing it that way after the fact due to my strong familiarity with Richard’s writing, or if he and I describe it the same way due to it looking that way in hindsight. But something I used to think about years ago in terms of replicating the success of others was the importance of doing what people did, not what they say to do. In May 2016, aiming to end the feeling of separation and bridge that separation I was specifically trying to follow what Peter and Vineeto wrote about in​​ their last chapters and I was reading those webpages repeatedly including on the day it occurred.

For Craig “intimacy” does not specifically refer to intimacy with a fellow human being, as he talked about his experiences of intimacy while driving his car alone (this happened to me also), which makes sense if intimacy is defined as the diminishment/ending of separation.


Dona: Craig has already answered that with what he wrote.

3. Can it be said that being is the separation itself? And consequently that​​ ending the separation is ending being?


Dona: It is the other way around, ending the being is the ending of separation.

Vineeto pointed out that the thinking, "ending the separation is ending being" comes from spiritual practices/doctrine and with actual freedom it is important to throw out everything we've ever learned/thought ... It is something completely new.


Alan: As you and I suspected might happen Richard and Vineeto came up with a different answer which Dona has written about. ‘Being’ brings about​​ the separation. ‘Being’ is not the separation.

Vineeto in particular stressed that it is necessary to ‘throw out’ all the old way of thinking – you said you had got that a little while ago. It requires a new mindset, a completely new way of thinking. Then​​ one can read the words which are written for what they are rather than read them with one’s old habitual way of thinking.​​ 

I have experienced this when in a PCE and when in an out-from-control experience. There is an “Oh yes” and what is written suddenly becomes absolutely clear – the experiential understanding of it as a fact.​​ 

4. Can Richard comment on my recent posts (slack oct25), where I was following on Claudiu’s sandwich metaphor... are they correct (metaphorically)?

GEOFFREY: The identity is ‘sandwiched’ between the actual and the actual: between the actual ‘outside’ (the ‘world of people things and events’) and the actual ‘inside’ (the actual ‘mind’ of the human flesh and blood body). Of course those are the same thing: the universe… the identity​​ is sandwiched between the universe and the universe.

It makes sense with the idea that ‘being’ is the separation itself. I.e. not what is ‘inside’ the bubble (although that is indeed the point of view of the identity), but the bubble itself, the ‘veil’… a​​ surface​​ without depth… and actually without existence.
GEOFFREY: ‘I’ am nowhere.​​ Without dimension. (…)
ALAN: (…) there is no “actual ‘inside’ (the actual ‘mind’ of the human flesh and blood body)“. There is nothing actual ‘inside’ the identity (the​​ “bubble”). ‘I’ am the bubble.
GEOFFREY: But there is no ‘inside’, that’s my point. Only for the identity who, being the separation, defines an ‘inside’ and an ‘outside’.

I was referring to what Claudiu calls ‘mind’ and locates ‘behind’ or ‘on top’ in his ‘sandwich’ metaphor, and which in the ‘bubble’ metaphor is better located ‘inside’ (still from the point of view of the identity). This actual ‘mind’ is the ‘native intelligence’, or ‘apperceptive mind’, which​​ apparently​​ ‘connects’ with the ‘actual world’ in a PCE, where in actuality those are one and the same thing: the universe that knows no separation.


Dona: thanks for asking this because it made things much clearer for me. 

Richard initially was concerned that Claudiu's sandwich metaphor might be misunderstood.

When in a PCE, there is the actual sensate experiences and the actual mind (though there is no inner and outer to it). But, when you then put in the identity (the "meat" of the sandwich), there is no longer anything actual at all, there is no sandwich because there is now only the inner world and the outer world (the real world)


Alan: As already pointed out, the identity is not the separation. The identity cannot be “sandwiched between the universe and the universe”​​ as identity creates both the inner and the outer world. There is no “actual outside”​​ (even with scary quotes around ‘outside’) because ‘I’ create the outside – it cannot be actual for a feeling being.​​ 



okie dokie, here are my new (self-immolation delaying tactics) questions :

1). Is that 'once in a lifetime decision' about ending 'being' or is it like entering the actual world forever or a mix of both or something else ? 

I ask this because it looks like Richard, Peter, Vineeto and Craig - each one seems to be having a different​​ decision (hence my confusion) - Richard took stock of his situation and asked the seminal question as he didn't like that he was being taken as a guru by that woman, Peter wanted to join Richard in the actual world, Vineeto wanted to permanently live that​​ way of life she was experiencing and Craig wanted to grow a grey beard sorry hehe..Craig wanted to end the feeling of separation.   


Alan: There is no “once in a lifetime decision about ending being”. What Vineeto did was to make​​ a once-in-a-lifetime decision to step out-from-control”.​​ A being cannot decide to end itself. What it can do is to decide (if there has to be a decision that is it) to allow the process to happen.​​ 

2). Were Grace, Pamela n Tom (is he free ?) also out from control before they​​ became free? Any recollection of events/ situation which lead them going OFC (if they did) ?


Dona: Grace was not out-from-control before she became actually free. Pamela said she was “coming out more and more” (you can interpret that as you may).


Alan:​​ So far as Richard and Vineeto know Tom is not actually free.

3). Any recollection of when they (Grace, Pamela, Tom) made that ‘once in a lifetime’ decision ? What was that ‘once in a lifetime’ decision for them ?


Dona: they did not know the answer to those questions.



There is something that escapes me in this ‘planning for the future’ self-immolation. Saying “I want it to happen tomorrow” is procrastinating no? Is one not supposed to want it to happen​​ now? Or is this ‘planning’ a way to build up one’s intent? To give oneself ‘no choice’ so to speak? 
Or is the decision actually taken when you ‘set the date’, and the delay is you ‘allowing it to happen’ at its own pace? (I like this one better actually, it fits with Vineeto’s report)


Dona: Richard said that he didn't say anything about setting a date, and since Craig is the only one who "set a date", it might be best to ask him.


Alan: No one “set a date” to become actually free.​​ 



In the process of choosing to be happy and harmless do I​​ largely disappear (the 'good' and 'bad' feelings seem to provide most of my sense of existing at all at least in a salient/solid way)? Do I have to give up identity in a large part to be happy and harmless at all, or is happiness and harmlessness not a reduction of identity per se as 'I' am 'my' feelings and 'my' feelings are 'me'?


Dona: no, ‘you’ do not disappear when you choose to be happy and harmless. Vineeto could relate to your question as she remembered as a feeling being, that feelings did give her​​ a sense of "existing".

Perhaps it is best to start with "feeling good", and see how that feels before leaping forward to happy and harmless.


Alan: You may be mixing up ‘reducing’ the social identity with eliminating ‘me’. ‘I’ am my feelings which cannot​​ be reduced let alone “largely disappear”. One can however choose felicitous and innocuous feelings rather than ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feelings.​​ 



Here's an interesting question for Richard (something I've asked here before): is the “peasant mentality”​​ applicable only to land and resources? or can it be applied to [possession/lack of] imaginary status objects as well?


Dona: You answered your own question, it is a "mentality", thus it is all pervasive, in everything.


Question 2: What are Richard/Vineeto's thoughts on love being always a relationship between the less powerful and the more powerful?


Dona: Richard did not have that experience with his first wife, and Vineeto didn't think that was an accurate statement. 

Love has many facets, power might be​​ one of the issues. 

Richard suggests that perhaps you've been reading too many "identity feminists" (yes, that was his words, not mine).


Question 3: What does Richard think of Jacques Lacan? Specifically his "lack is what causes desire to arise".


Dona: Desire is an Instinctual Passion, lack (among other things) arises from it rather than the other way around. 




Can you have them critique this:  
While aware that it is and can only be now there is very little room for an agent in charge.


Alan: Richard took a while to understand what you were saying. His reply – even so the ‘agent’ only requires 14 milliseconds or so to operate.


I have another question.  Just now i observed a lizard stalk, attack and carry off a moth.  I experienced what felt like chemicals (hormones?) coursing through my body. The hedonic tone was unpleasant.  I am wondering how the identity interpreted that situation.  I speculate that i identified with the moth. His predicament made me feel vulnerable.  Is that​​ how a self controls the hormones?  Does it relate itself to an external situation and issue what it thinks are appropriate hormones?


Dona: it is empathy (feeling),​​ that caused the hormones that you felt to be released.​​ 



Q11: Maybe Richard n Vineeto mean SI with "conditions" as-in one can be from any background, race, gender etc and any life experiences, but still one can become free?

Dona (posting in Slack):​​ Richard has said it many times, anyone can become actually free, now. There are no "rules" to follow, no steps to take, there are no actions that are needed.​​ 

The "actualism method" is not needed to become actually free, it is what you do in the meantime... Because it feels good to feel good.

Also, if you continue on with the actualism method by investigating what is causing you to slip from feeling good, you can (and almost certainly do), whittle away the SI, which could lead you to actual freedom.


Yes, I​​ agree that reducing SI can facilitate freedom, but could you please ask Richard about the contradiction between Richard's "no condition" and the "Naivete is so vital to freedom" quote - sometimes Richard has such a 180 degree opposite answer/clarification​​ that I have to stand on my head to understand that


Dona: Richard again stated that there are no conditions "required". But, if you want to be technical you do have the condition of having a computer to look up the website, and be able to read, and have​​ some interest in the subject (probably more than just "an interest").



Question 4: And how does this all relate to what Richard call's "the mystique"?

My take is that mystique has to do with all the taboo beliefs around sex and sexuality than love.


Dona: you posted this #4 after we already met with them yesterday, so we included it in today’s questions. The mystique you are referring to (in Richard’s journal), was about reaching an altered state of consciousness by surrendering (which I assume you are​​ relating to your power question). It is about love, not really about sexual taboos (though that could be part of it).

It has nothing to do with an actual freedom from the human condition.


Alan: Being ‘in love’ means surrendering to the other in an attempt to achieve ‘oneness’. It is not about power (per your question 2) and, as Dona said, has nothing to do with becoming actually free.




Craig: It was the one thing I wanted to accomplish in this life. My life’s purpose.
Who here can say that with​​ sincerity?

This made me take a hard look at myself and my motivation. 
I can’t say that with sincerity. 
But what else do I want to accomplish in this life? What is my life purpose? Nothing. I can’t find one thing… So why not this one? Good question.
It​​ appears I’m still fundamentally​​ waiting to die​​ and not much else. And that actualism is a way to have a good time in the meantime. Don’t get me wrong, it works beyond expectations. I’m having a good time. And it gets better by the day.
I guess for actual freedom to be one’s ‘purpose’ in life it has to be about altruism. Doing it for “peace on earth”. 
But I must admit, I don’t really ‘believe’ that my self-immolation would have any significant effect on peace on earth. Through what means? Ok, a few people around me would not have to suffer ‘me’ and my vibes. Ok there would be one psychic entity less in the world to substantiate the psychic web. 
I don’t ‘believe’ that my self-immolation would be the one breaking the camel’s back and that ‘I’ personally am the only thing preventing the breakthrough of peace on earth. I don’t ‘believe’ it would change anything for humankind - or not that much at all. I would stay where I am, keep on doing what I do, pretty much the ‘same guy’ as far as others are concerned. What difference would it make? Oh I would enjoy myself, sure. This body would be far better off. But that is not motivation enough apparently, that is not altruism. 
Sure I would have ‘played my part’, done as much as I could, and it would be for others to carry on, maybe for a few with the facilitation of knowing I’ve done it. But this still does not ring a big enough bell. 
Maybe it’s because I’ve never been a ‘change the world’ guy, I’ve never been engaged in any ‘cause’. My main motivation so far has been​​ to ‘avoid the world’, let it do its thing and try to run between the raindrops, to be as happy as I can regardless of what the ‘world’ does… and it is still what I’m doing now. 
I’m in a place where I’d​​ like​​ to self-immolate, I think it would be a very good idea, and I’d like it to happen rather sooner than later - now would be good. 
How​​ far​​ this is from “it MUST happen now” is mind-blowing.


If you have time to spare with Richard (not a lot of questions), and if you feel like it, you could ask him about my lengthy post of today (11h20 my time; the one starting with Craig’s quote about actual freedom being his life’s purpose). 
What is it that I’m missing about altruism? How do I go forward?


Dona: Richard and Vineeto are wondering if you can remember a PCE? if so, you would have the motivation necessary to move forward. 

Regarding being "insignificant" (not the last straw), who knows what the critical mass is, and how many people it would take? 

Dona's note:  Also, you use the word "believe" quite often...​​ You mentioned on slack that you're "busy investigating beliefs"... There's are few here to look at : )


Alan: The motivation comes from the experience of a full blown PCE. Then one knows – with certainty – that the best thing (and the only thing) ‘I’ can do to enable peace on earth is to self-immolate.

I can relate to what you are asking, I think. However I still cannot rememorate a PCE – and cannot even remember the one I had last year, even though I wrote about it at the time​​ (this failure to remember is​​ of course suspicious in itself). Even without the rememoration I still have at least a few threads of the ‘golden clew’ in place providing me with my ‘purpose’ – and experienced it while in an excellence experience the other day. I wrote in my notes “Now I​​ know – with certainty - what my destiny is”. Yet you say you have had numerous PCE’s and have just posted on slack that you had two “daily PCE’s”, ​​ although you did not say what you meant by that. And you are struggling to find purpose. Something does not​​ add up.

And writing about this has added a few more strands to the ‘golden clew’ – thanks Geoffrey.​​ 




I have had quite a few PCEs indeed. And my motivation for an​​ individual​​ peace on earth is not a problem. Yet is that​​ enough​​ to overcome​​ the survival instinct?​​ 

That is why I was specifically asking about altruism, which I was thinking might be needed to go from ‘I want to self-immolate to enable peace on earth for this body’ to ’I​​ must​​ self-immolate now - for this body​​ and that body and everybody‘.

I wasn’t upset at the suggestion that I never had/could not remember PCEs: I thought about it. I’ve had PCEs, even doubting it is silly to me. How effectively I can ‘remember’ them can be in question.​​ 

Bad as my ‘remembrance’ can be, I don’t see​​ how there could be in the PCE by itself the ‘information’ to activate altruism - it being an​​ instinctual​​ behaviour. Altruism is an identity thing.​​ 

Which is why I thought my question should have been clearer, as the answer you provided did not answer it.​​ Also I think Richard and Vineeto were responding to my ‘no purpose in life’ statement, in which I meant the word ‘purpose’ in a ‘social’ sense, deliberately linking it to altruism / helping humankind etc., (which is the reason for my ‘not being a change-the-world type of guy’ paragraph) - and not referring to the obvious purpose stemming from the PCE to enable peace on earth for this body.

About altruism my mistake was to try and consider it in a ‘positive’ light: i.e. what can my self-immolation objectively do for the breakthrough of peace on earth, instead of contemplating what ‘bad’ I am doing to this body and everybody that would be ‘removed’ by my self-immolation. Your last post is I think a good take on it: it is about being ‘appalled’ by the human condition and wanting to end it.​​ 

Take note that your ‘visceral’ realisation of the necessity of this action did not happen in a PCE, nor is linked to the memory of the PCE (which you said you can’t access right now) - apart from the fact that it is only the​​ PCE that shows that such an ending of the human condition is​​ possible.


Dona: we included this again in our discussion with Richard (Vineeto was not there today), to get some clarification on it for ourselves. At first you stated you didn't have any altruistic reason to self-immolate, and that is why you got the reply that you did.

(Dona's note: Though in another post you did see in your PCEs that "This is not just for me this is for everybody”, ​​ I included that post below, as that was a "fine point" which​​ was worth investigating).


Alan: Given my experience last night and this morning, I again raised the subject with Richard (Vineeto was working today).​​ 

Altruism is not invoked or experienced in a PCE – it is only the feeling being who can be altruistic. Richard is not altruistic – it does not exist in the actual world.​​ 


Given the kerfuffle of yesterday, please note the following is not what Richard said. It is my understanding of what he said:

In the PCE one experiences peace on earth – and that it is for​​ everybody, not just​​ the obvious purpose stemming from the PCE to enable peace on earth for this body”.​​ 

In your first post you said:

I don’t ‘believe’ that my self-immolation would be the one breaking the camel’s back and that ‘I’ personally am the only thing preventing the breakthrough of peace on earth. I don’t ‘believe’ it would change anything for humankind - or not that much at all. I would stay where I am, keep on doing what I do, pretty much the ‘same guy’ as far as others are concerned

You personally​​ are​​ the only thing preventing the breakthrough of peace on earth and if you don’t bring about peace on earth who will? What else can you do?


CLAUDIU: In my experience there is... there is a sense of “this is not just for me it is for everybody” and that I​​ will​​ do what it takes to eventuate actual freedom and that it’s the optimum for basically everything, its just the way things ought to be (and actually are already in what is a very strange set of affairs).​​ 

Geoffrey: I agree totally on this. Especially on “it’s just the way things ought to be, and actually are already”, which is indeed very striking, and I must say something I’ve contemplated on when thinking about self-immolation (without success obviously but still there is something there.)

“This is​​ not just for me this is for everybody”, which I agree is present in the PCE, I would not call ‘altruism’, which is defined as an​​ instinctual​​ behaviour, with the example of the bee. This is quite far from it.... wouldn’t this be more ‘actual caring’? (not​​ sure at all, when it has the word ‘caring’ in it I usually take precautions haha).


Dona: yes, ​​ you are correct, altruism would not be present in a PCE, since it is part of the identity, which is in abeyance.​​ 

Though, the PCE almost always contains the​​ "reason" to be altruistic (which is an action which is taken at the time of becoming free of the human condition).


Alan: you say above that you saw in the PCE that it is for everybody which may make my above remarks superfluous. We also discussed altruism​​ today on slack.



Also maybe someone has an answer to this. If space and time are infinite then what about matter? Is there an infinite amount of matter in the universe? If so then how would you know from being actually free?


Dona: Matter is also infinite, as it cannot be created or destroyed.​​ 

Richard knows because the universe is infinite, so then matter is as well (it's a given).


John CM:

I have two questions for Richard and Vineeto.​​ 

1.) Is the experience of an actual freedom better than the experience of enlightenment, when you experience bliss & being bathed in love, or however it's experienced - because you feel pretty good in both right?


Dona: Richard spent 11 years "enlightened", so he can speak about this with knowledge of it... actual freedom is far superior to an enlightened state. Enlightenment is definitely a "blissful" state, but it is not actual.​​ 


Alan: His actual words were “infinitely better”.


2.) How do you experience becoming drunk when you are free? Do you need to drink less or​​ more to feel a "buzz" and again, how is this experienced? Perhaps you get a freecard from hangovers?​​ 


Dona: he does not need a "buzz", nor has he ever been drunk since he's been actually free.



Dona, it is said that one will self-immolate when they​​ are ready.  ​​​​ Can you ask Richard:  ​​​​ Specifically how does one get ready?


Dona: Richard's experience was unique to him (seeing his affect on another human being), though he said that for everyone it is different.


Alan: Perhaps this quote from Richard might help:

The ‘I’ that used to inhabit this body did everything possible that ‘I’ could do to blatantly imitate the actual in that ‘I’ endeavoured to be happy and harmless for as much as is humanly possible. This was achieved by putting everything on a ‘it​​ doesn’t really matter’ basis. That is, ‘I’ would prefer people, things and events to be a particular way, but if it did not turn out like that … it did not really matter for it was only a preference. ‘I’ chose to no longer give other people – or the weather – the power to make ‘me’ angry … or irritated … or even peeved, if that was possible.




​​ on the topic of not being able to remember PCEs... I’ve only had one (after watching the PCE DVD) and although i remember it occurred and have notes on it, i can't remember the 'atmosphere' of it in a way i can rememorate it - it's completely different to anything 'i' can imagine. The only times i've been able to get a sense of it is occasionally when watching the DVDs (which is why i was hoping they would make more). I seem to need this 'something completely different' quality to succeed.

I also had an experience of 'infinite tenderness' or being 'bathed in intimacy' once when watching the out-from-control DVD.

Admittedly they only happen very occasionally but i do have interesting experiences as a result of watching the DVDs (presumably from body language & tone of voice as well as the conversational style as opposed to just reading the written word)

I wonder if it's worth mentioning this to them? I can post my description of the pce if it helps?


Dona: we mentioned this to him (Vineeto was not there today). He was "pleased" to hear of your experiences with the DVDs.


Alan: Yes Richard and Vineeto are always pleased to hear that what has been provided has been of benefit to another.

I have found that posting descriptions of my experiences is beneficial for me and might be of benefit to another.



maybe you could ask Richard and Vineeto about this 'full-blown PCE' like I asked you before.


Dona: Richard said exactly the same thing Craig did. It's a "stable" PCE that lasts for a reasonable length of time, and you can experience how you would be able to function without the identity "in charge".




A question for Richard & Vineeto, regarding the science-based understanding of the mind that our entire experience of the world is a 'controlled hallucination,' eg that everything we experience IS a hallucination, but more or less accurate and mediated by our sensory inputs.
I'm basing my question off this TED Talk I saw a few weeks ago:​​ 

The author of the talk, Anil Seth, also mentions this view of consciousness in this article:

a relevant passage:
"Because it turns out that the sensory signals delivered to my brain do not disclose an external world in its objective glory. They provide the raw materials my brain uses to generate the rich perceptual scenes that guide our behaviour. We perceive our surroundings – and ourselves within them – not as they are, but as is useful for us to do so."

I'm asking about this because in his writings Richard seems to indicate that actualism is such a purely sensory-driven experience that it's before hallucination... there's no 'making up' at all, that we are truly experiencing the world as it is (as in apperceptiveness). However, taken to its fullest extent, I'm having trouble reconciling this with the​​ scientific view - that most of everything is truly hallucinated into our experience, part of why things like optical illusions work. Do optical illusions not work on Actualists? Because in the scientific view pretty much our entire reality is constructed out of hallucination, I'm having trouble understanding how one could perceive without hallucination in any form happening at all... there is no '100% accurate experience of the world' because our minds make up most of it on their own, and it can't be otherwise. (I don't mean that there isn't an objective world in existence, just that we don't get to experience it firsthand - it's mediated by our senses,​​ then by our minds construction). Perhaps in apperception we simply see this happening with extraordinary clarity? Please advise!!! Thanks  ​


@Martin Thanks for responding!
I feel very similarly to all your points and agree that 'seeing everything as an illusion' is indeed a dangerous point of view. I feel comfortable couching it in the terms 'everything is a​​ hallucination' because as I understand it, there is no firm line between 'not hallucinating' and 'hallucinating.' In other words, the point at which I'm seeing the wall (relatively) clearly and the moment when I begin to hallucinate eg patterns on the wall​​ which my mind makes up blend into each other perfectly... my mind is always making up some aspects of it, which is the exact mechanism of hallucination. Where we as lay-people define hallucinations is when things get extra weird, but it all works by the same mechanism.


Dona: Richard and Vineeto didn't watch the video or read the article, so their answers are based on your comments and questions related to what you quoted.

Feeling beings  filter everything they experience through that (feelings), and that​​ is why they cannot experience the actual world (except in a PCE). 

When you become actually free, the feeling being is gone, and there's a direct/objective experience of the world. 

The "scientific view" is made up by feeling beings, who have never experienced the actual world, thus never having a direct experience, so they assume it is impossible. 

They are using the word hallucinations inaccurately. Here is the definition: 

"An experience involving the apparent perception of something not present." (Such​​ as seeing pink elephants or unicorns... Or hearing voices in your head). Yet, feeling beings do experience things that are present, they simply add "feeling filters" to what is being experienced. A more accurate word is illusion, which means: "an instance​​ of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience."

You wrote, "everything we experience IS a hallucination, but more or less accurate and mediated by our sensory inputs." The experience is mediated by the feeling being, not the sensory inputs (and the hallucination part has already been discussed).

Most of what they are talking about is the "science" of relativity ("the absence of standard of absolute and universal application"), which is a false premise. As stated above, these "scientists" have never experienced the actual world, so they assume it does not really exist. So, since they start from a false premise, everything built upon it is on very shaky ground (or no ground at all).


Alan: Dona has covered it well so I have not much to add. You said the objective world​​ “is mediated by our senses, then by our minds”.​​ As Dona has pointed out it is our senses (theses eyes seeing, these ears hearing etc) that are ‘mediated’ by the feeling being. The feeling being never gets to experience the actual world. The feeling being is an illusion who can create hallucinations on top of the illusion.

Oh, and actually free people do ‘see’ optical illusions.



Has Richard shown any more interest in participating on slack in the future?


Dona: No, he​​ doesn't have any interest in participating in slack. 



 I wondered about the difference between intent(ion) and goals.


Dona: a goal usually includes a plan/steps of how to get there. An intent(ion) is similar, except there is no set plans to​​ get there. Similar to the intention to be actually free from the human condition, there is no "plan/steps" to get there.


I wondered if they get a "thrill" from doing something exciting (I used a rollercoaster as an example). 


Dona: Richard and Vineeto both said, no, they do not.  The "thrill" comes from fear (which they do not experience).

What is feeling-tone (aka: hedonic tone, vedena)? - Is it a feeling; is it hormonal; does it precede feeling... - ?


Dona: it is not a feeling or hormones and​​ nothing precedes feelings. It is the "tone" of the feeling itself. 

Vineeto used the example of anger (which is normally a low/unpleasant hedonic tone), which many people find enjoyable/exhilarating (which is a high/pleasant hedonic tone). The hormones are​​ activated/caused by the hedonic tone (pleasant or unpleasant). 


Alan: All feelings have a hedonic tone ranging from pleasant to unpleasant. Hedonic tone is the same as vedena but the Pali “neither pleasant nor unpleasant” has been wrongly translated to mean “neutral” which a hedonic tone never is.

Had an interesting insight just now - Earlier I was doubtful of Richard's statement "Sorrow arises because  the identity is cut off from the splendour of the actual" .. Instead, my take was that sorrow arises when an instinctual passion is unable to meet it's programmed goal
I could see (in my head) that I'm in a vast bright world where time does not move and I sit there as a child with some toy..all I would be doing is play with no goals at all..this was​​ of course the actual world (perhaps some memory from childhood had triggered)
At this point I teared up slightly and realized that this tearing up with a sorrowful tone is because I am missing that bright playful world where time does not move or iow, sorrow arises because of missing the actual
How much fun would it be for time to not move - there is something very 'resting' and peaceful about it !


Dona: Vineeto said it sounds like you were rememorating a childhood PCE, and perhaps you can use this as a "jumping off point" to an actual freedom. Sorrow came in as a way to stop that from happening (cunning as we are). 


Alan: As Dona says the “tearing up with a sorrowful tone” is the identity’s way of avoiding ‘getting too close’.

I experienced it two mornings ago when I was contemplating on my experience of the previous evening (that ‘I’ am the human condition and the human condition is ‘me’). I was experiencing that ‘I’ have to go to end it and was seeing that more and more clearly, when a feeling of nostalgia (sorrow) started to creep in. Fortunately I spotted it very quickly and declined to go there.

So sorrow does not arise because of “missing the actual”. It happens to stop you getting too close to the actual which is different from Richard’s statement that “Sorrow arises because  the identity is cut off from the splendour of the actual”,​​ as Geoffrey writes below.

I just took a long walk where I mostly contemplated on the fact that none of what I was experiencing was actual. that there was an​​ overlay tainting everything. The feeling of separation was very clear. And sorrow was there indeed - sorrow at being “cut off from the splendour of the actual.”


Alan: You missed out a word – ‘forever’​​ cut off……

At the depth of being ‘I’ live in constant sorrow (and fear). Hence ‘my’ secret desire for oblivion – an actual freedom is a win-win situation.


I'm confused about something, Richard says: "this very moment which is happening now is your only moment of being alive" then a bit later he talks about "a remarkably effective way to be able to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive each moment again" what I'm confused about is "each moment again" he first seems to say there is only one moment but then that sounds like there are many moments.

Dona: In the actual world time stands eternally still, time does not "move", only events move. There is only this moment.

But, feeling beings experience time as moving, as a sequence of moments (each moment again, or many moments)


John CM:
"I" can't live​​ now, but as I also understand it, is that one is trying to "imitate" the actual, by trying to be "here, now" as an identity. So it's as close/near as one can get to the "actual" (now/moment) and through the question, I always pay attention to my feelings,​​ at the same time trying to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive the best "I" can. I guess. I write this mostly to be corrected if I'm misinformed in some way.


Alan: One does not “imitate the actual by trying to be here, now”.​​ Trying to be in the here and now is what the spiritual people do.

Richard:​​ The ‘I’ that used to inhabit this body did everything possible that ‘I’ could do to blatantly imitate the actual in that ‘I’ endeavoured to be happy and harmless for as much as is humanly possible


Q11 :
I find it hard to agree that vibes is some sort of an extra-sensory transmitter/receiver type there is only the physical in actuality, so how could something extra-sensory be transmitted n received by the physical


Dona: there are no vibes​​ in the actual world (they are not physical).

Q14:  "why do you say you'll die sooner if you enter the actual world? Or do you mean 'I' as ego?"

It appears as if I'll lose teeth n cunning when actually free n so I'll not be able to defend myself in a​​ hostile life-threatening situation..It feels as if I'll be like a weak prey, ready to become the breakfast of other people

Dona: I assume from your PCE experiences you've noted a 'clear headedness" that is far superior to your identity thinking. Vineeto said that you might've experienced this "clear headedness" when you were in an accident, when time seems to stand still (or slow), and it seems like you have forever to figure out what to do, and you act without the feeling being in the way.

Alan: Richard​​ says he would have no problem at all defending himself in a hostile situation or be a “weak prey”. For example:

Richard:​​ ​​ some years ago whilst in a supermarket my wife and I had a pack stolen from the shopping trolley we were using when our backs were turned; I saw a young man disappearing along the aisle with our pack and on out through the turnstile; I went off after him at a brisk pace, negotiated the turnstile easily, and moved out through the self-opening doors; there was an ornamental garden between​​ me and the car-park wherein off in the distance the young man could be seen heading away; I cleared the garden in one leap – seeing each and every plant and flower in detail as I sailed over it – and soon caught up to him as, glancing over his shoulder and​​ seeing me coming, he headed for a crowded mall to the left ... and eventually regained the pack without a fight or even any display of intimidation. Upon returning to the supermarket I passed by the garden, through the pathway provided, and noticed by its​​ width that I would not ordinarily be able to leap over it ... necessity provides all the calorific energy required.

He was a big, muscular young man such that I would not wish to enter into a ring with as I would be bound to come off second-best in any such organised sport. He knew that he had crossed the line in regards to the legal laws and social protocol and fully expected to pay the price for his actions ... his bluff and bluster collapsed like a leaky balloon when confronted in the mall with the straightforward request for the return of property not belonging to him.

Interestingly enough I was not even breathing heavily.​​ 




Is there is a difference between an expectation and an assumption?


Dona: an assumption is based on past experience, and then we formulate an expectation (usually affective) based on the assumption.


Alan: An​​ expectation is affective but it has to come from somewhere – either a belief or an assumption.


​​ Dona:  I tend to be surprised often when I think I "know" something.

Don't we really only know facts?


Dona: Richard said that feeling beings think they know many things, and few are based on facts.


How do I get out of laziness?


RICHARD: Do you comprehend that, although the past was actual when it was happening, it is not actual now and that, although the future will be actual when it does happen, it is not actual now ... that only this moment is actual?

If so, do you further comprehend that anytime you felt good/ will feel good does not mean a thing if you are not feeling good now ... that a remembered occasion/ an anticipated occasion pales​​ into insignificance if you are currently feeling bad?

Furthermore, do you understand that to be living this moment – the only moment you are ever alive – by feeling bad is to be frittering away a vital opportunity to be fully alive ... to totally enjoy and​​ appreciate being what you indubitably are (a sensate creature) whilst you are here on this planet?

If so, is it not silly to waste this only moment you are ever alive by feeling bad ... when you could be feeling good?


Last night Q4 deleted several posts resulting from a question Q3 asked and my reply (quoting Vineeto), including the​​ original post and my initial reply. Although Q4 was acting with the best intentions, it is not a satisfactory solution as some people would have read the original post and not the reply (they were also included in the Slack digest). The following is Q3’s original post and my reply.

Today I checked again with Vineeto - she did not say anything about the Holocaust. It is a public slur and equivalent to asking Q3 if he still thinks it is healthy to have sex with young boys.


This question goes back to our​​ previous visit to Ballina. Does Vineeto still think that The Holocaust did not occur?  Holocaust meaning: the planned and systematic extermination of approx. 6 million Jews by Nazi's using gas and other means during WW2. Some explanation if so or if she has changed her mind on that topic, would be welcome.



We had not replied to your question as it was addressed to Vineeto and she was working yesterday, as I posted on here.
She said that it is not a legitimate question and is a public slur, especially​​ given that holocaust denial is a criminal offence in 16 European countries [source Wikipedia]. Your question is equivalent to her asking you if you still think it is healthy for grown men to have sex with young boys.
Subsequent posts showed that at least​​ two of the members of this forum assumed from your question that she is in denial that the holocaust took place demonstrating how it can very quickly come to be taken as a fact and not questioned.



Alan: All feelings have a hedonic tone ranging from pleasant to unpleasant. Hedonic tone is the same as vedena but the Pali “neither pleasant nor unpleasant” has been wrongly translated to mean “neutral” which a hedonic tone never is.


Can you ask for further explication on this point? "neither pleasant nor unpleasant" and "neutral" sound synonymous to me, likely because of having heard it translated that way many times. What's the distinction? If neither pleasant nor unpleasant then what to call it but neutral?


Dona: When Richard was translating​​ the Pali sutras he saw they had a word for neutral, but that was not the word they used for describing the hedonic tone, it was a word for  "neither pleasant nor unpleasant". The best Richard can figure it, it may come from a meditative state (the transition from the 3rd to 4th jhana) where you transcend the hedonic tone. 

(Dona sidenote: I might have used some of these terms incorrectly).


Alan: Richard asked Dona and I (as feeling beings – it is no longer possible for him) ​​ to try feeling neither​​ pleasant or unpleasant about a feeling. We couldn’t.​​ 

ALAN :So sorrow does not arise because of “missing the actual”. It happens to stop you getting too close to the actual which is different from Richard’s statement that “Sorrow arises because the​​ identity is cut off from the splendour of the actual”, as Geoffrey writes below. 
Geoffrey: I just took a long walk where I mostly contemplated on the fact that none of what I was experiencing was actual. that there was an overlay tainting everything. The​​ feeling of separation was very clear. And sorrow was there indeed - sorrow at being “cut off from the actual world"


There is something I don’t get here, but it might just be the grammar. 
So “Sorrow arises because the identity is cut off from the splendour of the actual” (Richard’s statement, and my experience), but also (“which is different”) as a way to stop one from getting too close to the actual (Q11’s experience, and your experience with the​​ nostalgia). 
Am I getting this right?

In one case​​ the identity experiences sorrow at not (ever) having access to the actual, in the other one the identity experiences sorrow to prevent the body from getting too close to the actual (and “jumping off” to actual freedom / end its being as identity).
I’ve been contemplating on this a while, there is a link there I can’t see, something is preventing me to do so, my brain is blocked/freezed… weird. 
Before going on further with this contemplation, I thought it would be sensible to make sure I got this right lol.


Dona:  sorrow (or any feeling) often comes in to protect you from self-immolating (survival instinct). You can either "decline" going down that road (if it's something you've already investigated), or use it to "motivate you" (jumping off point) forward​​ all the way into an actual freedom... such as: seeing that sorrow, or any feeling, is the reason you are self-immolating, for example -such as asking yourself if that is how you want to feel for the rest of your life... Which is a question Vineeto used to​​ snap herself out of some anxiety she was experiencing... (No, she did not use this to become actually free, it was just her suggestion on how it can be used). 

Vineeto makes it clear not to use this as an excuse not to investigate any and all feelings that arise.

And, yes, the  "core" of all sorrow  arises because the identity is cut off from the splendour of the actual”

Could you please confirm with Richard and Vineeto that this is correct? (yes, another question
Is it that, seeing the diversion the identity is trying to pull off, you (you as ‘native intelligence’) decide that ‘enough is enough’ and that the identity has to go?


Dona: I originally agreed with this, because we were having a "lax" conversation and I knew where you were going with "decide that ‘enough is enough’ and that the identity has to go?".  But, of course that wouldn't work, as you cannot eliminate yourself by yourself. It is seeing the diversion, and either declining to go down that road (if you've investigated this before), or use it​​ as additional  "motivation"  to move you to an actual freedom.

The sorrow used by 'me' as a diversionary tactic is personal sorrow. The sorrow of forever being locked out of paradise is 'human sorrow'. It is way, way beyond any personal sorrow. It is 'me' at the root of 'being' - the sorrow of the human condition, in 'me' and all of 'humanity'.


Alan: I posted the above on slack. Richard was not sure about using the term “personal sorrow” but other than that he agreed with it.


can I ask a follow-up question to Richard on his answer to this?:

"John C M: "I" can't live now, but as I also understand it, is that one is trying to "imitate" the actual, by trying to be "here, now" as an identity. So it's as close/near as​​ one can get to the "actual"​​ (now/moment) and through the question, I always pay attention to my feelings, at the same time trying to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive the best "I" can. [...]
Alan: One does not “imitate the actual by trying to be here, now”. Trying to be in the here and now is what the spiritual people do."

After the question 'how am I experiencing this moment of being alive' Richard often writes on the website in brackets 'the only moment one is ever alive', which indicates that the question or method​​ of feeling good includes that this is the only moment one is ever alive.
Or, as part of the method he draws attention to it slightly differently - that only this moment is actual (the past is not actual, the future is not actual, only now is actual).
However, as a feeling being can't experience this eternal moment, what is 'this moment' that a feeling being is supposed to be paying attention to as part of the method? Is it just that by contemplating it there's a chance of having a direct experience of it?


Dona: there is nothing mystical about it, it is simply "this moment", right now. It is 7:00 right now.

You do not need to contemplate anything, or try to get a direct experience of it (as that is impossible for a​​ feeling being unless in a PCE). Just notice how you are feeling, now.

Alan was just pointing out that the "saying", "in the here and now" is a spiritual saying.

this may seem like a newbish question but can you ask them to go into detail or freely talk about what intimacy actually is? i've been investigating this recently in my relationship... i realize i don't have a firm grasp of what intimacy actually is. in terms of with a person specifically. it's written on the site that actual intimacy is​​ there being no separation, but i mean there are degrees of intimacy while still a feeling-being (even though some separation). something about being 'close' to another person (or a 'thing' if it is with an inanimate object). and i see 'i' come in to muck things up when i get too 'close'. but what *is* it actually... something to do with being open and welcoming of anything the other does? (as opposed to resisting or shutting off or wanting ti to be 'my' way)... being keenly curious about what the other is experiencing?


Dona: Vineeto suggests to look at the things that prevent intimacy. For example:

Expectation, fears (and all feelings you have about her and relationships in general), your image of her, the man/woman camp conditioning...

And look at the​​ beliefs around all of those.


Alan: It is not about “being open and welcoming of anything the other does”.​​ One does not stop being sensible. ​​ 

Speaking from my experiences with Dona, to achieve higher levels of intimacy it is about ‘letting go’. Not having​​ any concern about what she thinks of me or ‘expects’ from me – which is not the same as having no consideration. Seeing her as a fellow human being and not someone who is there to pander to ‘my’ needs and demands. No reciprocation is required, although it​​ is even more intimate and delicious when it happens.


how many cups of coffee per day do Richard and Vineeto drink now?


Dona: about 5 cups a day

Another question! Do R or V get 'mentally fatigued' (as distinct from 'physically fatigued')? 
For eg., after Richard spends 5 hours reading the Pali Canon does he get mentally fatigued by the end of that?


Dona: Vineeto does notice some mental fatigue, but mostly when she's working or if her blood sugar gets low. 

Richard does not experience mental fatigue.

Do you gain any ability when you become actually free


Dona: yes! 

The ability to look at current and historical issues without any beliefs or pre-order conceived ideas.

To look at all the evidence objectively without having any feelings​​ blocking the facts.

They are not affected or influenced by affective currents or psychic vibes.

They are not self-centric, they can look objectively at each individual issue without putting themselves into it.

The ability to drop an opinion if facts/evidence proves something different, they are not attached to any of their opinions. 

Their opinions are based on facts, not beliefs.


Alan: One thing I can recall from my pce’s is an incredible clarity in thinking for the reasons Dona stated above.


Yesterday I had a question regarding intent(ion) and goals, and Richard had something to add to that today:
I wondered about the difference between intent(ion) and goals. 

Dona: a goal usually includes a plan/steps of how to get there. An intent(ion) is similar,except there are no set plans to get there. Similar to the intention to be actually free from the human condition, there is no "plan/steps" to get there. 


Richard's addition: you set a goal, but it is the intent(ion) that sustains the endeavor. It is​​ the "driving force" that gets you there. Without that, it is just a "pipe dream".




I have a question, I had posted it on Yahoo before and it didn't get any replies:

Richard prefers to talk of "companionship" and "associates" and I have noticed​​ sometimes actualists prefer to avoid saying they have a "relationship" and even do not want to say​​ they have "friends". I was wondering if feeling beings can do away with those things or if just avoiding the words could be denial? I mean is it really helpful saying that what you have is not a "relationship"? Or saying that the people in your life are not your "friends"? I was thinking that maybe you cannot avoid "relationships" and "friendships" until you are free.


Dona: Q11 replied to this already on slack, and Richard didn't have much more to add: 


Richard : As a relationship is specifically described as being an emotional association between two people – as in an affective connection, union, bond (as in ‘the bonds of friendship’) or tie (as in ‘family ties’) – it confuses the issue somewhat to call being together monogamously with another, when actually free from the human condition, “a relationship” ... indeed, in the first edition of ‘Richard’s Journal’, where I used that very word (albeit as a modern-day substitute for the word ‘marriage’), it caused enough confusion for some readers as to occasion my replacement of it with the term ‘an association’ when preparing the second edition.


Alan: Richard thought he had already discussed this point with you on the Yahoo list.​​ 

[my comment] What is important is finding out for yourself (by experiment and investigation) whether the results of a ‘relationship’ have a good or a bad effect. As feeling beings any association will inevitably have affective content. One can examine the emotions generated (e.g. love) and decide whether it is beneficial or not.


I have another question: 
Do they think any spiritual teacher, or anybody really, alive today is fully enlightened? If so, who?


Dona: Vineeto said that as far as she knows there's someone in Australia (she could not remember his name), and she recalls telling you about it a few years back.


Alan: I think it may have been Barry Long who died 6 December 2003



This q. more just curiosity, but how was richard​​ able to deactivate love agape to be happy & harmless, wasn’t it something constant from being enlightened?


Dona: Richard is not clear on your question, can you please repost it and include where he said he "deactivated love agape", and what are you​​ referring to as "it" (love agape or happy and harmless). Thanks 



If one is feeling bad and experiencing the (illusion) that they can't choose to start feeling good, what is the best course of action?
I have an intellectual understanding that it is an​​ illusion but occasionally it is too powerful and it takes a really long time to get back to feeling good. Most often the feeling that seems "out of my control" is a low level of anxiety and unease. For some reason, other feelings,​​ especially anger, are obviously my choice and then it is only a matter of recognizing the silliness of getting angry.


Dona: Richard does not say to choose to start feeling good, he says to investigate when you started feeling bad to get back to feeling good. 


Alan: It is not​​ possible to simply choose to start feeling good, so it is not an illusion. Perhaps another read of​​ ​​​​ including all of the pop ups would be of benefit.​​ 


I would like to discuss this point further. I have experienced choosing to feel good after recognizing the silliness of feeling bad. And actually I thought that choosing to feel good was the​​ whole point of actualism as described by Richard.

For instance Richard has written "it is your choice, and your choice alone, each moment again as to how you prefer to experience this moment of being alive."

The bottom section of this page for instance is a collection of instances where Richard says that actualism is about choosing to feel good.


Dona: I went to that webpage and did a search for "choosing" and the only ones that came up were from respondents. I do not see anywhere that Richard said that. 

Dona wrote that Richard recommends tracking back to when one last was feeling good, as opposed to choosing to feel good. As I see it this is sort of a non sequitur to my question, it doesn't really answer it. I certainly agree that tracing back is the first step of getting back to feeling good, but after one has recognized what triggered off the bad feeling isn't the next step to choose to feel good before going on to investigate the trigger in more depth? I can post references for that description of the actualism method if necessary. So my question stands unanswered as I see it but fortunately I​​ am finding experiential answers over time. 


Dona: I did not make it as clear as possible. Let me try again..

When you notice you're no longer feeling good, think back to when you last were feeling good, and see what caused that to end (note: this is not investigating the cause, just looking at an event that started you not feeling good any more). See the silliness of it (that some event or what someone said could cause you to feel bad). That should automatically make you feel good again (seeing the silliness of it). **Note: it is not a choice to feel good, you do feel good. 

Once you feel good again... Then investigate the reason behind it (what belief or feeling or habitual response that you might have that caused you to react that way)

When Richard talks​​ about "choosing to feel good" that's about life in general. That it is our choice how we feel (who else chooses that)? It is not part of the actualism method.

The website that Alan provided yesterday clearly outlines the actualism method n detail:

As a side note, I don't have much expectation when I attempt to discuss actualism any more because for some reason my intention is almost never understood. I really don't know why,​​ I suppose it must be something about the way I ask questions. Again I am not really that upset about it because I think just going off the basics of what has been written about actualism I am getting more consistent experiences of feeling good with practice.


Dona: it is great that you are have more consistent experiences of feeling good.

(Dona sidenote: perhaps look at your "expectation" and the beliefs behind it)




Could you ask them the size of the moka pot (stovetop espresso) they used when Jon and myself were there in Peter's houseboat? They made coffee for all 5 of us and I really enjoyed that coffee. Just want to know the espresso volume of that pot. And model​​ if possible too.


Alan: Avanti Art Deco Expresso Maker. They have the largest size, classed as 12 cup which they use to make two mugs of coffee.



I'd like to know how to find out what my beliefs are... Is there an example Richard or Vineeto can make​​ of one or two of their investigations that would be like a walk through of the investigation process.... When I investigate I'm never really sure if I've found a belief or just invented a belief that would explain the feeling... Is it quite clear when the​​ key belief is discovered or is it a process of guessing... I felt annoyed when a person I know seemed unhappy about it being their birthday...could it be that 'i believe people shouldn't be negative about their birthdays', but although that makes sense, it​​ didn't really feel like I have hit the nail on the head.... is there something else... I would really like a couple of clear examples of a successful investigation of ordinary beliefs, if that's possible..


Dona: Geoffrey and Q11 gave you examples in slack, Richard and Vineeto did not have any specific examples.

They did say that when you get to the belief that caused the annoyance you will most likely know it (hit the nail on the head). Vineeto also pointed out (as Q11 did), that many annoyances/disappointments are due to expectations (beliefs) that aren't being met... You might want to start there.


Alan: Vineeto wrote about investigating some of her beliefs in “A Bit Of Vineeto”​​ 



RESPONDENT: Does that reason {for no more potent Godmen} have anything to do with your (as claimed) being actually free, even though very few people know about you as of now?
RICHARD: No, it is not by being actually free of the human condition per se but, rather, because of what the grandiose identity/ the aggrandised affections indwelling via having possessed this flesh and blood body did, in 1992, to bring that about/ to have that happen/ to occasion that to occur ... to wit: the extinction of ‘Being’ itself (otherwise known as ‘The Ground Of Being’ out of which all gods and goddesses​​ arise).
In short, and to paraphrase Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche purely for dramatic effect, that which is referred to as The Absolute is dead ... as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains (nor any ashes for some hoary phoenix to arise from).
Or, in a word, extinct.

a few questions  ​
1. About what Richard did in 1992…

Was it a “once in eternity” event - one human being extinguishing the Absolute - so that there would never be an Absolute again on top of the ‘human psychic pyramid’? 
Does this mean there will never be fully enlightened beings any more? (… even if all actually free people disappear?)
And consequently, that the route to Actual Freedom through Enlightenment not only is no longer necessary since the direct route is open, but indeed no longer passable? 
Is the Rock of Enlightenment consequently still a huge danger, or just a potential stumbling block (leading nowhere)? 


Dona: it is only an hypothesis that there will not be any more enlightened beings, perhaps it's just coincidental there haven't been any new ones since then.

There is still the possibility of going into ASCs and becoming "self-realised", so it is something to always keep in mind. 

(Dona sidenote: Perhaps your experiences  of last summer is a good indicator of the​​ "dangers" of going in the wrong direction).

2. About people getting actually free and the effect on the psychic network…
Does the presence of actually free bodies (without souls) on the planet somehow create ‘holes’ or ‘blindspots’ in the psychic network? 
Is this what the ‘pristine ambiance’ is about? 
Does every person getting actually free create another ‘hole’ and does this threaten the integrity of the psychic network, and ultimately its existence?
Is this what the ‘critical mass’ is about?


Dona: remember this is all hypothetical. There is a possibility that is what happened (and is happening).

3. About the spread of peace on earth…

RESPONDENT: ... the way is open for the consciousness mutation to be implemented on a global level.
RICHARD: Indeed so​​ ... via happy and harmless (affective) ‘vibes’ and felicitous and innocuous (psychic) ‘currents’.

How, seeing that actually free people don’t produce vibes, is this supposed to happen?
Or is it only virtually free people, producing those vibes, that influence the psychic network so that it becomes ‘more felicitous’ globally? 
Is this where we are to expect a ‘critical mass’: of virtually free people? 
And if this is indeed the mechanism, would those virtually free people getting actually free, and so stopping producing felicitous vibes, actually delay this happening? (edited)


Dona: you are correct, actually free people have no vibes and​​ cannot affect the psychic web.

Obviously the more people living virtually free will have an effect on the psychic web, though it is still "better" to become actually free! 


Alan: ​​ Did we discuss some of the above, Geoffrey, as it seems pretty close to some of my speculations which I aired during the intimate ambience experiment.​​ 

Your questions gave rise to some interesting discussion – and some wild speculations - which was great fun.​​ 

Richard seemed quite interested in the ‘blowing holes in the psychic web’ possibly leading to its ‘collapse’ until Vineeto pointed out that it is ‘being’ which creates the psychic web so that so long as there are still feeling beings the psychic web will remain.

Richard first used the term“pristine ambience” when referring to the atmosphere a real-estate agent remarked on after showing clients round the apartment in which he was then living ( It has nothing to do with “holes or blind spots in the psychic network”. It does appear (note the word appear although there is some scant evidence) that actually free people do generate ‘something’ which, being non-affective, can only be physical. Could this be something to do with the “action potential” of every cell in the body? Possibly, but it is purely speculative at this stage, which Richard has stressed.

I also had/have some theories about the possible affect on​​ the psychic web of people becoming not just virtually free but also more felicitous and innocuous. It does seem a reasonable hypothesis. However, beware the possible consequence of making that an excuse for not becoming actually free which ‘I’ have cunningly used twice now. It is not going to happen a third time lol

The bottom line is that the best thing one can do for this body, that body and every body is to become actually free – and preferably sooner rather than later. It will also have the benefit of​​ increasing the sample size of actually free people – to compare experiences and possibly enable these sort of speculations to be better formulated into theories.

It is so exciting (and so much fun) to be a daring pioneer at the cutting edge of the next step in human evolution. Richard (as a feeling being) made the discovery after eleven years of being insane (and how ‘he’ managed to achieve it I cannot even begin to comprehend). The first wave of daring pioneers established the direct route, ‘mapping the way’ for others who would follow. The time is now for the next wave – and no one knows what will happen then. Perhaps this will be the ‘critical mass’?




RICHARD: Note: asking how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is not the actualism method; consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is what the actualism method is. And this is because the actualism method is all about consciously and knowingly imitating life in the actual world. Also, by virtue of proceeding in this manner the means to the end – an ongoing enjoyment and appreciation – are no different to the end itself

How does an ongoing enjoyment and appreciation lead to actual freedom?


Dona: there is no direct correlation between  the actualism method and becoming actually free. As Richard has stated, there are no conditions needed, it can happen now to anyone.

Yet, the actualism method does assist a person is seeing the possibility of living a life as it is in actuality (as you quoted above: "the actualism method is all about consciously and knowingly imitating life in the actual world.")

And while investigating the reasons why you aren't enjoying and appreciating you are whittling down the social identity which can facilitate an actual freedom (getting thinner).

Also you commit to actual freedom, which sets the intention in motion (harder to get somewhere if the intention isn't set). 




One question comes to mind...I wonder if Richard n Vineeto would  have any tips/suggestions for overcoming that “fear of irrevocability”


Dona: Vineeto suggests having more PCEs until you know for sure this is what you want. 

For her, she didn’t have this fear, though she did look at it, and was glad it was irrevocable, she didn’t want to go back.


Alan: Just to add​​ that a PCE is not irrevocable so no need to fear having a PCE.



BIAS: a :bent, tendency
b :an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially :a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment :prejudice
c :an instance of such prejudice 
So I guess​​ a bias is a belief.
Does such a bias disappear upon an actual freedom? Its emotional component does, by definition. But can it remain as a ‘social identity remnant’ or an ‘habituated pattern’ until one is fully free?


Dona: this is another time I was surprised with Richard's answer. If he had a bias (something that he took as a fact) prior to becoming actually free, then yes he still carried that bias. He used the example of smoking causing cancer. He originally investigated it when they were linking smoking with cervical cancer. He thought that seemed a bit far fetched. He still carried the thought that smoking caused lung, throat and mouth cancer, because that made logical sense to him. It took him 3 weeks of research (12-14 hours a day 5+ days a week) until it dawned on him that there was no causal evidence between smoking and any cancer, not even lung cancer. Before he investigated that he still carried over the ‘bias' that smoking caused cancer.

Now, being fully actually free, he does not have the ability to create a new bias


Alan: They take things that are said or written as being “provisionally correct” (unless they are obviously incorrect).​​ 


1) Did Richard experience Love Agape constantly in the enlightened state (when not in a PCE)? (Even if​​ he did, presumably he had PCE’s where Love Agape was absent...)


Dona: Richard was Love Agape while he was enlightened. When he had PCEs during that time all the Instinctual passions (including Love Agape) were in abeyance.

2) With my original question​​ yesterday I was assuming Richard was able to deactivate Love Agape prior to PCE’s. 


Dona: Richard did not deactivate Love Agape prior to PCEs. The PCEs were spontaneous. Love Agape was in abeyance (along with all the Instinctual passions) while in a PCE.


If he wasn’t able to deactivate it why does the actualism method include minimising the ‘good’ feelings like love (in order to be happy and harmless) if he was experiencing an ongoing Love? 


Dona: the actualism method is to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive.

Richard talks about minimizing both the good and bad feelings and maximizing the felicitous and innocuous feelings.

He was experiencing Love Agape because that is the nature of being enlightened.


Was the actualism method just something​​ he made up after the fact, i.e. after becoming actually free? 


Dona: he came up with the actualism method (not called such then) when he was a feeling being after having his 4 hour PCE.

He asked above where he wrote about deactivating Love Agape, I interpreted the below quote as meaning that he was able to do that:

“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).”

(Note: I’m presuming he’s not just talking about the moment of self-immolation itself, as he uses the word ‘process’ and his method includes deactivating those feelings).


Dona: he was talking about the difference between being enlightened and being actually free (self-immolation in toto).

He has written about how he deactivated Love (while he was enlightened) when​​ he saw the other side of it (evil) – is that what you’re referring to? That has nothing to do with PCEs, self-immolation, or the actualism method.


Alan: Richard details his experience with Love Agape here.



I had an experience of getting 'too close' with my partner. we were having a wonderfully intimate moment and then​​ i was very strikingly aware that i felt that it was 'too intimate' or 'too close' and then fear kicked in. i pulled away in that moment and over the next few days.
i understand this as the fear of loss of self... as i see it when i get to the territory that is at the 'edges' of 'being' (as in very intimate or close to a PCE) then fear kicks in and if i follow the fear i pull away. the other option would be to focus on the thrilling aspect... however, i don't understand how to counter the survival instinct.​​ that is, in order to be willing to focus on the thrilling aspect and go further 'i' have to be willing.. 'i' am often not willing and reluctant, and it seems to be because 'i' don't want to die, as in, survival instinct.
any advice on how to get to the point where 'i' am willing to allow things a bit further? i can think of a few things that i've read and discussed with you guys already like:
* watch the news, motivation to do something about the human condition
* wanting to experience actual intimacy
* wanting to be where Richard is
* doing this (becoming free) for everybody, not just this body or 'me' 
* zoological altruism will kick in and override the survival instinct

I guess I don't see 'how' to overcome the survival instinct and allow myself to go further. asking about the 'how' is a red flag as it's more that 'i' know how, but 'i' don't want to do it, but why not? it is up to 'me' after all, but it's up to 'me' as in the "deep" 'me', it's not a surface-level 'ego' decision or a decision like deciding to lift a cup off the table or write these words

one way i thought of it is that ok 'i' am evolutionarily developed to survive (as in 'me' the psychic entity not the body). so what if all i wanted to do is survive? it's easy... i need the body to survive so i have to keep the body fed and housed. and that's pretty easy nowadays so.. that'd be it. then it's not just that i want to survive it's that i want to procreate.. so i'd have to get one or multiple women pregnant. if i have no moral qualms or compunctions that could be very easy to do (eg if i dont care about being happy or her being happy or me being deceitful or anything) (also this reminds me of why pure intent is necessary to have dedicatorily in place before dismantling the social identity hehe). but then that wouldn't be satisfying, that wouldn't be enough, so it seems like i want something more.. i want to be happy, and that's already beyond just what blind nature created. so there's an entry point. 

another is that the point 'i' was evolved this way by blind nature (so to speak) was for actual propagation of the species, like the actual humans being born and procreating etc. and 'i' am actually harmful for this body and that body's survival, and ultimately the human race. so if i want to actually fulfill my evolutionary duty the best thing 'i' can do is self-immolate. the fear triggered by the survival instinct is just a 'broken' or 'faulty' vestige, then, in order to fulfill the actual purpose (so to speak) of that survival instinct the best thing to do is to psychically self-immolate.. so then it's a matter of separating out psychic/psyhcological survival from actual/physical survival and getting that to sink in deeply.. probably by having lots of PCEs.

anyway am curious if this triggers any​​ advice or thoughts that may be helpful or triggers any recollections of having gone through similar musings. it seems by the end i may have answered the question myself hehe


Dona: Vineeto and Richard both agreed that "losing yourself" will most likely cause a PCE, not self-immolation. So, unless you fear having a PCE, then go for it.


Alan: Richard suggests another read of his experience of “giving himself” to his then wife ​​

Such giving of oneself results in a PCE not self-immolation.




A correction to what I wrote yesterday:

Richard suggests another read of his experience of “giving himself” to his then wife​​ HERE

Such giving of oneself results in a PCE not self-immolation.


Such giving of oneself could result in self-immolation rather than a PCE but so far no one has self immolated by doing so. It is also very unlikely as, unless one has fully committed to becoming actually free (and any fear of becoming actually free means one has not done so), it will not happen.


And a further clarification on beliefs and bias. All beliefs are eliminated on becoming actually free – the very act of believing is no longer possible. A belief is an emotion backed thought. On becoming actually free emotions disappear, ergo no beliefs. Similarly,​​ as Dona wrote, any bias which existed before becoming actually free will no longer have any emotional backing and the subject can be investigated (if it comes up) impartially. And, as she said, it is not possible for an actually free person to form new biases.​​ 



When we have an excellence experience, is there some way to "keep it going", or get back into it when it fades. 


Dona: Vineeto recommended remembering a PCE and that almost always got her feeling very good, and then she could investigate what​​ caused the experience to fade.


Alan: My question arose from a long lasting (several hours) excellence experience I had, starting on Monday. Not only had it stopped by yesterday afternoon, by the evening I could no longer think clearly. When we were answering the questions last night I was unable to answer any – I literally could not make any sense of them (if you notice, apart from a couple of one line answers, I contributed nothing to the answers). And I was berating myself for missing an opportunity. It​​ was only this afternoon when I was avidly listening to Richard relating one of his experiences that I was back to feeling good. My fascination with what he was saying meant I had forgotten I was feeling bad as all my attention was focused on what Richard​​ was saying. [Vineeto’s suggestion]. More investigation into the how and why required.



losing oneself... Giving 100%... Why only to PCE why can't that go into actual freedom?


Dona: yesterday Claudiu had a question regarding a fear of "losing himself"  when intimate. Vineeto said that if he did give 100% it would most likely cause a PCE. 

Today I questioned why it wouldn't cause an actual freedom, and they answered that it could, but only when the person was ready and all of them agrees to it. 


In the glossary "the being" and "the identity" are the same, which includes the ego (who I think I am), and the Instinctual passions (who I feel I am). But it doesn't mention the social identity in either definition of "being" or "identity". I will ask Richard​​ today if that is also included. Perhaps not, since a newly free person still had that. 


Dona: when Richard refers to the "identity", he is referring to the Instinctual passions, the ego and the social identity.

When he refers to "being", it is the Instinctual passions/affective faculty...

Richard:Put expressively the affective feelings swirl around forming a whirlpool or an eddy (which vortex is the ‘presence’, the ‘spirit’, the ‘being')



Which passion generates felicity?


Dona: felicity is part of the affective faculty. Richard pointed out that he didn't name all the Instinctual passions,​​ just the main 4 that he found listed most often by authorities on the subject of instincts.


Do they have any theories as to why felicity is possible? 


Dona: we are born with the affective faculty, one of which is felicity.


 Did the primal instincts​​ create a feeling of presence or being?  And if yes, why so? 


Dona: yes. Put expressively the affective feelings swirl around forming a whirlpool or an eddy (which vortex is the ‘presence’, the ‘spirit’, the ‘being’


Is  being one or more of the instincts​​ currently in operation:  That if you examine 'presence' it will always be one or more of the instinctual passions or else the felicitous and/or innocuous feelings?


Dona: they are all present all the time.


When trying to self immolate, what should you be​​ thinking about?


Alan: Richard has never suggested “trying to self immolate”. There are no ‘rules’ and no conditions for self-immolation to happen.



Dona: to clarify, Instinctual passions are always present (except in a PCE and actually free) even​​ if you don't notice them occurring. I am my feelings and my feelings are me.

Does this mean that the felicitous and innocuous feelings are pasted over the instinctual passions then? Is it like there's only a little bit of fear/aggression/nurture/desire​​ and a large amount of the felicitous/innocuous feelings when practising the actualism method? I'm struggling to see how the instinctual passions are always active - I sometimes feel very fearful for example, but other times not noticeably at all. Is it just a case of degrees? (edited)


Dona: you do not paste feelings over the Instinctual passions. Feelings are and come from the Instinctual passions. Perhaps it would be easiest to realize/see that "I am my feelings and my feelings are me". 

Put expressively​​ the affective feelings swirl around forming a whirlpool or an eddy (which vortex is the ‘presence’, the ‘spirit’, the ‘being)


A follow-up question on Love Agape...
If Richard wasn't able to deactivate Love Agape, why does he recommend minimising the 'good' and 'bad' feelings in order to maximise the felicitous/innocuous feelings? Is it because he had success doing this prior to being enlightened? (Is that what led to PCEs as a normal feeling being?)

As he couldn't deactivate Love Agape in the enlightened state, how did the actualism method play out during that period? Was he able to be felicitous/innocuous whilst being Love Agape? What was it that occasioned PCEs during this time? Or did he not practise the actualism method during this time and only had spontaneous PCE's... and then resumed the method once Love Agape "disappeared forever"​​ (

How long was it between Love Agape disappearing forever and becoming actually free, and did he apply the actualism method during this period?


Dona: perhaps you think that practicing the actualism method produces PCEs? It does not. PCEs are spontaneous occurrences, which have happened to almost everyone sometime in their life (often in early childhood). 

When he was enlightened he was Love Agape... He didn't need to use the actualism method to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive (let​​ alone feel felicitious and innocuous).


how does naivete come about if not by choice? He says "the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur". Presumably it doesn't come about as part of the method of tracing back to an event and​​ seeing the silliness?


Dona:  sincerity (not only have sincerity) is to be the key (not merely have the key) to be naiveté (not just have naiveté)


Alan: Rather than trying to puzzle out and spend time on some of the things you have been questioning (essential though curiosity is) it might benefit you to devote your energies to a greater understanding of what an actual freedom from the human condition is about. For example gaining knowledge of Richard’s experience of Love Agape is not going to aid making the commitment to feeling good each moment again.​​ 

One really can’t do​​ better than reading and gaining a full understanding of what is written on the website.




​​ I'm having an amazing purity experience atm.  Can you ask what role pure intent plays in self immolation if any?  Or does it just keep you happy and harmless until your ready to self immolate?


Dona: pure intent has nothing to do with keeping you happy and harmless.

Here's what Richard writes about pure intent:


Richard]: ‘Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and​​ benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself. Once set in motion, it is no longer a matter of choice: it is an irresistible pull.


Alan: Pure intent is the “golden clew” which provides one with the knowledge of where one is headed. It is the link to one’s destiny. If you had been experiencing pure intent in that “purity experience” you would not need to ask those questions.


Richard: I could have as easily written something like: “pure intent is a palpable potency; an actually occurring stream of...&c...”, for instance or, for another example, “pure intent is a palpable puissance; an ever-fresh permeation of ...&c...”, because what is being conveyed by those words is the invigorative quality, or dynamic nature, of that [quote] “immaculate perfection and purity welling ever-fresh as the vastly and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude” [#19982/private/var/mobile/Containers/Data/Application/7F539614-3F96-4A0C-9F63-6C96AA733AD5/tmp/WebArchiveCopyPasteTempFiles/footnote-link.jpg] which I spoke of intimately experiencing when this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.


The advice on the following webpage, which also includes the above quote, has stood me in good stead for checking whether there​​ is an ‘active connection’.​​





There is something I’ve been thinking about​​ since:


James: Dona, I have a question for Richard: What will it take for me to go the rest of the way to af?

Dona: Richard was confused by this question, as it sounds like you think there are steps, or “a way”. Actual freedom from the human condition is​​ a pivotal/decisive moment. You are either actually free or you are not (full stop). It is not possible to go “the rest of the way”.

(my remark: same as a PCE… you are either in a PCE or you are not)

Since we cannot eliminate ourselves, by ourselves (you cannot pull yourself up with your own bootstraps) he suggests that you set this intention: “I give myself permission to allow it to happen.”

I remember making a remark on Slack that ‘allowing it to happen’ we usually used in reference to having PCEs, not self-immolation. And that it was a nice ‘parallel’ between the identity going in abeyance, and in oblivion. 
But I was wondering if there was more to this than just a ‘parallel’.

Alan:Richard has never suggested “trying to self immolate”. There are no ‘rules’ and no conditions for self-immolation to happen.

… and there go my many ‘attempts’ lol, including yesterday’s one (when I was “contemplating on altruism”) - which interestingly ended in a PCE.

This has happened lately, that when ‘trying’ to self-immolate I don’t end up in ASCs anymore, but in PCEs. This is the case since I’ve stopped ‘forcing it’, but instead trying to ‘allow it to happen’.

Alan: Such giving of oneself could result in self-immolation rather than a PCE but so far no one has self immolated by doing so. It is also very unlikely as, unless one has fully committed to becoming actually free (and any fear of becoming actually free means one has not done so), it will not happen.

Dona: yesterday Claudiu had a question regarding a fear of “losing himself” when intimate. Vineeto said that if he did give 100% it would most likely cause a PCE.
Today I questioned why it wouldn’t cause an actual freedom, and they answered that it could, but only when the person was ready and all of them agrees to it.

So the same thing that causes a PCE could result in self-immolation instead, if one is ready/has fully committed to becoming actually free.
And since:

Dona: perhaps you think that practicing the actualism method produces PCEs? It does not. PCEs are spontaneous occurrences

Then Self immolation is a ‘spontaneous’ occurrence - when one is ready/fully committed.

1. Is all the above correct?

2. The same way PCEs can be ‘induced’, by ‘allowing them to happen’, can self-immolation be ‘induced’ by ‘allowing it​​ to happen’ (if one is ready/committed)?
3. Can I deduce from an ‘attempt’ that resulted in a PCE that the only thing lacking was the​​ readiness, the commitment to becoming actually free? That the attempt was ‘correct’ so to speak… aiming in the right direction, but ‘failing’ because of a lack of ‘readiness’? 


Dona: you posted Alan saying, "there is no trying" to self-immolate... And that there are no ‘rules’ and no conditions for self-immolation to happen. So, that same answer still applies to all your​​ questions above.

4. If so I have to ask once more the question you must be tired to hear: how do I get ready?​​ 


Dona: again, there are no conditions, you are ready when you are ready.

Then in the meantime... (Lol... You know the answer...)... Yep, the actualism method.

Though Richard and Vineeto understand that you want a "formula" (Dona sidenote: so do I!)... There is none. Everyone is different and has their own way. 

There are things that Vineeto suggested that she did... But ... they are NOT to be​​ considered "conditions". 

Know yourself (Dona: I recommend using the website for ideas on that).

Find all the objections to self-immolation (goes with the first one, know yourself).

Imitate the actual world as much as humanly possible.

Make it your number​​ one aim/goal/ intent.

Allow it to happen (no forcing it).

Richard added: "there's nothing you can do to become actually free, and there's nothing you can't do"


Alan: Much the same as Dona has written. The main thing I got (again!) from our conversation is​​ that there is no particular route to be followed. Your second and third questions are setting conditions. There are none! The experience (what they have ‘done’) of each person who has become actually free so far has been different. Vineeto said her experience was giving ‘herself’ permission to allow it to happen – but others did not experience that.

Become interested, vitally interested (until it becomes a fascination) in ‘you’ and how ‘you’ operate. Discover what objections there are to becoming actually​​ free.​​ 

In the meantime commit to feeling good each moment again for the rest of your life and enjoy and appreciate this only moment of being alive – there is no difference between the ends and the means.


Richard: The way to an actual freedom from the human condition is the same as an actual freedom from the human condition – the means to the end are not different from the end – inasmuch that where one is happy and harmless as an on-going modus operandi benevolence operates of its own accord





Geoffrey :

So I guess the ‘parallels’ (between self-immolation and PCEs) I was​​ drawing in my question, and deducing from your previous answers, were correct - since they were not corrected.


Dona: we answered your questions 1-3 all together because they had the same answer (as I stated when answering you yesterday). You were asking​​ if attempting PCEs was like attempting an actual freedom from the human condition (when one is ready). 

There is no "attempting/trying" to have an actual freedom from the human condition. It is a spontaneous action that happens when you are ready.


Alan: I​​ don’t see you were drawing many “parallels” other than allowing it to happen, in which case there is a similarity in that one cannot ‘choose’ (here is that word again lol) to have either happen. A PCE is a spontaneous occurrence which one can encourage by​​ various practices some of which have been discussed on the PCE training channel. Personally most of my peak experiences, including PCE’s, were occasioned by a realisation. There is an “allowing it to happen” in becoming actually free – Vineeto expressed it as giving permission to allow it to happen. One will only become actually free when one is ready, unlike a PCE which can happen at any time.​​ 

Let me know if that doesn’t cover it.



You said that we're not born with a soul... When does that develop?


Dona: we are born as a sensate/feeling entity, and the instinctual passions/affective faculty forms what Richard refers to as an "eddy/whirlpool" of feelings, which becomes more and more "substantial" to form what is called the soul (the seat of the passions/being").



So i was just trying to understand the statement that all feelings are present all of the time, does that make sense?


Dona: I included this to ask Richard and Vineeto to verify that what I was saying to you was correct.

"I am my feelings and my feelings are me". All the feelings are always "present" (using the definition of "existing"... though not in the actual world) all of the time. They are not always active, that is why you will feel one feeling and then another, but they are all always there.

Richard used the example of a keyboard, all the piano keys are always there, it just depends on the key you are hitting for that note to be heard (or felt in reference to feelings)


Alan: ​​ He also said - including the black keys to indicate​​ the large range of the feelings available to ‘me’. ​​ But it is just a metaphor.​​ 



Is actualism a method to only get to a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom? 


Dona: the answer is "yes", though you added the word "only" - to feel good each moment again is a good enough reason. 


if any, is it an indirect precursor to an actual freedom?


Dona: Richard said that once you get to the out-from-control different-way-of-being virtual freedom it is then the actualism process (not method).

Vineeto wanted to make it clear that the actualism method is not a "condition" to becoming free of the human condition.


Alan: Putting the actualism method – enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive – into practice gives no guarantee that one will become actually free. However a glum and grumpy person has very little chance of becoming actually free.


to continue my question: there is the propelling (of "my" doing) and there is the impelling (not "mine" but from the actual world) aspects. the actualism method seems to be a series of tools to propel ourselves (via sincerity, naivete, enjoying, appreciating, etc.) and get closer (as in knowing, habituating, facilitating) to the impelling force. is this correct? i guess i'm asking about what exactly is the relation of agency and making the actual​​ once-in-a-lifetime decision, as we cross from a propelling factor (in the case of self-immolation: altruism) to an impelling one (the pure intent of the actual world)?


Alan: You seem to be looking for a ‘road​​ map’ to an actual freedom and if you can understand the detail well enough it will happen – I know, I’ve done it plenty myself [my comment].

Altruism (for the actualist) is not a “propelling factor” (nor an impelling one). Altruism is an action – and a once in a lifetime only action at that (see quote to Q9 below). What one does in the meantime is apply the actualism method - using some of the ‘tools’ such as how am I experiencing this moment of being alive and choosing to feel good each moment again – enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive, as the ends are no different from the means.​​ 

This quote may help:

[Richard]: ‘Perhaps the following summary of the way the actualism method works in practice may be of assistance:

1. Activate sincerity so​​ as to make possible a pure intent to bring about peace and harmony sooner rather than later.

2. Set the standard of experiencing, each moment again, as feeling felicitous/ innocuous to whatever degree humanly possible come-what-may.

3. Where felicity/ innocuity is not occurring find out why not.

4. Seeing the silliness at having those felicitous/ innocuous feelings be usurped, by either the negative or positive feelings, for whatever reason that might be automatically restores felicity/ innocuity.

5. Repeated occurrences of the same reason for felicity/ innocuity loss alerts pre-recognition of impending dissipation which enables pre-emption and ensures a more persistent felicity/ innocuity through habituation.

6. Habitual felicity/ innocuity, and its concomitant enjoyment and appreciation, facilitates naïve sensuosity ... a consistent state of wide-eyed wonder, amazement, marvel, and delight.

7. That naiveté, in conjunction with felicitous/ innocuous sensuosity, being the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence, allows *the overarching benignity and benevolence* inherent to the infinitude this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is *to operate more and more freely*.

8. With this intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with​​ ‘me’ and ‘my’ doings, *freely operating* one is the experiencing of what is happening ... and the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure earth actually is, is sweetly apparent in all its scintillating brilliance.

9. But refrain from possessing it and making it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared. [emphases added].


Is altruism a one off act of letting go, of releasing the controls, of ceasing to resist?  So upon being pulled into and getting close to the actual world, you release the controls and boom! you've immolated?



Richard: blind nature endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group). By and large the instinct for survival of the group is the more powerful – as is epitomised in the honey-bee (when it stings to protect/ defend the hive it dies) – and it is the utilisation of this once-in-a-lifetime gregarian action which is referred to in my oft-repeated ‘an altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice/ ‘self’-immolation, in toto, *for the benefit of this body and that body and every body*


Alan: It is not a case of ‘you’ releasing the controls as releasing the controls means there has to be a releaser. The act of altruism is the immolation of the self in total.




1. Is it that it's not a matter of​​ choosing how to feel, it's a matter of seeing it is silly , and then i am automatically back to feeling good (i don’t have to choose at that point to feel good)


Dona: yes, it's seeing that it is silly, then you're automatically feeling good.

2. is it that the investigation is not needed to get back to feeling good?


Dona: yes. You don't investigate until you are back to feeling good or at least neutral.

3. is it that i can't choose to feel good in the same way I can choose to raise my arm or type a sentence? instead i can choose (in that exact way as choosing to raise my arm) to trace back and see the silliness


Dona: Vineeto emphasized that if you make a commitment to feeling good this moment (and each moment again) for the rest of your life then you see​​ the silliness of feeling bad and then It's always an "of course" to feel good. 

This commitment is what makes it possible to see the silliness of allowing something to cause you to feel bad. 


Alan: Is it not amazing how such a simple thing can be so​​ complicated. Before replying we wanted to check we had got it right.

No, one cannot choose to feel good in the same way one chooses to raise an arm.

Yes, one can choose to trace back and see the silliness and once the silliness is seen there is no choice.​​ 

When one commits to feeling good each moment again there is no choice to be made – any lapse from feeling good is seen (quicker and quicker with application – attentiveness in operation) and one is automatically feeling good again as it is inherently obvious (from having made the choice to feel good each moment again) that it is silly not to feel good. Whether one then traces back to what triggered the loss of feeling good (which might be just a thought) – and possibly any underlying cause - ​​ is also a matter of choice. If the underlying cause is not ascertained it is likely to return and ‘bite one on the bum’ giving one another opportunity to examine and eliminate it from one’s life.

Vineeto explained that the main reason for emphasising that it is not a choice to feel good (when not feeling good) is that most people will paste a good feeling over it to stop the bad feeling which is of no benefit.



I am new and overwhelmed by all this wisdom on this site. For now I want to ask one specific question about altruism. After my father’s death when I was 10 years old, my extended family greatly helped financially my mother and my brothers. At the same time I was also verbally abused by my mother and felt a lot of expectations and need for obedience from my extended family which were in conflict with my own interests. I was also bullied at my school. 
I dearly hoped that somebody will understand me and will care for me but there was none. So from then on I do not want any other children to go through why I had​​ to go through. I daily dreamt of the ways I will help other children feel cared and loved. I do not want them to suffer. 
Whenever I see a suffering child with his/her eyes clearly saying ‘somebody please save me and love me’. I feel immense pain that I cannot save him/her. I want to be happy but I do not want to get rid of my desire to save children as my own survival is a proof that if somebody can help a child financially or emotionally he/she will have a chance at a life well lived. It gives me immense​​ pain that nobody is saving that suffering child, which is arising from my own experience as a child when I dearly wanted to be understood and loved. Any help in how to approach this problem is appreciated.



​​ I indeed see great value in feeling good all the time. However, when I see any suffering child it makes me unhappy. Here let me also be clear that I haven’t done anything “great”  for kids as of yet.

Dona: Alan and I are with Richard and Vineeto ATM, and since you addressed your post on slack to me​​ (and Srid) I figured you were asking me to read this to them to get their response. Here it is: If you really want to do something about suffering Richard/actual freedom has no solutions for the real world. His only recommendation is to become​​ actually free. Failing that, become virtually free. Failing that feel good this moment (and each moment again) for the rest of your life.

Regarding altruism I refer you to a​​ LINK​​ to the website. As you might guess, altruism as you were taught it is 180 degrees different than what it actually is.



Alan: As Dona says the best thing anyone can do to end the suffering which exists in all of ‘humanity’, not just children, is to​​ cease to ‘be’ (self-immolate). The only person one can change is oneself – anything else is merely “rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, “fiddling while Rome burns” or “the blind leading the blind”.​​ 



​​ A question regarding sexual or sensual​​ experience: For me, sometimes when engaged in sexual play, there is a feeling on top of the raw sexual/sensual pleasure that's like "Wow this is just so awesome and amazing" and it seems to heighten the experience. I recognize this extra amazement layer as​​ a contribution of feeling being (right?), 


Dona: yes, definitely. 


and wonder how sex could be any better without this added component. In what ways are sexual experience incomparably better as a free person than as a feeling being?


Dona: The main difference is that there's no separation between the two people, it's an actual intimacy. Richard says there's no way that he can explain it, but he has had sexual experiences as a feeling being and as an enlightened person and an actually free person, and says there is no comparison (actual freedom is far superior). He suggests having sex while you have a PCE and that is the closest proximity to what it's like. 



Q9 :

I wanted to know if it was worth asking a follow-up questions or not.  I wasn't satisfied with the response to Geoffrey’s question or my two. 
1. This is apropos to both Geoffrey’s question and my first one: how is "letting go" or " releasing the controls" different from "allowing it to happen" or "giving oneself permission."?


Dona: "letting go" or "releasing controls" leaves someone still in control (the one that's letting go/releasing controls). 


Richard has never advised “releasing the controls”. That would result in one being out of control. Richard also asked if I had pointed out his often repeated warning:

The reason why that ‘golden thread/clew’ is oh-so-essential​​ is because of agency inasmuch as, whilst identity is in the driver’s seat (i.e., is the agent), any such giving of permission to have the controls be let go of without same will result in said identity being an out of control agent in some ASC or another​​ (bearing in mind the​​ three primary psychoses – schizophrenia, mania, and depression – are also altered states) rather than in an out-from-control and/or different-way-of-being virtual freedom.


You can also see in that quote that he says “giving of permission to have the controls be let go of” – do you see the difference from “letting go”?

2. What about pure intent would make my question unnecessary. I was simply checking to see if it was possible to leverage purity into self immolation. 


Dona: As I stated in slack, pure intent is the "link" to the actual world, guiding you to what​​ you're aiming for. By leverage we're assuming you are talking about a fulcrum? Richard doesn't see pure intent as that. 

3. Re: dona's answer - Ime, pure intent is a very happy thing. I find it amazing and feel great happiness whenever i experience it for​​ a prolonged period of time.


Dona: this was discussed on slack. Let me know if you still have a question regarding it.




Actualism works best in the marketplace. Now consider these various routes:
1a. Practicing actualism on one’s own mostly,​​ but slacking around and without much sincerity and curiosity
1b. Practicing actualism on one’s own mostly, but without slacking around with much sincerity and curiosity
2a. Practicing actualism in the marketplace (relationships, friends, etc.) mostly, but​​ slacking around and without much sincerity and curiosity
2b. Practicing actualism in the marketplace (relationships, friends, etc.) mostly, but without slacking around with much sincerity and curiosity.

Moving from 1 to 2 could mean moving from 1a to 2a,​​ which is not really improvement. What would be an improvement is to move from 1a to 1b … and then, and only then, consider going to 2b. 
This is a lesson learned for me, and may be of use to others too.


Dona: Richard said that before he can respond to this he wanted to know what you meant by "slacking around".

Vineeto said you couldn't be practicing actualism without sincerity and curiosity.

(Dona's sidenote: idk about having to do 1b "then and only then" before 2b.. why?)



So without pure intent then​​ there still must be something one can do. Richard has written about naive intent though i can't find it atm. I would say to be naive enough to allow for the possibility that the universe is perfect and generous with it's abundance (largesse). I would say to start with that as your premise and keep it until it is proven wrong.

Can you ask richard if naivete and taking the AFT website on a prima facie basis are similar? Doesn't one have to have some naiveté to do that?


Alan: Dona had written a reply to your​​ questions and I had started, when I realised that we (and Richard) had not got the correct impression of what you were asking. This happens a lot with your questions. They are sometimes very difficult to understand. See if I have got it correct:

Does one have to be naïve to take what is written on the Actual Freedom Trust website as providing a sufficient prima facie case to warrant further investigation?

Would you like us to ask this question tomorrow or can you rephrase yours to make it more understandable.​​ 


Would you ask what Richards means when he uses the word "largesse" in regards to the nature of the universe.

whereupon one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement, simply marvelling at the magnificence of this physical universe’s absoluteness and delighting in its beneficence, its largesse.


Dona: Richard said that in that sentence he meant "beneficence" (as you can see, it's a further explanation of that word in that sentence).


Alan: Did you bother to look up the meaning of largesse before you started typing on the keyboard?


Is it possible to permanently be naivete while still being in-control/normal way of being?


Dona: Richard and Vineeto said "no". You can tell by the word "be" (naivete) ... Which is ,"state of​​ being". In other words, it is "another way of being" (not normal way of being).


Alan: I know you said a while back that you didn’t bother reading what is written on the Actual Freedom Trust website. It seems this is still the case. A quick search on the website found these remarks about naiveté – on one page alone!


the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté 


the beer rather than the doer is the operant – whereupon naïveté has come to the fore, such as to effect the marked diminishment of separation


the​​ already astounding diminishment of separation which ensues upon the blessed/private/var/mobile/Containers/Data/Application/7F539614-3F96-4A0C-9F63-6C96AA733AD5/tmp/WebArchiveCopyPasteTempFiles/note-icon.jpg onset of this near-innocent intimacy of naïveté.


a​​ state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence whilst being a ‘self’)


the range of naiveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself [1] to an actual innocence.


[1] To be naïveté itself (i.e., naïveté embodied as ‘me’), which is to be the closest one can to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (innocence is where ‘self’ is not), one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness, sweetness and togetherness, closeness whereupon moment-to-moment experiencing is of traipsing through the world about in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous) – yet with adult sensibilities whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable – simply marvelling at the sheer magnificence of this oh-so-material universe’s absoluteness and unabashedly delighting in its boundless beneficence, its limitless largesse, with a blitheness and a gaiety such that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like nature of this paradisiacal terraqueous globe becoming​​ ever-so-sweetly apparent, as an experiential actuality, is almost always imminent.



All the above quotes demonstrate that it is not possible to “be naïveté” while still “in-control/normal way of being” far less permanently.

I am starting to suspect that some of your questions are to get others to do the legwork for you.




No more questions for me. 
Would you please transfer my most sincere thanks to them for the time they took to answer our questions, and for everything they’ve done since years to give us the life-changing opportunity to learn about actual​​ freedom and walk the wide and wondrous path. 
The third wave is coming! (it’s us :smile:).


Dona: Richard and Vineeto appreciated hearing this, with big smiles 🙂


Alan: On a purely technical point, it will be the second wave. Richard became actually free​​ on his own so it could not be called a ‘wave’​​ 😀


By ‘slacking around’ I meant for example not investigating issues as they come up, and instead say continuing to blame the other. Or investigating half-assedly …. and doing this as a habit.


Dona’s sidenote: idk about having to do 1b “then and only then” before 2b.. why?

Only you are with you 100% of the time, so the situation is readily available. If you have prioritized sincerity and curiosity over anything else, you can apply it right away - as you are sitting in your pyjamas in your room. Once you succeed, you take that sincerity and curiosity in interactions with others (2b).


Dona: thank you for clarifying what "slacking" meant. In regards to your initial question: 

1a Practicing actualism on one’s own mostly, but slacking around and without much sincerity and curiosity 
1b. Practicing actualism on one’s own mostly, but without slacking around with much sincerity and curiosity 
2a. Practicing actualism in the marketplace (relationships, friends,​​ etc.) mostly, but slacking around and without much sincerity and curiosity 
2b. Practicing actualism in the marketplace (relationships, friends, etc.) mostly, but without slacking around with much sincerity and curiosity. 
Moving from 1 to 2 could mean moving from 1a to 2a, which is not really improvement. What would be an improvement is to move from 1a to 1b … and then, and only then, consider going to 2b.  


Dona: Richard said that ONLY 2b is practicing actualism, since (as you said in the beginning) actualism is practiced in the marketplace. 1b is not practicing the actualism method. And definitely not 1a or 2a.



can you ask them to talk about why the fact that it is this moment of being alive makes it silly to feel bad? I have read "this moment​​ of being alive" with the popups where it is explained but still don't get it, maybe if they explain it in different words it will make sense to me... 

 I can see that this is my only moment of being alive and I can see that feeling bad is wasting this only​​ moment of being alive - this makes me want to feel good, and that is my goal and what I'm trying to do, but I don't see the silliness of this directly - and then that makes me feel good. 


Dona: Richard said that you see the silliness when you realize you​​ have a choice (as to how you experience this moment), so it's "silly" to waste it feeling bad.  

(Dona's sidenote: And, as Q11 pointed out in slack, if you've made the commitment to feel good this moment (and each moment again), then it becomes an "of course" ... At least that was it for me.


Alan: If you ‘see’ that this is your only moment of being alive then feeling good is not a choice – it is not even an ‘of course’, it is automatic. Richard literally cannot understand why – if a person has accepted​​ this moment is their only moment of being alive, can remember a PCE or has accepted what is written on the Actual Freedom Trust website – anyone can still choose to feel bad.


Q11 (replying to Solvann on Slack):

I guess this is where the commitment part comes to the rescue..Once the commitment is in place, then there isn't a choice - one will tend to make it work because one has to make it work. Sometimes I wish the AFT had put the commitment wording somewhere (maybe they have but I missed it!)..that word has a stronger effect somehow for me than say "being dedicated".


Dona: we included this as a reminder to discuss with them adding something about "committing to feeling good" in the website. 

Richard couldn't relate to it, as in his experience, once he had​​ the 4 hour PCE, it was an "of course" I want to feel good... No commitment was needed. Plus he thinks of commitments as vows and resolutions... Easily broken.

Vineeto also said that applied to her as well (not needing to make a commitment). She knew this​​ was what she wanted. Though over the years of answering questions (often objections to feeling good), she realized that making that commitment is important for some people who don't have that automatic "of course".

Peter is the one who wrote about it most.​​ Here are a couple of examples


When an actualist fully commits to the business of becoming free of the human condition – i.e. when he or she decides to make becoming happy and harmless the most important thing in their life – this commitment marks the beginning of a process specifically designed to focus one’s attentiveness to the workings and nature of a human psyche in action, one’s own psyche. This on-going attentiveness to how am I experiencing this moment of being alive in itself generates revelations, realizations and fundamental changes that are the very provocations that guarantee the onset of PCEs.


I recently heard Richard say that becoming virtually free of malice and sorrow is something you do ‘in the meantime’ – meaning it is something you do if you are not yet free of the human condition. My experience is that unless one is willing to make that level of commitment to actualizing peace on earth, then one might as well forget the whole notion of becoming free of the human condition, because otherwise, what one would be doing in essence would be ‘waiting for Godot’.


Also, can you ask if they think (social) animals can emit vibes? 


Dona: Richard said, yes, definitely. They are even more "in tune" with the affective vibes and psychic currents because they rely heavily on their instincts. And yes, we feel theirs as well.




Does one have to be naïve to take what is written on the Actual Freedom Trust website as providing a sufficient prima​​ facie case to warrant further investigation? 


Dona: this was a clarification of the question you wrote yesterday, and you said this was accurate. 

Richard said no, you do not have to be naive. Prima facie is a legal term which means: accepted as correct until proved otherwise. This just requires a modicum of intelligence. 


Dona:​​ I don't see the significance of what (amazing point)

That naivete (being naivete) is superior even to the vf Peter and Vineeto pioneered. It means that ofc is right under our noses.


Dona: I was going to post this reply on slack, but thought I'd get Richard and Vineeto to read it to make sure I was clear on it. They said it was accurate:

 Out-from-control/different-way-of-being virtual freedom is more than a permanent state of​​ naivete. It is when someone is living the beer rather than being the doer. 

Being naivete is intrinsically part of that state (out-from-control/different-way-of-being), not the state itself. 
As far as superior, I wouldn't use that word. In-control/same-way-of-being virtual freedom is more "doable" for everyone. It requires dedication (commitment) to feeling good this moment and each moment again for the rest of my life (and actually living it each moment) This 'I' can do.
Out-from-control/different-way-of-being... Is not something 'I' can do.

(To be clear, I wrote all of this, and they both said it was accurate). 


Alan: If you are having PCE’s (as you say you are) you would not be asking the questions which you have. [Note – from Vineeto not Alan]




​​ Another question for Richard/Vineeto if there is still time: When Richard was Enlightened: did he enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive? What I'm getting at is: is there a "wrong" way of enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive? "Wrong" meaning: not on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom.


Dona: yes, Richard was enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive while he was enlightened... It was a glorious state. This is true with ASCs as well... And being in love. They are glorious states, but they don't last, and they are in the direction of "good feelings" rather than "feeling good". 

And no experience is really "wrong", because they show you that's not the direction you're aiming for, and you'll be able to "decline going down that path".


The ultimate dynamite question would then be: how do I as a feeling being (affectively) forego the past and the future and (affectively) acknowledge that this moment is the only moment of being alive? 


Alan: Richard said there is no "foregoing" anything. He gave the example of walking through a door to get to where you are now. You are now sitting at the computer, but in the past you walked through the door. That moment – of walking through the door - has gone, so what​​ have you ‘forgone’? Most people find it more difficult to accept that there is nothing to forego in the future. When you were walking through the door, to go and sit down at the computer, walking through the door is what is happening at that moment. How can you ‘forego’ sitting at the computer – which has not yet happened? [My addition] You might change your mind when you get through the door and make a cup of coffee instead of sitting at the computer. When you were walking through the door (the only moment​​ which​​ was then happening) which did you forego – sitting at the computer or making a cup of coffee?



Claudiu’s question to Vineeto:

Vineeto replied to my question (which I asked too late to be included):


CLAUDIU: Hope all is well! I'd like to ask​​ you and Richard a last question which I only posted after Dona and Alan had left. And also to give a great thanks for participating and answering all our questions on slack. The chat transformed for the better once it started happening. Just another reason​​ for me to "do it" as well - so I can be an actually free person contributing directly on the chat.


VINEETO: That is very good to hear and great that it inspired you to become actually free sooner rather than later.


CLAUDIU: So the question is: I've​​ been looking at 'how' to self immolate, in terms of 'how' to give permission to have the controls be let go of. I discovered a reluctance to allow the controls to be let go of. I saw the reluctance as a wanting others to approve of what I was doing! A need​​ for permission from the others. I am not giving permission to have the controls be let go of because I'm putting my freedom in others' hands.

I haven't gotten past this yet. But my question is am I right in getting that the only thing that is needed is for me to give permission to let the controls be let go of to pure intent? That is having the golden clew in place and then giving permission to allow that. Then literally all 'i' do is enjoy as it all unfolds (which unfolding 'i' have no control over).


VINEETO: The “I” who would be doing the letting go *is* the controller (Remember the simile of ‘you’ and a pizza? You can slice the pizza into pieces but ‘you’ can never remove the last piece because that is still ‘you’.)

“I”, the controller, can give ‘my’self (the controller) permission to have it happen – the “it” refers to being out from under control to have one’s life live itself similar to Richard’s experience to have the painting paint itself.

What that means is that the controller goes in abeyance.


CLAUDIU: Also is it correct that it is 'me' I give permission to? As in it's an allowing myself to have the controls be let go of ... since 'i' am the only thing standing in the way anyway?


VINEETO: Yes, that is well said – “allowing myself to have the controls be let go of”.


CLAUDIU: Finally I'm curious, the feeling of requiring permission from others... considering that 'i' am 'humanity' and 'humanity' is 'me' does that feeling also mean that ultimately 'i' only need permission from 'myself' - since the "others" that 'i' feel 'i' need permission from are 'me' also? I find this strange to say though because they are factually speaking flesh and blood bodies separate from this one... they are not 'me' in actuality.


VINEETO: A clarification to your reasoning – they are not factually speaking flesh and blood bodies, they are identities using their flesh and blood tongues and vocal cords to say what the identities instruct them to say.

Those other ​​ identities will never give you permission to leave the fold, and deep down you know that.

The feeling of requiring permission from others for your actions is backed up by strong atavistic feelings that leaving the fold is deadly dangerous and this feeling is reinforced by the fact that in the past being an outcast has meant that the person couldn’t survive on their own. Even so this is no longer the case the feeling is still based on ancient human history.

So, whilst your reasoning might help you to understand it in theory that ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’​​ in the psychic/affective sense, it is important to understand this experientially and eventually come to the conclusion, with supreme confidence, that it is utterly safe to abandon humanity, defying all of humanity’s wisdom, even if not a single person gives you permission to do so or agrees with you.

Your PCEs and the golden clew inform you of the utter safety of living here in the actual world.