# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On ‘I’ as an ‘Identity’, ‘I’ as a ‘Being’ RICHARD: (...) there is more to identity than just the ego-self ... much, much more. RESPONDENT: Okay ... then I want to find out what it is that’s more to it. RICHARD: As simply as possible: it is who you feel yourself to be at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). (...) RESPONDENT: How can we see that it [identity] has gone away in a flesh and blood body other than our own? RICHARD: In the same way you can see it has not gone away in a flesh and blood body other than your own ... feeling for it affectively/ psychically (intuitively). RESPONDENT: It appears, then, that some people on this mailing list do not use their affective/ psychical faculties sufficiently or correctly, for they presume that there is still an ego present in you, in other words, that you are deceiving yourself. RICHARD: Someone – anyone – who presumes there is still [quote] ‘an ego’ [endquote] present in the flesh and blood body writing these words is simply displaying their ignorance in public as there is more to identity than just the ego-self ... much, much more. I am, of course, referring to ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – or the rudimentary animal ‘self’ (an inchoate affective presence, an embryonic feeler, an incipient intuiter) which all sentient beings, in general, are per favour blind nature’s rough and ready survival software hereditarily endowed at conception. * RICHARD: My previous companion, for instance, would oft-times say ‘there is no-one in there’ or ‘there is no-one home’ when feeling me out whilst looking at me quizzically ... she also would explain to others that, contrary to expectation, it was sometimes difficult to live with Richard (it could be said that living with some body that is not self-centred would always be easy) as it was impossible for her to have a relationship because there was no-one to make a connection with, or form a bond with/ be tied to, or unite with/ be in union with, or in any other way be at one with (oneness). RESPONDENT: Let’s assume that by correct use of my intuition and in the right circumstances, as your current companion has the occasion to experience, for example, that one can feel the absence of a self in an actually free person. RICHARD: I see that it would be handy to add a proviso to the above because (and for whatever it is worth) there has never been an instance yet, in the last thirteen years, of a person who is not already cognisant of my condition (through either the verbal or written word) accosting me either in public or in private so as to inform me that they intuitively/ psychically know I am bereft of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto. For instance: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘As for ‘ASC-PCE?’, the state I’ve experienced back then [an ASC] had had in my view the same properties as the PCE, the same fairy-tale magic, things being covered with sparkling silver, continuously living in the split-of-a-second, etc. But I guess you’re more entitled to speak about it as 3 hours can hardly be compared with 11 years. • [Richard]: ‘(...) Also, [as well as no Love Agapé] there is no Divine Compassion in a PCE either (hence no magnetic properties to draw people to one) thus *one can pass unnoticed in the world – a definite plus if there ever was* – and judgement operates very well indeed as whatever qualities are apparent are easily recognised for what they are (arising out of properties) so that actual values easily ensue’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 55, 22 July 2001). RESPONDENT: So one needs to have a psyche to do that. O.k.. RICHARD: Or, rather, one needs to *be* a psyche (in order to intuitively/ psychically feel the presence, or the lack thereof, of another psyche). RESPONDENT: Now, how would an actually free person do that, given absence of the affective/ intuitive capacity? RICHARD: A person actually free from the human condition does not/ can not detect something which has no existence in actuality. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard ... the problem is not the ‘self’ (in regard to war, rape, murder, heartache, sorrow, malice, tooth decay, etc., etc.), the problem is always ‘the other’. And we cannot ‘get rid of’ the other. • [Richard]: ‘Au contraire ... when ‘the ‘self’’ in its entirety (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body, psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) self-immolated ... ‘the other’ (all six billion ‘others’ plus all past and future ‘others’) vanished. I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, 12k, 2 July 2001). RESPONDENT: In which way would two actually free people recognize one another? RICHARD: As I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world I can only take another’s word for it that they experience themself to be an identity ... albeit usually in a dissociated way (by saying they have one). * RICHARD: She [my previous companion] would also say that Richard does not support her, as an identity that is, at all ... which lack of (affective) caring was disconcerting for her, to say the least, and my current companion has also reported this absence of (affective) consideration. RESPONDENT: I presume there is purely ‘rational’ consideration as a fellow human being, then? RICHARD: You presume incorrectly ... just copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice: fellowship regard site:www.actualfreedom.com.au Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... in the meanwhile you may find the following to be of related interest: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I think you have feelings. What made you put your so called discovery on the web? • [Richard]: ‘You have asked a similar question before: [Respondent]: ‘You speak about peace on earth, is this not a feeling toward humanity? [Richard]: ‘No, it is actually caring about my fellow human beings and not merely feeling that one cares’. [endquote]. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Why you want as you say to help your human fellows? • [Richard]: ‘Because of fellowship regard ... like species recognises like species throughout the animal kingdom. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘What motivated you for that? • [Richard]: ‘Have you never heard of what is sometimes called ‘Theory Of Mind’? The ‘theory of mind’ is a term which basically denotes that human communal interaction, as contrasted to animals’ communal interaction, depends primarily upon one’s knowledge about other people’s consciousness (the recognition of a mind in other people similar to one’s own). There is more to it than just this, though: normal adult humans have a ‘theory of mind’ in that they understand that (a) other humans have wants, ideas and intentions that may differ from one’s own; (b) that desires and ideals are different from plans and actions; (c) that concepts may or may not correspond with what is actually occurring in the world. To put it simply, for an example, because one has a ‘theory of mind’ one understands that one can simultaneously (1) know that Santa Claus does not exist and (2) know that for a child the child knows that Santa Claus exists and (3) know that the child’s ‘knowing’ is actually believing. Experiments have been done in order to determine when the ‘theory of mind’ develops in children (which research is important to take personally because all adults were children before they were adults); typically, by age four to four and a half, children can basically (a) distinguish between physical and mental objects (an orange is different from the thought of an orange), (b) reason about ideas, (c) ascribe false knowing (beliefs) in others, (d) engage in pretence (deceive and cheat). Interestingly enough, it is this last point (deceit) which most of all signals the ‘theory of mind’ as having become established. Primatologists have determined that while monkeys do not have a ‘theory of mind’, chimpanzees may very well have a rudimentary ‘theory of mind’ in that they can deliberately deceive other chimpanzees (pretence) by hiding food so as to be able eat it all on their own. The term ‘theory of mind’ was coined by Mr. David Premack and Mr. Guy Woodruff (1978) in a paper investigating a chimpanzee’s ability to predict the behaviour of another by means of mental state attribution. In short, they sought to show that their chimp, Sarah, inferred the ‘intentions’ and ‘motivations’ of a man to predict his actions. Primatologists and other investigators of animal behaviour use a variety of substitutes for the term ‘theory of mind’ including ‘metarepresentation’, ‘metacognition’, ‘mind reading’, ‘mental state attribution’ and ‘pan- or pongo-morphism’. To comprehend the importance of ‘theory of mind’, one only has to consider the task the ‘artificial intelligence’ theorists face in building a computerised model that would communicate like a human: they have to consider what kind of thoughts such a machine would have to be capable of to interact meaningfully with humans and how these kinds of thoughts could be modelled ... let alone inputting feelings. Incidentally, it is considered that autism (and/or Asperger’s Syndrome) is best characterised as ‘mind-blindness’; in other words, autistic individuals generally lack a ‘theory of mind’. (Richard, List B, No. 44e, 1 October 2003a). RESPONDENT: Douglass Harding, Byron Katie, Maximillian Sandor, bunches of folks in the ex-scientology camp (put ‘freezone’ into your search engine) are all, in their various ways, about using INSIGHT to deconstruct to iron grip of ego-self without getting caught up in the big SELF spiritualist experience of Ramana Maharshi, Bernadette Roberts, et al. RICHARD: The following quotes may very well throw some light upon the matter: • [Mr. Douglas Harding]: ‘Unself-conscious: The principle of this meditation is: never lose sight of your Self in any circumstances, and your problems are taken care of – including, strange to say, the problem of self-consciousness. For finding the Self is losing the self’. (‘The Results of Seeing Who You Really Are’; an article by Douglas Harding from ‘The Toolkit for Testing the Incredible Hypothesis’; www.headless.org/English/reallyr.htm). • [Ms. Sunny Massad]: ‘And how was your relationship with your husband’s body? • [Ms. Byron Katie]: ‘Uhhhh. [Sighs.] First time we made love it was just amaaazing. It was radical! Cuz it was God with God. And it was the receiving of it and the giving ah, it was just amazing! (‘An Interview with Byron Katie’; reprinted from ‘The Noumenon Journal: Nondual Perspectives on Transformation’; www.realization.org/page/doc1/doc107b.htm). • [Mr. Maximilian Sandor]: ‘He [Gotamo Siddharto] summarised his message in ‘Four Special Truths’: (...) 2. The truth about how a Being alienates itself and becomes trapped in a Universe’. (‘A Summary of Gotamo’s Principle in Today’s Language’; ©1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.; http://orunla.org/pnohteftu/ch16.html). • [Mr. Maximilian Sandor]: ‘Before a Being can withdraw from this Universe, every connection to it must be dissolved (which is tantamount to a complete integration of the Being)’. (The Buddha Paradox; ©1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.; http://orunla.org/pnohteftu/ch441.html). • [The Editors]: ‘The Beingness-by-itself, the free, un-detached beingness is a factor outside the ‘playground’ of our world – in a broader sense outside of ‘the physically measurable’. Beingness-by-itself is the creator of consciousness, and consciousness is the creator of the world. An Individual evolves out of the Beingness-by-itself and brings itself into a ‘form’ with the help of consciousness. It is then subjected to the laws of freedom and compulsion’. (‘Central Statement’, ‘The Free Zone’; www.scientologie.org/se_nsumm.htm). RESPONDENT No. 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/ psychic entity’. RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter. RESPONDENT: I don’t dispute that. RICHARD: What do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? (... snip remainder of e-mail ...) (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 89, 2 May 2005) RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): (...) I had to get my head out of the mixer after reading his [Richard’s] email. It all sounds like dadaism [abstract literature] to me. RICHARD: If you could explain just what it is that you do dispute about what your co-respondent wrote (further above) it may very well be possible that it will all no longer sound like abstract literature to you ... and here is a clue (where you speak for yourself, about what you feel, and not about what you have read in books): • [Respondent]: ‘Speaking for myself, I see that *deep down at the core of my being* I expect something for nothing. The logic is like following: ‘I expect to get fed, be wealthy, recognized, competent and perfect. I am a genius. Everybody should serve me. I am a King. I am special. I am chosen. I know everything and everything better than anybody else’. No wonder that my life in this world feels like a life in exile, hence I feel bad by default’. [emphasis added]. (‘Re: What am I?’; Thursday 31/03/2005 2:55 AM AEST). Here is what the word ‘core’ can mean: • ‘core: the innermost part or heart of anything (lit. & fig.), spec. of timber or of one’s person’. (Oxford Dictionary). And here is what the term ‘depths of being’ can mean: • ‘being: shocked to the depths of her being spirit, soul, nature, essence, substance, entity, quiddity [the inherent nature or essence of a person]’. (Oxford Dictionary). Put expressively, ‘the depths of my being’/ ‘the core of my being’ is made evident when a person says: ‘but what about me, nobody loves me for me!’ For a woman it may be: ‘you only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it might be: ‘you don’t want me ... you only want me for my bank account’. For a child can be: ‘you only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. This intuitive sense of self – which is ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’ – arises out of the basic instinctual passions that blind nature endows sentient creatures with as a rough and ready soft-ware package, as it were, to make a start in life with. So, what do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? * RESPONDENT No. 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/ psychic entity’. RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter. RESPONDENT: I don’t dispute that. RICHARD: What do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? (... snip remainder of e-mail ...) (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 89, 2 May 2005) RESPONDENT (to No. 87): (...) I had to get my head out of the mixer after reading his [Richard’s] email. It all sounds like Dadaism (abstract literature) to me. RICHARD: If you could explain just what it is that you do dispute about what your co-respondent wrote (further above) ... RESPONDENT: What are you doing? RICHARD: I am asking you if you could explain just what it is that you do dispute about what your co-respondent wrote, at the top of this page, such as to induce you to inform them that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity ... and, given you do not dispute that the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ (an amorphous affective presence, an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter), it is a very reasonable question to ask. So reasonable, in fact, that I asked it eight times (in the e-mail which you got your head into the mixer whilst reading) in a variety of ways. Viz.: 1. ‘What do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? 2. ‘What did your co-respondent mean, then, such as to occasion you to say that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity? 3. ‘... why did you say it is not that Richard (this flesh and blood body writing this e-mail) stops ‘being’ directly after telling your co-respondent that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity? 4. ‘... why did you say that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail stops being an entity, then, directly after telling your co-respondent that it is not that Richard (the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail) stops ‘being’? 5. ‘... why did you tell your co-respondent that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity? 6. ‘What is it, then, that you are disputing? 7. ‘... why did you tell your co-respondent that if this flesh and blood body writing this e-mail stopped ‘being’ altogether there would be a dissolution into oblivion without leaving a trace? 8. ‘... why tell your co-respondent that, without passions, there would be no feeling of being an entity when they had just said feeling of ‘being’? (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 89, 2 May 2005) RESPONDENT: We are over this topic. RICHARD: I have read each and every one of the fifty-one e-mails you posted after that e-mail of mine asking those eight variations on the question appeared in the archives and nowhere could I find you responding in such a manner as to occasion you to confidently assert, without any acquiescent input from me, that [quote] ‘we are over this topic’ [endquote] ... nowhere at all. Obviously, then, the e-mail in which you did respond so convincingly (as to not require my written concurrence) to those eight variations on the question has gone astray ... if you could point me to where it can be found it would be most appreciated. Until then we are, of course, not over this topic in any way, shape or manner ... indeed, it lies at the crux of why that e-mail of mine sounded like abstract literature to you. * RICHARD: ... [If you could explain just what it is that you do dispute] it may very well be possible that it will all no longer sound like abstract literature to you ... and here is a clue (where you speak for yourself, about what you feel, and not about what you have read in books): • [Respondent]: ‘Speaking for myself, I see that *deep down at the core of my being* I expect something for nothing. The logic is like following: ‘I expect to get fed, be wealthy, recognized, competent and perfect. I am a genius. Everybody should serve me. I am a King. I am special. I am chosen. I know everything and everything better than anybody else’. No wonder that my life in this world feels like a life in exile, hence I feel bad by default’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: I am not speaking about me here. RICHARD: As a suggestion only: as that be the case, then, it would be handy to not preface such (apparent) testimonies with the words [quote] ‘speaking for myself’ [endquote] as it creates the impression that you are, albeit somewhat uncharacteristically, speaking for yourself about what you feel, and not about what you have read in books, in that paragraph. RESPONDENT: I am speaking about the ‘entity’ here and as much as there is entity in me I speak about ‘me’. RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication, regarding what you mean by [quote] ‘as much as there is entity in me’ [endquote], here is what you have said elsewhere: • [Respondent]: ‘Real understanding is realisation. I am not realised, so I don’t understand’. (Thursday 21/04/2005 6:48 AM AEST). And: • [Respondent]: ‘I am not realised so I cannot be experientially sure, but my intellectual understanding shows me that ...’. (Thursday 21/04/2005 8:25 AM AEST). I will, accordingly, put scare quotes around the personal pronouns: • [example only]: ‘Speaking for ‘myself’, ‘I’ see that deep down at the core of ‘my’ being ‘I’ expect something for nothing. (...) No wonder that ‘my’ life in this world *feels* like a life in exile, hence ‘I’ *feel* bad by default’ [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: This is not me personally but the ‘me’ in everyone. RICHARD: Again I will put scare quotes around the personal pronouns: • [example only]: ‘Speaking for the ‘me’ in everyone, ‘I’ see that deep down at the core of every ‘me’s being each ‘me’ expects something for nothing. (...) No wonder that each ‘me’s life in this world *feels* like a life in exile, hence every ‘me’ *feels* bad by default’ [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: And the word ‘being’ here is totally unrelated to the word ‘being’ above. RICHARD: Whilst it is standard practice for intellectuals to distance themselves from what they are studying – so as to be as objective as possible – there is no denying, surely, that there is (if nothing else) a tacit/ de facto acknowledgement there, in that paragraph, that the word ‘being’ is subjectively associated with the affections? RESPONDENT: You also use the word being in different contexts differently. RICHARD: The context in that paragraph is about ‘me’, deep down at the core of ‘my’ being, affectively feeling that ‘my’ life (aka ‘my’ existence) in this world is like a life (aka an existence) in exile and, hence, ‘I’ affectively feel bad by default, is it not? RESPONDENT: You talk about ‘fellow human beings’ and distinguish these ‘beings’ from the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RICHARD: When I write ‘my fellow human being’ I am obviously meaning my fellow (human) creature as ... (a) I have made it quite clear on numerous occasions I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world ... and (b) there is no way I can truthfully say, for instance, ‘my fellow (human) feeling of ‘being’’. Of course, not being either a fool or a simpleton, I am well aware that my words will be hijacked by the identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), whose very ‘being’ (aka ‘existence’) feels so real as to be felt to really be immortal when sublimated and transcended, as I have much experience in dealing with recalcitrant egos and compliant souls. RESPONDENT: So I distinguished between ‘being’ as understood as ‘being here’, ‘being conscious’ and ‘existing’ (like there is a cup on the table) and ‘being’ as understood as a ‘feeling of being’, which is what defines the entity, hence ‘being an entity’, ‘being something’, ‘being a soul’ etc. RICHARD: As you clearly say that what defines the entity is ‘being’ as understood as a [quote] ‘feeling of being’ [endquote] then just what is it that you do dispute about what your co-respondent wrote, at the top of this page, such as to induce you to inform them that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity? RESPONDENT: There is a difference of ‘being here’ like ‘being in the room’ or ‘being present’ and ‘being something’ like ‘being an entity’. RICHARD: I am well aware of the difference between being here (as in being here in this room or as in being present somewhere/ somewhen) and being something (as in being an entity/ being a body) ... yet to be here, as in being in a room, is to be present someplace (in that room for instance) at sometime (either day or night for example) *as* something (as an entity/ as a body), is it not? And to be here at this specific place, now at this precise moment, as a particular entity/ a particular body, is to be (to exist) ... and as existing=being then that entity/ that body is being (is existing or is extant), right? However only a body can actually be (actually exist); only a body is actually being (actually existing): an entity, deep down at its core, can only feel that it is existing and, as there is only a feeling of being (existing=being), then just like with ‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘my’ and so on, the scare quotes – as in ‘being’ – indicate that the entity’s very existence is nothing other than that feeling ... the feeling of ‘being’. Yet what you told your co-respondent was that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the (rudimentary) feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the (rudimentary) feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity. Here is my question put in an entirely different way: what creates that feeling of ‘being’, then, if not the instinctual passions? RESPONDENT: In other words: The instinctual passions are not creating the feeling of ‘being’ but the feeling of ‘being something’, that is, ‘being an entity’ or ‘being a soul’ but not just ‘being’ like in ‘being here’. RICHARD: Why are you so insistent that the [quote] ‘feeling of ‘being something’, that is, ‘being an entity’ [endquote] is not a feeling of being (a feeling of existing)? RESPONDENT: Therefore I said ‘being’ doesn’t depend on ‘being something’. RICHARD: If I may ask? Where did you say [quote] ‘being’ doesn’t depend on ‘being something’ [endquote]? And the reason I ask is that what you wrote to your co-respondent was that Richard (the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail) does not stop ‘being’ as he is obviously still here in that he is the mortal body. Viz.: • [Respondent to Co-Respondent]: You see it is not that Richard stops ‘being’. He stops being an entity. There is a difference here. If he stopped ‘being’ altogether he would dissolve into oblivion without leaving a trace. But obviously Richard still is here. He is the mortal body’ [endquote]. Clearly you are saying that ‘being’ (in your usage of that word) does depend upon being something (a mortal body) ... else why say, by way of evidence, that it is obvious that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is still here inasmuch the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is the mortal body. Indeed, you were most categorical about ‘being’ (in your usage of that word) depending upon being something in your follow-up e-mail to me. Viz.: • [Respondent to Richard]: ‘When you cease being an entity [cease being a ‘feeling being’] you don’t cease to exist altogether. Sure ‘you’ (as an entity) cease to exist but not so does the body. The body is; the body exists. You cannot dispute your existence’. [endquote]. And: • [Respondent to Richard]: ‘But you are (be!) there. You exist. Otherwise you couldn’t write emails’. [endquote]. And: • [Respondent to Richard]: ‘The body exists. It comes into existence at birth and ceases to exist when it dies. That is what I mean with ‘being’ ...’. [endquote]. Do you see that you were most clear as to what it was you meant by your usage of the word ‘being’ (the body existing)? And yet there is more: • [Respondent to Richard]: ‘There is a real difference here. The entity is not but your body is. That’s the difference. You ceased to be an entity (feeling being) but you still are there ...’. [endquote]. And: • [Respondent to Richard]: ‘Of course the identity stopped being. I am not disputing that. But your body still is (be!). And if your body stops ‘being’ you are dead’. [endquote]. And: • [Respondent to Richard]: ‘This is my point. Your body is (be = being) and of course it is here since conception’. [endquote]. And yet, despite all those emphatic assertions that ‘being’ does depend on being something (as in being a body), you are now informing me that you said [quote] ‘being’ doesn’t depend on ‘being something’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: You are free of the entity but you still are. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is indeed free of the entity; this flesh and blood body most certainly still is. RESPONDENT: Hope this clarifies it! RICHARD: Hmm ... what it has clarified is that the following is a lie: • [Respondent]: ‘We are over this topic’. [endquote]. * RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘core’ can mean: • ‘core: the innermost part or heart of anything (lit. & fig.), spec. of timber or of one’s person’. (Oxford Dictionary). And here is what the term ‘depths of being’ can mean: • ‘being: shocked to the depths of her being spirit, soul, nature, essence, substance, entity, quiddity [the inherent nature or essence of a person]’. (Oxford Dictionary). Put expressively, ‘the depths of my being’/ ‘the core of my being’ is made evident when a person says: ‘but what about me, nobody loves me for me!’ For a woman it may be: ‘you only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it might be: ‘you don’t want me ... you only want me for my bank account’. For a child can be: ‘you only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. This intuitive sense of self – which is ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’ – arises out of the basic instinctual passions that blind nature endows sentient creatures with as a rough and ready soft-ware package, as it were, to make a start in life with. RESPONDENT: Yes, that’s all fine. RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: 1. Are you saying that it is fine when, put expressively, terms such as ‘the depths of my being’/ ‘the core of my being’ are made evident when a person says: ‘but what about me, nobody loves me for me!’? 2. Are you saying that it is fine when, put expressively, terms such as ‘the depths of my being’/ ‘the core of my being’ are made evident when a woman may say: ‘you only want me for my body ... and not for me’? 3. Are you saying that it is fine when, put expressively, terms such as ‘the depths of my being’/ ‘the core of my being’ are made evident when a man might say ‘you don’t want me ... you only want me for my bank account’? 4. Are you saying that it is fine when, put expressively, terms such as ‘the depths of my being’/ ‘the core of my being’ are made evident when a child can say ‘you only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’? 5. Are you saying that it is fine that terms such as ‘the depths of my being’/ ‘the core of my being’ refer to the intuitive sense of self – which is ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’ – arising out of the basic instinctual passions? If (note ‘if’) your answer to No’s 1, 2, 3, 4, *and* 5 is in the affirmative then here is my question: what is that intuitive sense of self – which is ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’ (an affective presence, a feeler/ intuiter) – arising out of the basic instinctual passions if it be not [quote] ‘the feeling of ‘being’ [endquote]? * RICHARD: So, what do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? RESPONDENT: See explanation above. RICHARD: I have more than seen your explanation above – I have gone through it sentence-by-sentence so there could be no possible misunderstanding – yet my initial question, in all its eight variations, still remains unanswered ... here it is once more, yet again put differently, for your considered response: What creates the intuitive (as in instinctive and not as in insightful) feeling of ‘being’, then, if not the instinctual passions? RESPONDENT: [Richard] ‘Vanity, egoism, selfishness – all self-centred activity has ceased to operate when ‘I’ as ‘me’ being ceased to be’. [endquote]. I don’t doubt that the ‘I’ as ‘me’ ceased to be and transformation took place in you for a time or times ... RICHARD: Yet I never said ‘the ‘I’ as ‘me’ ceased to be’ as the quote of mine clearly states ‘I’ as ‘me’ *being* ceased to be (that which you describe, elsewhere, as ‘fullness-of-being’ has ceased to be) nor was there any ‘transformation’ take place as ‘ceased to be’ means extirpation, annihilation, extinction ... thus there was no ‘for a time or times’ about it as ‘self’-immolation in toto is the end, finish (as in there being no phoenix to rise from the ashes). As dead as the dodo, in other words, but with no skeletal remains. RESPONDENT: ‘Feeling being’ means what? (according to your use). RICHARD: The same as it means in normal usage of course: • The Riverside Humane Society Pet Adoption Centre believes that every dog and every cat is a living, *feeling being* who, more often than not, would make a wonderful companion if given a chance. [emphasis added]. (www.petsadoption.com/). • ‘The ‘breathing’ of the Presence is direct, from the heart or *feeling being* ...’. [emphasis added]. (www.dabase.net/divcomex.htm). • Learn the truth about those who take pleasure in the suffering and death of another living and *feeling being*, and about those who make money from such activities’. [emphasis added]. (www.all-creatures.org/cash/). • ‘Man is neither a rational being nor a thinking being. He is a *feeling being*. The word ‘feeling’ has been misconstrued and distorted from its original meaning. Feeling is not an emotion that stems from the sense realm. Rather it is the language of the soul’. [emphasis added]. (www.soulcommunications.com/soul_philo.htm). • ‘This site is dedicated to the animals, and humans who know that there is a sentient, *feeling being* in every furred, feathered or scaly skin. [emphasis added]. (http://allaboutanimals.us/index2.html). It is a more-inclusive phrase than ‘an emotional being’ as it includes the passions as well. RICHARD: The instinctual passions [such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire] are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. (...) Past the human conditioning is the human condition itself ... that which caused the conditioning in the first place. To end this condition, the deletion of blind nature’s software package which gave rise to the rudimentary animal ‘self’ is required. This is the elimination of ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’. The complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ is the end to all the ills of humankind. RESPONDENT: ‘Being’ to me implies an ongoing, static, state that never ends. If you say that it can become extinct, then it must be impermanent. Therefore it falls under the category of a conditioned (impermanent) thing? RICHARD: Yes ... and an illusory/ delusory thing at that. RESPONDENT: The extract you sent in the previous dialogue is dealing with erasing the human ‘self’ or ‘being’ but do you not agree that the two issues (permanency and ‘self’/ identity) are linked? RICHARD: Not as an actuality, no (the issue of permanency is linked to the issue of the properties of the universe). RESPONDENT: Is not the sense of being a human being tied up with the belief in permanence, i.e. the belief that ‘I’ am at the root of everything (as a permanent entity)? RICHARD: As the (sensorial) ‘sense of being a human being’ is tied up with impermanence – as in mortality – you can only be referring to the intuitive ‘sense of being a human being’ (as in immortality) ... the affective feeling of being a ‘presence’ inside the body (aka ‘being’ itself), in other words, as a psychological/ psychic entity (a metaphysical identity) rather than the sensitive feeling of being this body as a sensate/ material entity (a physical creature). Hence spiritualism has it that, whilst the ego-self is impermanent, the soul-self is permanent and that ego-death, while the body is a living body, is essential to reveal who one really is – an immortal spirit-being – whereas actualism has that identity-death in toto (extinction) is essential to make apparent what one actually is (a mortal human being) ... and therein lies the rub: as a spirit-being one is so very real, so very, very real at times, one is prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion so that what is actually permanent can become apparent. This infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is not conditioned by any definition of the word (especially No. 3): • ‘conditioned: (from the noun) 1. having a (specified) disposition or temperament; in a particular condition or state; 2. placed in certain conditions; circumstanced, situated; (from the verb) 3. subject to conditions or limitations; dependent on a condition; not absolute or infinite; 4. brought into a desired state; with the balance of certain qualities adjusted; 5. taught to accept certain habits, attitudes, standards, etc.; accustomed to. (© Oxford Dictionary). * RICHARD: Where I say I am this living flesh and blood body I am not identifying with this flesh and blood body – identifying with this flesh and blood body as an identity be it intrinsic or not – as what I am describing is what I am (what, not ‘who’) ... only an identity would translate my descriptions as describing a particular core/ a static essence/ an intrinsic identity (or a true identity/ a real identity or whatever). (...) Perhaps if I were to put it this way: being alive, being a living body, is to be a process of constant change – birthing, growing, ageing, dying – on all levels (microscopic and macroscopic and anywhere in between). Furthermore, nothing is ever static – everything, literally everything, is in constant motion, constant change; nothing, literally nothing, is ever stagnant, ever stays the same – thus all is novel, never boring, all is new, never old, all is fresh, never stale. In short: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis. RESPONDENT: What is wrong with saying: there are no permanent conditioned things? RICHARD: Because nowhere have I ever come across a [quote] ‘teaching’ [endquote] which says that ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’, is an impermanent conditioned thing ... on the contrary, all the sages, seers, god-men/ god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have been saying that it is a permanent unconditioned thing (and, more often than not, the only permanent unconditioned thing into the bargain). This is what you had said (the modified version) in response to my initial query: • ‘The actual freedom I believed is a possibility (before encountering your site) would be thus: 1) There are no permanent [conditioned] things (including I/ Me, identity, self, states etc). 2) Consequently there is no [conditioned] basis for suffering to arise. Which is why I was attracted to your site. Its not that it [no permanent conditioned things] was a new concept, it’s more that I agreed with it. I guess I realise at some level that the crux of the issue is the above (as in points 1 and 2) and that if I had to pick out the two most important things in a ‘teaching’ it would have to be those’. RESPONDENT: Is this statement at odds with actuality/ your above statement? RICHARD: What is at odds with actuality/ my above statement is that any [quote] ‘teaching’ [endquote] has ever said that ... spirituality is all about the permanence (aka immortality) and unconditionality (aka absoluteness) of ‘being’ itself. RESPONDENT: How about: all conditioned things are impermanent. RICHARD: If your phraseology ‘all conditioned things’ includes ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’ (quite often capitalised as Being or Presence upon self-realisation) then there is no problem with putting it that way ... this is one of the ways I have summarised it before (a modified version): 1. Where does any [quote] ‘teaching’ [endquote] say that there is no such thing as reincarnation (aka rebirth), that there is only this one mortal life currently being lived, and that physical death is the end, finish? 2. Where does any [quote] ‘teaching’ [endquote] say that there is no such thing as god, truth (a non-material sacredness by whatever name), and that there is nothing other than this physical universe? 3. Where does any [quote] ‘teaching’ [endquote] say that there is no such thing as immortality (a non-material deathlessness by whatever name) and that only this physical universe is infinite, eternal, and perpetual? 4. Where does any [quote] ‘teaching’ [endquote] say that the answer to all the misery and mayhem lies here on earth (aka in the world), right now in time (aka this moment), and not away from the world (aka a spiritual dimension) sans time altogether (aka timeless)? And I have summarised it this way because eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth – and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward – and is not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body (sans identity/ affections in toto) ... just as western spirituality is not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body either (it is fundamentally all about avoiding a (specious) post-mortem punishment and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward). In short: peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritualism – nor in materialism for that matter – which is one of the reasons why I say actualism is the third alternative to both. The main reason why is, of course, in regards to the meaning of life. RICHARD: The whole point of this Mailing List is to discuss together each others’ experience so as to clarify what oneself understands. There is enough written by enough people to find similarities that may be reliably taken as a prima facie case for investigation without having to believe anyone. It is called ‘establishing a working hypothesis’ ... and can further human knowledge and thus experience. One can read one saint’s, sage’s or seer’s words – and cross-reference them with other saint’s, sage’s or seer’s words – so as to gain a reasonable notion of what they are describing (pointing to). This is the whole point of communication: to share experience so that another does not have to travel down the same-same path and find out for themselves what others have already discovered. RESPONDENT: I agree, thank you for these words. With that objective I would like to ask you what do you mean when saying ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul? What is the difference between ‘I’ and ‘me’ and between ego and soul? I cannot understand what you are trying to convey. RICHARD: There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual. The first two ‘I’s are ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) which are the two halves of identity ... thus the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can dissolve/ expand/ transmogrify so as to reveal/ create the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (soul or Self). Usually I write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer fame (‘I’ as soul/ ‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). Mystical liberation (Moksha) from the bonds of samsara (anava, karma and maya), consists of the soul (atman or purusha) extricating itself from its mistaken assumption of personality or individuality (aham or ‘I’ as ego). This assumption is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on the real-world (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds. These bonds do not cease to exist but no longer have the power to fetter or bind the soul (atman), until its final release at physical death (Mahasamadhi) whereupon atman is Paramatman (or the Brahman) ... oft-times referred to as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (‘That Thou Art’ or ‘I Am That’). An actual freedom from the real-world (samsara or prakriti) is when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct – which means ‘being’ itself expires – and not what happens when ‘I’ as ego transmogrifies into ‘Being’ (Paramatman or Brahman). I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. * RICHARD: There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual. RESPONDENT: What is the third ‘I’? RICHARD: The flesh and blood body only. I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. * RICHARD: The first two ‘I’s are ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) which are the two halves of identity ... thus the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can dissolve/ expand/ transmogrify so as to reveal/ create the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (soul or Self). Usually I write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer fame (‘I’ as soul/ ‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). RESPONDENT: By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/ ‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways: 1. Jnani (cognitive realisation as epitomised by the ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this; not this’ approach). 2. Bhakti (affective realisation as epitomised by devotional worship and surrender of will). 3. Yoga (bodily realisation as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’). It is also traditionally held that these broad definitions are not exclusive of each other (there are elements of Bhakti and Yoga in Jnani; there are elements of Jnani and Yoga in Bhakti; there are elements of Jnani and Bhakti in Yoga) and that they refer to the main emphasis, of the whole approach, on the part of the practitioner. RESPONDENT: Is thought involved in this process? RICHARD: Only initially ... the goal is to become thoughtless and senseless because that which is sacred, holy, cannot come into being whilst thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are operating. RESPONDENT: Is thought the essence of both ‘I’ or is there anything more? RICHARD: Both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are held to be the essence of the first ‘I’ (ego or self) but are, most certainly, not considered to be the essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self). The essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self) is solely affective (neither cognitive nor sensate) and is generally held to be a state of ‘being’ ... which is why I usually write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) spoke of (‘I’ as soul/ ‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). * RICHARD: Mystical liberation (Moksha) from the bonds of samsara (anava, karma and maya), consists of the soul (atman or purusha) extricating itself from its mistaken assumption of personality or individuality (aham or ‘I’ as ego). RESPONDENT: I understand that the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/ ‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’), and this second ‘I’ can extricating itself from the first ‘I’ or individuality, whereupon there is mystical liberation (Moksha). Is this what you mean? RICHARD: Yes. However, this extrication also includes extrication from both the physical body and the physical world (detachment from both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) inevitably results in dissociation) ... hence the common expression ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’ (maya). * RICHARD: This assumption [the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality] is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on the real-world (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds. RESPONDENT: Why are they reincarnational? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that karma, born of the craving for physical existence, is the reason for re-birth. Hence ‘maya’ (which translates as ‘only apparently real’) is the manifestation of ‘samsara’ (which translates as ‘the running around’) which metempsychosis is the result of ‘karma’ (which translates as ‘act’ or ‘deed’). In Hinduism and Jainism, samsara describes the vocation of the soul which – once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self-Consciousness’ – is born as a creature and continues through transmigration until ‘moksa’ (which translates as ‘release’). Buddhism regards all existence as being samsara – and therefore ‘dukkha’ because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence – and teaches that salvation is to be found in the place where the sun don’t shine. Viz.: • Mr. Gotama the Sakyan: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; ... neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. (Udana 8.1; PTS: viii.1; Nibbana Sutta). As to what it is that happens, in the place where the sun don’t shine, that the craving arises in the first place, the explanation you provided to this Mailing List, on Monday, 19 June 2000, is as useful or as useless as any other facile explanation. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘God is the one who introduces the soul into the stream of transmigration so that he might discover his spiritual nature’. (Message #01021 of Archive 00/06). * RICHARD: These bonds do not cease to exist but no longer have the power to fetter or bind the soul (atman), until its final release at physical death (Mahasamadhi) whereupon atman is Paramatman (or the Brahman) ... oft-times referred to as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (‘That Thou Art’ or ‘I Am That’). RESPONDENT: I understand that with this releasing at physical death the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/ ‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’) will be Brahman. If so, what is Brahman’s essence, is it a creation of the mind? RICHARD: Ha ... Brahman’s essence is held to be unknowable, ineffable and inviolable (never to be questioned). * RICHARD: An actual freedom from the real-world (samsara or prakriti) is when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct – which means ‘being’ itself expires – and not what happens when ‘I’ as ego transmogrifies into ‘Being’ (Paramatman or Brahman). I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: If both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul have become extinct, does something remain when physical death comes? RICHARD: Yes, that which always was, already is, and always will be, remains. * RESPONDENT: Many feelings are felt only when the thinker is thinking on it, but when the thinker stops and there’s silence those feelings also stop, seeming that the thinker and the feeler are only the two sides of the same coin. RICHARD: The surface emotions, the agitated feelings, stop but not the deepest, most quiet feeling of being ‘me’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being which is ‘being’ itself). RESPONDENT: Yes, the surface ‘conscious’ thinker stops and then the surface emotions also stop, but whereas the thinker and his worries are still boiling in the deepest of conscious the deepest emotions and wishes would not stop. In this way, the thinker and the feeler can be the same yet. RICHARD: If so, then this is not yet ‘silence’ ... ‘silence’ is when the thinker is not. That is, ‘silence’ is pure feeling (usually called ‘pure being’ or ‘a state of being’). RESPONDENT: I mean when there’s a bit of silence because conscious thinking stops for a while. Then, the associated feeling (fear when thinking on whatever) also fades away seeming that it was a thinking dependent process. It seems that there’s not fear if there’s not re-cognition (thought, conscious or unconscious). Fear seems to be a physical response to factual events, triggered when a threat is re-cognised. Fear wakes up the body in a nanosecond and provokes a movement of fleeing or attack; it promotes survival, it seems natural and good for survival, a momentary physical response to factual event, like sleep or be thirsty. When child, a small dog is a factual threat and there’s fear, but when we are grown up and 195 tall the small dog is not a factual threat and there’s not fear. Fear rises or not as a physical bodily response to threats. But when there’s a thinker operating and the response of fear is triggered by interpretations and hopes from this thinker, fear becomes an insane response. You point out that, when there’s not thinker (‘I’ as ego or first I), remains the feeler (‘me’ as soul or second ‘I’) as source of fear and it must fade away, but I can not understand this. RICHARD: It all depends upon one’s aspirations ... does one aspire to only be free of thought-induced fear (what you call the ‘insane response’ ) or does one also aspire to be free of ‘natural’ fear (what is mostly called the ‘sane response’)? Can there be peace-on-earth whilst one is still subject to the sane response (‘natural’ fear) from time-to-time? * RESPONDENT: When mind is in this situation observing a sunrise, without the thinker operating, there’s only the sense of beauty without the sense of a feeler feeling it. RICHARD: Rather, without the sense of a personal feeler feeling it: impersonal feeling. That is, pure feeling or pure being (sans the personal identity) is impersonal identity or impersonal ‘being’. RESPONDENT: It seems that the sense of observer and feeler does not exist then, only exists apperceptive awareness as what is observed (the sunrise) and the feeling (‘beauty’) without a sense of a feeler feeling it. RICHARD: I can easily agree that when the observer is the observed there is only observation as that ‘what is observed (the sunrise)’ ... except where there is ‘the feeling (‘beauty’) without a sense of a feeler feeling it’ (impersonal feeling) there is impersonal awareness ‘as what is observed (the sunrise)’ ... and not apperceptive awareness. Although I do not have the corner on the phrase ‘apperceptive awareness’, this impersonal awareness is best called ‘choiceless awareness’ here so as to avoid confusion of terms. RESPONDENT: In this way, the thinker and the feeler seem to be the same again. Do you consider this observation correct? RICHARD: If the observer is the observed (and there is only observation as that ‘what is observed (the sunrise)’) then, yes, this observation is correct. However, apperceptive awareness, in the way I am using the term, is when ‘the feeling (‘beauty’) without a sense of a feeler feeling it’ (impersonal feeling) is not. It is bodily awareness ... as the senses (and not through the senses). RESPONDENT: I see, ‘personal’ and ‘impersonal’ feelings, I think I grasp what you are conveying here: when there’s not thinker remains yet a feeler (a being who can feel), and these feelings are impersonal (without an ego-thinker feeling it), and in this state there’s also impersonal (choiceless) awareness. Right until here, but you are going beyond and pointing that there’s an state where this impersonal feeler also fades away, and in this state there’s ‘apperceptive’ awareness, [‘bodily awareness ... as the senses (and not through the senses)’]. I cannot understand this because it seems to me that an ‘impersonal feeler’ is inherent to be alive, how can exist a being if there’s not an impersonal feeler? RICHARD: It is the ontological ‘being’ which cannot exist if there is not an impersonal feeler ... not the flesh and blood body (a human being). RESPONDENT: Without grasping the last, I can not understand what do you mean by ‘apperceptive awareness’ and why is it different of impersonal (choiceless awareness). Can you elaborate further on it? RICHARD: Yes, ‘choiceless awareness’ is where the fragment (the ontological ‘being’) is the whole (an autological ‘being’ usually capitalised as ‘Being’) ... whereas ‘apperceptive awareness’ is where the fragment – and therefore the whole – has ceased to be (‘being’ and/or ‘Being’ itself is not). RESPONDENT: Richard, I should like to ask the simple question ‘In which way one person that lost his being and ego, is different than a robot?’ RICHARD: Just because a person actually free of the human condition has no identity whatsoever (neither ego-self nor soul-self/ spirit-self) parasitically residing inside the flesh and blood body – and therefore no affective feelings – this absence of identity and its precious feelings does not thus make that person a machine, an automaton, an android (a robot somewhat resembling a human being in appearance designed to function in place of a living organism and carrying out a variety of tasks mechanically in accord with a pre-programmed circuitry). I do not read/ watch science fiction but as I get these type of questions from time to time I have gradually been made aware of various ‘Star Trek’ characters, for instance, and it is pertinent to point out that the stuff of science fiction (creations of imagination) is entirely different to actuality ... a writer replete with identity/ feelings trying to visualise life sans identity/ feelings can, apparently, only conceive of a robotic-like creature speaking in a flat, monotone voice, and devoid of a sense of humour. I am yet to hear of a robot that experiences life like this, for example: • [Richard]: ‘I live in the infinitude of this fairy-tale-like actual world where, with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity, everything and everybody has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything ‘alive’ and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the actualness of everything and everybody. We do not live in an inert universe’. In fact a robot, being a machine, does not experience anything at all. RESPONDENT: Richard you define the being as soul. RICHARD: I variously use words such a ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘presence’, ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) to refer to the feeling-self as distinct from the thinking-self ... and by ‘feeling’ I am meaning the affective feelings (the emotional, passional, and calentural feelings) and not the sensitive feelings (the sensorial, sensual, and sensuous feelings). As a generalisation the feeling-self is that which is commonly believed to animate the body (quite often misleadingly called consciousness) ... sometimes held to predate birth and oft-times held to survive physical death. RESPONDENT: I don’t know nothing about soul. RICHARD: It is a commonly-used English word which, according to the Oxford Dictionary, corresponds formally to the Greek word ‘aiolos’ (‘quick-moving’ or ‘easily moved’) and refers to an entity distinct from the body; a person’s spiritual as opposed to corporeal nature; specifically regarded as immortal and as being capable of redemption or damnation in a future state; the disembodied spirit of a dead person, regarded as invested with some degree of personality and form, and also the seat of the emotions or sentiments ... the emotional part of human nature. RESPONDENT: For me being is to exist. RICHARD: To exist is to be here, in space and time, *as* a flesh and blood body ... yet further below you say that after the death of this body the ‘being’ you speak of here will continue in another baby (only you call it ‘this sense of existence’ further below) and that you are born *in* every baby. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘So after death this sense of existence will continue in another baby (NO REINCARNATION AND THESE NONSENSE) I am born in every baby and then the different identities are separating its other’. As for your ‘NO REINCARNATION’ qualifier: the Buddhists, for example, use the word ‘rebirth’ rather than the word ‘reincarnation’ so as to emphasise their no-Atman (no-soul) to incarnate and thus no-Brahman (no-god) to realise doctrine ... yet highly revere the after-death state (Parinirvana) of an enlightened being and strive for enlightenment themselves so as to attain to their own salvation in the place where the sun don’t shine (the ‘Deathless State’). RESPONDENT: In the moment you speaks about oblivion after death ... RICHARD: First and foremost: I report the identity in toto going into blessed oblivion whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive. Second, with no identity in situ it is patently obvious that there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. Third, hence there was, similarly, nothing which predated birth. Lastly, physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again. In other words, physical death is the end, finish. RESPONDENT: ... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive. RICHARD: No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not. RESPONDENT: You are in a state of existence. RICHARD: I exist *as* a flesh and blood body, in time and space, being apperceptively aware. RESPONDENT: How you know that you exist? RICHARD: Sensately ... I have written about this to you before. Here is an excerpt: • [Richard]: ‘... if one were to close the eyes one will find there is a sensing, or perception, of being oriented in space (of space all around including behind the body) ... and this has as much to do with balance, acceleration and/or rotation in space, orientation in a gravity field (if there be one) as it has to do with the proprioceptive senses proper in the muscles, tendons, and joints. The proprioceptive senses are part of the somatic sensory system (somaesthesis/ somaesthesia) which is the faculty of bodily perception (sensory systems associated with the body) and includes skin senses (cutaneous receptors for hot/ cold, pressure, physical pleasure/ pain, for example) and the internal organs sensors (cardiovascular or circulatory receptors for blood pressure, heart rate, and carbon dioxide and digestive tract receptors for hunger and thirst, for instance) as well as the equilibrium sense, or sense of balance, already mentioned. Thus proprioception is the ability to sense the position and location and orientation and movement of the body, and its parts, because of the proprioceptors in the muscles, tendons, and joint capsules (in combination with the sense of balance, acceleration and/or rotation in space, and orientation in a gravitational field, of the inner ear or vestibular organ). In other words: the sense of being here, in space, as a body is not just because of sight (visual perception), sound (auditory perception), touch (cutaneous perception), smell (olfactory perception), and taste (gustatory perception). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44, 1 June 2003). RESPONDENT: You must have a sense of existence. RICHARD: You will see, upon re-reading my response (above) that I clearly say ‘the sense of being here, in space, as a body’ – which is another way of saying ‘the sense of existing, in space, as a body’ – which is most certainly not the same thing as the ‘feeling of existence’ you speak of in a recent e-mail. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘Existence is not mine or yours. Existence is one. We are experiencing the same feeling of existence, the identities made us think we are separate.’ (For every one; Jul 09, 2003). The ‘sense of existence’ you are enquiring about is intuitive, or instinctive, and thus affective, not sensitive. RESPONDENT: Or you must make a logical process, for example I am walking etc. RICHARD: No, it is a sensible process to observe ambulation ... no logic is required. RESPONDENT: Even in a PCE, how one knows that a PCE took place? RICHARD: Apperceptively ... and I have written to you about this before also: • [Respondent]: ‘How do you know it was a nice day if you had no feelings? • [Richard]: ‘The direct experience of perfection informs of a perfect day: in the (above) context the ‘nice day’ is being sensately experienced ... and not affectively. • [Respondent]: ‘If you don’t have I or being then who knows it? • [Richard]: ‘Not ‘who’ knows it ... what knows it: this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware knows it. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44a, 11 June 2003). In short: apperception, or pure conscious experiencing, is unmediated perception. RESPONDENT: Means that thought (even subconscious thought) was in operation and so recording was taking place. RICHARD: No, apperception happens all the time irregardless whether thought is operating or not (and there is no subconscious thought at any time) ... thought, thoughts, and thinking happens spontaneously if and when required by the circumstances. And ambulation does not require thought. * RESPONDENT: And to end, I should like to say what I think is happening. I think that the sense of existence, is common to all humankind. RICHARD: To all those not yet free of the human condition the intuitive, or instinctive, feeling of existing (the feeling of ‘being’) is common to all humankind. RESPONDENT: After with the different conditionings and identities, we think we are separate human beings. RICHARD: No, it is because of blind nature’s biological inheritance that each and every human being feels separate ... the social conditioning is a well-meant attempt to keep the wayward self under control. RESPONDENT: Right now my sense of existence is exactly the same with yours ... RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? RESPONDENT: ... and everybody’s else. RICHARD: I have talked with many and varied peoples from all walks of life (I have both travelled the country and overseas), and watched television, videos, films (whatever media is available), read about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet), for more than two decades, to find somebody else actually free from the human condition, but to no avail. Therefore, if you could provide web pages, books titles, magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever that I can access – or other mailing lists that I can subscribe to – wherein the words of these people, who have written about how their ‘sense of existence’ is ‘exactly’ the same as mine, can be found I would be most pleased. We could compare notes, as it were, to determine what is idiosyncratic and what is common. RESPONDENT: May be now I am swimming and you have headache. But the sense of existence without the identities is the same EXACTLY. RICHARD: Ahh ... without the parasitical identity within the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, would be very similar (if not exactly the same). RESPONDENT: I can not see this sense of existence is possible to disappear, because does not exist non existence. RICHARD: Here is how you started this line of thought: • [Respondent]: ‘Richard you define the being as soul. I don’t know nothing about soul. For me being is to exist. Now, while I say it is possible for ‘the being’ I variously call the ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, or ‘presence’, to cease to exist (and this is experiential and not theoretical), you have not only removed what those words refer to (the parasitical entity within the body) through a misunderstanding of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had to say but have substituted the word ‘existence’ as well ... only to then declare that existence cannot cease to exist. It smacks of being what is academically known as ‘word-magic’. RESPONDENT: Non existence is a concept born out from opposition to existence. RICHARD: Whereas altruistic ‘self-immolation’, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, is born out of the desire for the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent sooner rather than later. To imply that ceasing to exist as a parasitical entity is a concept born from opposition to existence is not all that much different to saying that an actual freedom from the human condition is an escape from dissatisfaction. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘... this actual freedom is a way to escape from your dissatisfaction. One SSRI will make the trick. (Re: justice and fairness; May 07, 2003). All around you are wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on ... yet you would rather advise taking medication in combination with presenting flawed philosophical arguments (plus pseudo-scientific proofs of a god for that matter) and waiting for blind nature to take its course. Anything but actually doing something substantial, eh? RESPONDENT: So after death this sense of existence will continue in another baby (NO REINCARNATION AND THESE NONSENSE) I am born in every baby and then the different identities are separating its other. RICHARD: The feeling of ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) is what the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into: as the instinctual passions, being biologically inherited, are passed on in the germ cells (the spermatozoa and the ova) it could be said that what you describe as ‘the same feeling of existence’ in another e-mail will continue in another baby ... in all babies, in fact. RESPONDENT: Think about it. RICHARD: I have far better things to do with my time – such as sitting with my feet up on the coffee table watching comedies on TV – than thinking about theoretical rehashes of the totally self-centred spiritual/ mystical wisdom of yore. I lived that twaddle dressed-up as sagacity for eleven years ... any and all intellectualising about it will not make it into something else. * RESPONDENT: I should like to add to my previous email, when I wrote No reincarnation and all these nonsense please add no higher selves I am, who am I? I am god etc. RICHARD: This is at odds with what you wrote in another e-mail: • [Respondent]: ‘I am not a religious person. I don’t mean god the way church over-imposed on us. (...) We consider our selves intelligent but we are a by-product. So must be a higher intelligence’. (Re: The beginning of the universe by Prof. Stephen Hawking Look attachment; Jul 03, 2003). RESPONDENT: All these are one packer with the only value for Osho to buy Mercedes and all the similar with him frauds gurus. Try to grasp about the existence I wrote without the above packet. RICHARD: Hmm ... Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain often used the word ‘existence’ as a substitute word for the word ‘god’ (the Jain religion which he was born into is as much a godless religion as the Buddhist religion is) – when he was not using the word ‘godliness’ that is – and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti found value in ‘reincarnation and all these nonsense’ (as per the quotes further above for example) all the while vigorously denying he was a guru and you post a spurious proof of god to the mailing list, entitled ‘The end of actual freedom?’, and then breathlessly tell me to grasp what you are saying about this (supposed) higher intelligence you call existence ‘without the above packet’ ... as if there were no trace of irony in your words after all. O what a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive. * RESPONDENT No 51: If you are no ‘being’ what are you? RICHARD: What I am is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 51a, 10 October 2003b). RESPONDENT: Pure identification then with the universe. For eleven years, you were identified with the absolute. Now you say ‘I am ...’, you made a shift to the universe, only the subject of identification changed. RICHARD: Did you not read the question I was responding to? Perhaps if I were to put it this way then: for eleven years, night and day, it was the ‘being’ within the body who identified with ‘The Absolute’ ... whereas what I am, as this flesh and blood body only (sans ‘being’ itself), is this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being. As the universe also experiences itself as a cat, a dog, and so on, and so on, what you are saying, in effect, is that every body is identifying themselves with the universe ... which is patently silly (if only because no body needs to identify with what they actually are). It is this simple: the very stuff of this body (and all bodies) is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe in that it comes out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed. I am nothing other than that ... that is what I am, literally. RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX RICHARD’S HOME PAGE The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity