# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Life after Death and Immortality RESPONDENT: Karma means causation. Responsibility. If one drives down the highway on the ‘wrong’ side of the road, what results is their karma (aka: responsibility/ doing) I do not mean to imply former lives. RICHARD: If you are talking about being responsible when driving down a highway then would it not be better to say so instead of dragging in some Eastern religious term? Because karma is not at all what you say it is ... it is the force generated by a person’s actions and is believed to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person’s next existence. Karma is the influence of an individual’s past actions on his future lives, or reincarnations and thus what one does in this present life will have its effect in the next life. The doctrine of karma reflects the Hindu conviction that this life is but one in a chain of lives (samsara) and that it is determined by a human’s actions in a previous life. This is accepted as a law of nature and is not open to further discussion. The moral energy of a particular act is preserved and fructifies automatically in the next life, where it shows up in one’s class, nature, disposition, and character. The process is mechanical, and no interference by God is admitted, except by some of the later and more extreme theists. Thus the law of karma explains the inequalities that are observed among creatures. In the course of the chain of lives, an individual can perfect himself, until he reaches the eminence of the god Brahma himself, or he can degrade himself in such an evil way that he is reborn as an animal. Not only do past acts influence the circumstances of the next life, they also determine one’s happiness or unhappiness in the hereafter between lives, where he will spend a time in either one of the heavens or one of the hells until the fruits of his karma have been all but consumed and the remainder creates a new life for him. Buddhism and Jainism incorporated doctrines of karma as part of their common Indian legacy. The Buddhists interpret it strictly in terms of ethical cause and effect. In Jainism, karma is regarded not as a process but as a fine particulate substance that produces the universal chain of cause and effect ... of birth and death and rebirth. Rebirth – also called transmigration or metempsychosis – in both religion and philosophy refers to the rebirth of the soul in one or more successive existences, which may be human, animal, or, in some instances, vegetable. While belief in reincarnation is most characteristic of Asian religions and philosophies, it also appears in the religious and philosophical thought of primitive religions, in some ancient Middle Eastern religions (Orphism, Manichaeism, and Gnosticism) as well as in such modern religious movements as theosophy. In primitive religions, belief in multiple souls is common. The soul is frequently viewed as capable of leaving the body through the mouth or nostrils and of being reborn, for example, as a bird, butterfly, or insect. The Venda of southern Africa believe that, when a person dies, the soul stays near the grave for a short time and then seeks a new resting place or another body ... human, mammalian, or reptilian. Among the ancient Greeks Orphism held that a pre-existent soul survives bodily death and is later reincarnated in a human or other mammalian body, eventually receiving release from the cycle of birth and death and regaining its former pure state. Mr. Plato believed in an immortal soul that participates in frequent incarnations. The major religions that hold a belief in reincarnation – Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism – all hold in common the doctrine of karma. In Hinduism the process of birth and rebirth – transmigration of souls – is endless until one achieves Moksha, or salvation, by realising the truth that liberates ... that the individual soul (Atman) and the absolute soul (Brahman) are one. Thus, one can escape from the wheel of birth and rebirth (samsara). Jainism, reflecting a belief in an absolute soul, holds that karma is affected in its density by the deeds that a person does. Thus, the burden of the old karma is added to the new karma that is acquired during the next existence until the soul frees itself by religious disciplines, especially by ahimsa (‘non-violence’), and rises to the place of liberated souls at the top of the universe. Although Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging, substantial soul, it holds to a belief in the transmigration of the karma of souls. A complex of psycho-physical elements and states changing from moment to moment, the soul, with its five skandhas (‘groups of elements’ as in body, sensations, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness) ceases to exist; but the karma of the deceased survives and becomes a vijñana (‘germ of consciousness’) in the womb of a mother. This vijñana is that aspect of the soul reincarnated in a new individual. By gaining a state of complete passiveness through discipline and meditation, one can leave the wheel of birth and rebirth and achieve nirvana, the state of the extinction of desires. Sikhism teaches a doctrine of reincarnation based on the Hindu view but in addition holds that, after the Last Judgment, souls – which have been reincarnated in several existences – will be absorbed in God. Central to the belief in reincarnation is Punna (‘merit’) which is a primary attribute sought by Buddhists, both monks and laymen, in order to build up a better karma (the cumulative consequences of deeds) and thus to achieve a more favourable future rebirth. The concept is particularly stressed in Theravada tradition of South East Asia. Punna can be acquired through dana (‘giving’, such as offering food and robes to monks or donating a temple or monastery); sila (the keeping of the moral precepts); and bhavana (the practice of meditation). Merit can also be transferred from one being to another. This is a central feature of the Mahayana schools, in which the ideal Buddhist is the bodhisattva (‘Buddha-to-be’), who dedicates himself to the service of others and transfers merit from his own inexhaustible store to benefit others. (Richard, List B, No. 25, 8 November 1998) RICHARD: All I am indicating by saying that the truth is insincere is that, as the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being inside the flesh and blood body (as in ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’), the truth is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. RESPONDENT: I see that the ‘truth’ is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth – but it is not clear to me that ‘the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being’. I grant that is often the case, but an easily shown exception would be a child being empathetic before having any beliefs about an afterlife. It is also readily apparent that feeling caring is often done for an earthly reward – so am I to assume you were over generalizing here? If not, then I don’t understand. RICHARD: I am not even generalising – let alone over-generalising – as the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any flesh and blood body anywhere in its lifetime ... simply because it cannot. Moreover, the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any entity inside any flesh and blood body either ... what it holds out is the promise of an after-death peace (the feeling of eternity is intrinsic to love). As for a child not knowing about an afterlife: as far as I have been able to ascertain children in all cultures are spoon-fed fantasies about immortality at a very early age ... for example I can recall having a fascinating conversation with a child, not yet four years old, who not only gravely informed me that their newly deceased pet was residing in their particular society’s abode of requiem aeternam, but that they knew the pet’s body was in the ground. And even if a child somehow escaped such cultural conditioning any feeling of empathy they may express – no matter how earnestly felt – is still not going to bring about peace-on-earth anyway ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. RESPONDENT: It appears you have misunderstood my comment about over generalizing. If you look back at the text – what I said is that I see that the ‘truth’ is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth. RICHARD: Aye, I saw that the first time around ... and I also saw that you then followed it with a ‘but ...’ so I attended to that first by clearly saying, immediately up-front, that the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any flesh and blood body anywhere in its lifetime simply because it cannot (a feeling of caring is not actually caring). Then I addressed the after-life question (the feeling of eternity is intrinsic to love). RESPONDENT: My point about over generalizing was intended to refer to the statement of yours that ‘the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being inside the flesh and blood body’. RICHARD: Yet all I was doing there was demonstrating why feeling caring is not sincere in bringing about peace on earth (despite all the protestations to that effect) ... it is the classic example of the difference between feeling caring and actually caring. Here is what that sentence looks like without the explanatory clause: • All I am indicating by saying that the truth is insincere is that (...) the truth is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. The insertion of the demonstration is to obviate a ‘why is it not sincere ...’ query. RESPONDENT: I understand and agree that children are spoon-fed fantasies about immortality at a very early age – though my 4 year old has no idea what an ‘afterlife’ could even be. RICHARD: Then obviously your 4 year old has somehow escaped such cultural conditioning ... so far. The U.S. polls – Gallup, Harris, and other polls, including Kosmin (1990 survey of 113,000 Americans) – consistently indicate that between about 92% and 97% of Americans say they believe in God. (www.adherents.com/adh_faq.html#God). RESPONDENT: I’m referring to the fact that it is clear that empathy is present even before any beliefs about an ‘afterlife’ could be imbibed. RICHARD: Are you aware of what is called ‘Theory Of Mind’ wherein, typically, it is not until the age of four to four and a half years that a child can be empathetic? RESPONDENT: Also clearly, there are plenty of atheists who are quite empathetic – it would seem quite counter-intuitive to argue that in feeling caring they are only caring about their ‘after-life’ destiny, don’t you think? RICHARD: Yet that is not the point I was making – the point being that feeling caring, no matter how truly felt, is not actually caring – and the after-death-peace example is nothing but a demonstration, as it were, of all it is capable of in regards peace ... a promise. RESPONDENT: Anyway, you seem to admit at least the possibility that a child could somehow escape cultural conditioning, then state that it is ‘still not going to bring about peace-on-earth anyway’. Granted. RICHARD: Good ... that is all I am getting at (that feeling caring will not bring about peace-on-earth). Here is the initial exchange which started this section of this thread: • [Respondent]: ‘I also seem to experience a difference between what I might call ‘contrived’ caring and actually caring. For example, a waiter may completely contrive caring about the service they provide in order to get the largest tip possible – so they pretend to care about me when they actually care about the tip. Then with other waiters, I get the sense that they actually care about giving good service – just because it’s more fun to actually care about the person and engage them as a person – rather than a means to an ends. This is the normal distinction that I make between ‘illusory (contrived) caring’ and ‘actually caring’. • [Richard]: ‘Okay ... although faking care is not the distinction being referred to as the person feeling caring is being true to their feelings. It is not their fault that the truth is insincere. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27d, 18 November 2002). In the following e-mail I expanded upon this ‘being true to their feelings/ truth is insincere’ comment: • [Richard]: ‘In short: feeling caring is incapable of delivering the goods. As being sincere in the context under discussion is to have the pure intent to enable peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, it would therefore take a perspicuous awareness of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (seeing the fact) to be sincere ... *rather than an instinctive feeling of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (intuiting the truth)*. The feeling of caring (be it a pitying caring, a sympathetic caring, an empathetic caring, a compassionate caring or a loving caring), being primarily the feeling being inside one flesh and blood body caring for the feeling being inside another flesh and blood body (or for an anthropomorphised feeling being called mother earth for instance), *is insincere by its very nature*. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27d, 6 December 2002). RESPONDENT: But my comment is important because there are many folks on this planet that are not motivated by a reward or punishment after death. RICHARD: Whilst not wanting to unnecessarily split hairs, and thus become unduly side-tracked, it would be more accurate to say there are a few folks on this planet who are not thus motivated as the Encyclopaedia Britannica puts the percentage of atheists world-wide as being 3.8% ... and even then some of those are spiritual people (some Buddhists, for example, call themselves atheists). RESPONDENT: My only conclusion can be that you were generalizing or temporarily neglecting to mention them. RICHARD: No, not at all ... because even if there be no concern about immortality no matter how earnestly the illusory entity inside a flesh and blood body feels empathy for the illusory entity inside another flesh and blood body it is still not going to bring about peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, for that flesh and blood body – nor any other flesh and blood body – simply because it cannot. It operates to the contrary, in fact, as feeling caring verifies, endorses, and consolidates ‘me’ ... thus not only am ‘I’ therefore authenticated, sanctioned, and substantiated, ‘my’ presence has meaning. In other words: feeling caring perpetuates ‘me’ ... and thus perpetuates all the misery and mayhem forever and a day. RESPONDENT: One other possibility I can see is that you could somehow argue (counter-intuitively) that even those that don’t seem to be motivated by the reward in an afterlife are somehow (unconsciously) still motivated by the afterlife. RICHARD: No, that was not my intention at all ... even though I am yet to meet an atheist who does not ponder, when questioned deeply, whether there may be something substantive post-mortem after all. For example, many years ago I went to see an accredited psychiatrist and established right from the beginning that he be an atheistic materialist – he said emphatically upon being questioned rather rigorously in this regard that everything was material and modifications of same including consciousness itself – because another psychiatrist I had previously seen was exigently talking about guardian angels looking after me within the first five minutes of our discussion ... yet when regaling this second psychiatrist of my on-going experiencing of life in this actual world his eyes opened in awe as the full import (of what he heard) struck home and he said ‘you may very well be the next Buddha we have all been waiting for’. I kid you not ... another example is when I first came onto the Internet and wrote to a mailing list set-up by the editor of the ‘Australian Atheist Society’ newsletter: in his first e-mail response to my initial post he was mentioning Mr. Gotama the Sakyan en passant and in his second e-mail was quoting both him and Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene to me. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘The Buddha (I know you don’t like him but I do) says: ‘So long as the lustful desire of a man for a woman, however small, is not destroyed, so long is that man in bondage, like a calf that drinks milk is to its mother. (The Dhammapada). Buddhism does teach that Nirvana and enlightenment (the extinction of suffering and the delusion of self) are possible in this life – although you would be very lucky to find even a single modern Buddhists who actually wants to attain that condition. And Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven was here and now for those who are able to see it (which would seem to exclude all Christians). So I questioned him in this regard: • [Richard]: ‘Just out of curiosity: You are the same person who edits/edited the Atheist Society newsletter, are you not? The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines an atheist as: ‘A person who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God or gods’. If you are, then why are you quoting long-dead deities? Their wisdom is not worth the paper it was not printed on until so many years after their alleged life/death that there is serious dispute about the authenticity of anything they purportedly said and did. There is also thoughtful scholarly debate as to whether these archetypical religious/spiritual teachers historically existed anyway. Humankind has been held in mythical thralldom for far too long ... it is high time humans all came of age and started thinking and discovering for themselves. And, after all is said and done, if that is not what intelligence is – a person with the ability to think and discover for oneself – then what is? The postings on this list are mainly psittacisms. (Richard, List A, No. 12, No. 2) This was the reply: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Yes, I am that person. I don’t believe in the God or gods of modern day Christianity. However, if God is used as another name for Truth or the Infinite, then I believe in God, because I believe in Truth. (Richard, List A, No. 12, #Atheist). The conversation rapidly went even further downhill after that display of genius. RESPONDENT: What is obvious to me is that feeling-caring is motivated in many people (but not all) by the afterlife – but also that people are also often motivated by ‘earthly’ rewards or punishments. RICHARD: Yet, as I already remarked, any feeling of empathy anyone may feel – no matter how earnestly felt – is still not going to bring about peace-on-earth anyway ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. For example whenever I have read-through those rationalists versus theologists debates on the Internet – or looked at any of the many atheistic websites for that matter – invariably the core element of the rationalist/atheistic solution for all the ills of humankind is none other than love and compassion ... or cultivated derivations thereof. This ‘tried and true’ solution even permeates group consciousness in popular songs (‘all you need is love ...’ and so on). RESPONDENT: The only other possibility I can see is that you might just define the ‘truth’ as necessarily including belief in an afterlife reward or punishment ... RICHARD: Not necessarily, no. RESPONDENT: ... but I’ve always read your usage of the word ‘truth’ as applying to all people who are still in the human condition. RICHARD: Yes, the entity within cannot ever experience actuality ... it is forever locked-out of paradise by its very nature (hence sorrow). RESPONDENT: Can you clarify? RICHARD: Sure. As I was talking about being true to one’s feelings then the truth I was referring to, in this instance, was the true feeling of caring by the waiters giving you good service ... and truthful caring is still not actually caring. In short: just because something feels true that truth does not miraculously turn it into being a fact. ALAN: I even have a bit of conversation on tape, which is quite a hoot and would be extremely embarrassing, if I retained that faculty. I will transcribe a bit sometime . RICHARD: I look forward to it, Alan – the more that is written the better – because I liked this description of the value of dissemination: • [Alan]: ‘I have today again demonstrated, to myself, the benefit of the actual freedom mailing list. I have read most of what Richard, Peter & Vineeto have written on their web sites. I always wondered a bit why Richard, in particular, railed so much against the gurus and spiritual masters. I even accused Richard of having a ‘bee in his bonnet’, which he readily admitted. Sure, I knew these people were to blame for leading people up the garden path and I have examined for myself the delusion of enlightenment. But, responsible for all the wars, tortures, rapes, domestic violence and suicides – I was not so sure. Then today, reading Richard’s reply to No. 12, I suddenly ‘got it’ – a fact is so obvious when you see it. Of course the gurus and maters are responsible for all the wars, tortures, rapes, domestic violence and suicides, because they have not eliminated the Human Condition in themselves and they continue to perpetuate the misery, sorrow and malice, while telling all and sundry they are the embodiment of peace on earth. I may well have a ‘bee in my bonnet’ myself in future! Because of the above realisation (and my current discussion with Richard about the PCE & ASC), I was able to look at my remaining tenuous belief in some form of life after death, ‘Oneness’, ‘Universal Consciousness’ or, whatever you like to call it. Close examination has caused this belief to vanish, leaving me even more free to enjoy this moment. As a fact, there is no ‘life after death’ – what a relief!!!!! What a relief indeed ... if it were not for death’s oblivion I could not be happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: Interestingly, this time around, fear has taken a back seat and no energy is being wasted on ‘why, how, what if, if only’ – there is simply the fact that this disease is back and certain steps are to be taken to support the body in taking care of itself. RICHARD: To be able to live without fear is such a blessed condition ... and it enables sensible decisions to be made. In this day and age and living in the heterogeneous culture that you do, a full array of alternatives are at your command. Obviously I personally favour modern medical treatment but the alternatives do have something to offer and everything is a matter of personal choice ... the absence of fear will enable not only judicious decisions to be made but ensures a quality of life. In the final analysis I plunk for quality over quantity any day. All discussion about fear eventually turns around death. This is a fact that needs be faced squarely. To not ‘be’ is inconceivable; it is impossible to imagine not ‘being’ because all one has ever known is ‘being’. What does it mean to not ‘be’? One has always been busy with ‘being’; being alive, being in the world, being a ‘human’, being ‘me’. What is it to not exist? There seems to be a general consensus among human beings that death is a mystery that one cannot penetrate, and that the ‘Mystery of Life’ will be revealed only after death. There, they say, lies peace and Ultimate Fulfilment. It all appears to be an exercise in futility to think about what is entailed in death, which is the end of ‘being’ ... and it is. The end of ‘being’, at physical death, can only ever be a speculation; it has to be experienced to know it. Just like one cannot know the taste of something until one eats it ... so too is it with death as the end of ‘being’. Yet to wait for death will be leaving it too late to find out what it is to not ‘be’ ... as death is oblivion of consciousness there will be no awareness of not ‘being’. The question is: can one experience the end of ‘being’ before this body dies and therefore penetrate into the ‘Mystery of Life’, in full awareness, and find that Ultimate Fulfilment ... here on earth? What I did was face the fact of my mortality. ‘Life’ and ‘Death’ are not an opposite ... there is only birth and death. Life is what happens in between. Before I was born, I was not here. Now that I am alive, I am here. After death I will not be here ... just like before birth. Where is the problem? The problem was in the brain-stem, of course. It is the instinct to survive at any cost that was the problem ... backed up by the full gamut of the emotions born out of the four basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. The rudimentary self, transformed into an identity, must be extinguished in order for one to be here, in this actual world of the senses, bereft of this identity. ‘My’ extinction was the ending of not only fear, but of all of the affective faculties. Extinction releases one into actuality ... as this flesh and blood body only I am living in the paradisiacal garden that this verdant planet earth is. We are all simply floating in the infinitude of this perfect and pure universe ... coming from nowhere and having nowhere to go to we find ourselves here at this moment in time and this place in space. This actual world is an ambrosial paradise. RICHARD: When ‘I’ willingly and voluntarily sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological or psychic identity residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what one holds most dear. RESPONDENT: Is it not what a true surrender is (or should be)? We can ‘laundry’ this old dirty word. RICHARD: Yet ‘surrender’ means the giving up of oneself into the possession or power of another who has or asserts a claim to it; to yield on demand or compulsion to a person or a god ... as in submission to an enemy in resignation as a prisoner. It basically means to give in, to relinquish possession of, give up, deliver up, part with, let go of, yield, submit, capitulate, lay down one’s arms, throw in the towel, throw in the sponge, succumb ... and lose. It smacks of compliance, acquiescence, passivity, docility, meekness, sufferance ... a seeking of clemency. Speaking personally, I have never, ever given in. I do not know how to – thus it has never been an option – and never will know how to. Whereas ‘sacrifice’ means to die as an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s life as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired, especially one’s life, for the sake of something regarded as more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate destruction, abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, depart from, leave, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, spontaneous, free and easy, relaxed, informal, open, candid, outspoken, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled ... none of which is implied with ‘surrender’. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ went out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: If my ‘I’ and another person’s ‘I’ are basically identical then ‘I’ am not much different from any man who has lived in the past or will live in the future. If this is right then death has lost most of its bite. RICHARD: Ahh ... physical death is but the ending of this particular flesh and blood body – which began x-number of years ago – and this universe, of course, will go right on doing what it was doing before one was born. Which is what it is doing right here and now. RESPONDENT: This is a very powerful statement. It has stimulated my mind and my whole being. I am wondering why this perspective on life and death is not widely publicized and discussed (?!). Its very logical and powerful as far as its implications. It is about facing our physical death without an overwhelming and paralysing fear. RICHARD: It is a fact that I, as this body, am mortal. As such, I will die in due course ... this heart will stop beating, these lungs will cease breathing, this brain will quit thinking. The flesh will decompose, if buried, or will be dispersed, if burnt, as smoke and ash. There could be nothing more final, more conclusive, more complete, of an ending to me than this. Human beings have various attitudes towards death. As far as it has been able to be ascertained, humans are the only creatures that are aware of their own demise. The ability to reflect upon one’s own death has been a source of inspiration to philosophers, theologians and their ilk down through the ages. To other people, death is a subject to be avoided, to be not thought about; it is a taboo topic for dinner-table conversation. It is not until a close friend or relative dies that they are brought face-to-face with their own mortality ... and they usually endeavour to ‘get over it’ as soon as possible. A sure way to be told that one is morbid is to talk about death: to invoke an uneasy reaction, one needs only to ask if they have ever considered the ramifications of death; of no longer being alive; of not being a ‘human’; of not ‘being’ at all. Nevertheless, why avoid the subject? Surely it is of the utmost importance to explore all the unknown aspects of being a ‘human’ – especially those that bring trepidation – for therein lie the causes for not only one’s uneasiness about life, but all the problems that beset ‘humanity’. Anything that remains hidden will continue to influence one’s life in an unconscious way, continuously plaguing one’s every moment of being alive and affecting one’s state of well-being. Death is viewed by most as a calamity, a tragedy. ‘I’, being non-material, cannot accept, let alone embrace, that which is physical, that which is actual. Mortality is a physical phenomenon; it is a fact to be met and understood. To act otherwise is a denial of the actual. This universe was amazingly able to give birth to me, it is marvellously capable of bearing me and will, eventually, wondrously manage to end me. This is the physical ‘scheme of things’ in this, the only universe there is ... and this universe is so enormous in its scope, so grand in its order, so exquisite in its form, that it is sheer vanity and utter insolence to presume that birth and death is somehow ‘wrong’. With an attitude like that, no wonder people hate having to be here on earth. It is no wonder that they feel that they have to ‘get on with life’ and ‘make the best of things’ whilst waiting for death to release them. It is such a shame that billions of human beings are missing out on the unadulterated perfection of being fully alive; missing out on rejoicing in being here now; missing out on deriving immense pleasure at living this moment, here on earth. There seems to be a general consensus among human beings that death is a mystery that one cannot penetrate, and that the ‘Mystery of Life’ will be revealed only after death. There, most say, lies ‘Peace and Ultimate Fulfilment’ ... yet there is nowhere else but here and there is no time but now. Anything else than here at this place in infinite space – now at this moment in eternal time – exists only in an enthusiastic imagination ... enthused by ‘me’, by ‘being’ itself. Any fear of the death of ‘me’ is an irrational reaction to the demise of an apparently enduring psychological and/or psychic entity. The ending of ‘me’ (the ‘death’ of ‘me’) is an autological non-event; ‘I’ do not actually exist in the first place. There is no actual ‘me’ to either ‘die’ or to have ‘Eternal Life’. It all appears to be an exercise in futility to think about and feel into what is entailed in physical death (which is the guaranteed end of ‘being’) because the end of ‘being’, at physical death, can only ever be a speculation; it has to be experienced to know it. Just like one cannot know the taste of something until one eats it ... so too is it with death as the end of ‘being’. Yet to wait for death will be leaving it too late to find out what it is to not ‘be’ ... as death is oblivion of consciousness there will be no awareness of not ‘being’. The question is: can one experience the end of ‘being’ before this body dies and therefore penetrate into the ‘Mystery of Life’, in full awareness, and find that Ultimate Fulfilment ... here on earth? * RESPONDENT: It is just one step away from the false conclusion (1) ‘I am the immortal Universe’. Or even more tempting is: (2) ‘I am the immortal consciousness, an eternal ‘flame’ or ‘light’ of consciousness generated by the infinite sequence of human bodies; like light created in a lamp’ The first conclusion is false because I am the product of some natural perpetual life processes but I have not got much control over them, and my individual ‘I’ will not survive my physical death. I am a bit puzzled by my own second proposition. (2) in this paragraph. What is your thought about it? I think the explanation would be that I am not consciousness because any ‘I’ requires some mental effort to create and justify and thus is imaginary? Suddenly I feel peaceful now ... RICHARD: Conclusion No. 1 (‘I am the immortal Universe’) is only ‘I’ typically arrogating identity because of the instinctual drive to survive at any cost ... whereas the phrase ‘I am the infinite and eternal (which is what ‘immortal’ means) universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’ puts it all in perspective. And, as a human being, the universe has intelligence ... there is no ‘Intelligence’ running the universe (the universe is much, much more than merely intelligent). Conclusion No. 2 (‘I am the immortal consciousness, an eternal ‘flame’ or ‘light’ of consciousness generated by the infinite sequence of human bodies; like light created in a lamp’ ) is but ‘I’ similarly expropriating something that does not exist anyway! It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being conscious (as all sentient beings are) and as being consciousness in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values consciousness highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to consciously reflect, consider and appreciate being here now (which other animals cannot do). But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon this marvellous, amazing, wondrous and magical universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. Be that as it may, because of this evolved consciousness the human animal can ask: why are we here? RICHARD: The dead are dead, and death is the end. Finish. It is us who are still here who must deal with suffering ... and it is possible for suffering to be eliminated now ... and not have to wait for physical death for reprieve. RESPONDENT: Why do you feel that believing its over at death will contribute to either our selflessness or to achieving perfection? RICHARD: It is not a matter of ‘believing it’s over at death’ – it is indeed over at death. Death is the end. Finish. Understanding the actuality of death – to cease being in a state of denial – is to understand that there is no ‘Immortal Self’ that will ‘quit the body’ and continue on in some nebulous After-Life. Death is the end of being both a body and a self. One can actualise this end of being a self whilst this body is still alive and breathing by understanding that any intuition of ‘being’ is a psychological construct only. The self may be real – sometimes very real – but it is not actual. The ending of this ‘being’ is when the actual can become apparent. Then there is an actual perfection, as this body only, in this life-time, here on earth. RICHARD: Physical death is the end. Finish. There is not a ‘different phase of existence’ after physical death. RESPONDENT: It’s a credible theory, but you don’t actually know this, do you? RICHARD: You see, where you say ‘It’s a credible theory’, you cause me to question your definitive statement outlined earlier: • ‘There is no superior or more advanced state than this that occurs after death’. If you are so sure, then why call it ‘a credible theory’? What does your man say? Is it a fact or not? And, yes, I do actually know this. I have written elsewhere: ‘A fair enough question ... but easy to understand with a little reflection. It is the psychological entity within the body – the ‘I’ – that projects a perpetuation of itself even unto an ‘After-life’. Just like all Gods and Goddesses are but a projection of ‘self’, so to is ‘Immortality’. This is what is a belief, not the statement: ‘Physical death is the end. Finish’. As there is no ‘I’ anywhere whatsoever inside this body, I can experience – and thus know as a fact – that there is no actual ‘Immortality’ in some ‘After-life’ because there is no one here to have it (Immortality) or go into it (an After-life). It is all but a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion. ‘I’ think and feel that ‘I’ am so important that ‘I’ must live forever. It is a pernicious belief with its roots buried deep in self-importance and self-aggrandisement. It is where conceit meets arrogance and become meekness and humility ... and seeks its post-mortem reward. ‘I’ will do anything to survive’. RICHARD: Your running-mate (No. 12) tried to convince me that there was no substantial difference between Nirvana and Parinirvana. Where do you stand on this issue? RESPONDENT: Apart from the obliteration of consciousness, there is no difference at all between the two. A perfect person (i.e. one who is permanently free of all attachments) cannot experience death. He is immortal. He cannot lose his life because he no longer possesses any life to lose. Death is incapable of taking anything away from him. Consciousness disappears at death, but since he has long since abandoned any attachment to consciousness the loss of it means nothing to him. RICHARD: ‘He is immortal’, eh? I suggest that this is a very selfish and self-centred approach to life on earth – something that all religions and spirituality are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s place in Eternity is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined soul after physical death. So much for the humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All Religious and Spiritual Quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All Religious and Spiritual Leaders fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing Immortality. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the overriding importance of the survival of self on into an After-Life. If it were not for all the suffering; the wars, the killings, the tortures, the rapes, the degradations, and the such-like, it would be entertainingly amusing, for the self does not exist in actuality. All this monstrous behaviour is about something fictitious. The self – and the Self – are only psychological entities ... phantasms in mundane reality and in a super-charged Reality. It is all much ado about nothing. However, it is no laughing matter – it is far too serious when appalling suffering is concerned. It behoves one to put aside the selfish ego-driven and soul-driven will to survive and look again at what exactly is occurring. One will no longer be entranced by the bewitching promises proffered so alluringly by these self-appointed guardians of virtue and morality – all self-serving, mind you. It is a must that one establish one’s integrity and set about ridding oneself of any psychological entity whatsoever. RICHARD: At physical death this body dies ... this is no illusion. RESPONDENT No. 12: If ‘I’ am not, there is death or impermanence in each moment. RICHARD: We were not talking about ‘each moment’ where there is a body living and breathing at all. Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. (Richard, List B, No. 12b, 24 October 1998). * RICHARD: We were not talking about ‘each moment’ where there is a body living and breathing at all. Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: Not really. Call it apperceptive awareness, meditation, energy, intelligence – whatever we like. RICHARD: You may call it ‘whatever we like’ if you wish to continue to be vague ... but I prefer to be specific. I call it apperceptive awareness because it only occurs when there is no sense of identity whatsoever ... then the mind – this physical brain in action – can perceive itself. Not ‘I’ perceiving ‘me’ being aware, but awareness happening of its own accord ... unimpeded and uncensored by the affective faculties. Thus it is very clearly not ‘meditation’; it is not ‘energy’ ... and it is most certainly not ‘intelligence’ in the sense you use the word because they all are but products of the affective faculties. RESPONDENT: It is the foundation of all manifestation. Manifestation is the activity of that energy AS the physical universe. RICHARD: And as this energy is affective it is – in other words – god by any name. RESPONDENT: Therefore, loss of physical form is not death. It is only the destructuring of manifested energy. RICHARD: Indeed ... when ‘I am That’ – when one is god by any name – one is ‘Unborn and Undying’. Then at physical death one just loses this physical form and lives forever in some mystical transcendental realm. RESPONDENT: Take any form and observe its ‘death’ over time. There is only the destructuring of the form into its more subtle aspects of energy: atoms, etc., and beyond. RICHARD: Physical matter re-arranges itself, yes. Shall we keep to the subject? Which is what happens to a particular awareness at physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: The eventual destructuring of Richard’s form is nothing but the ‘de-congealment’ of intelligence. RICHARD: Aye ... I am aware that for you the word ‘intelligence’ is god by whatever name. In other words, you wish to realise your immortality ... at the expense of peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: Awareness is neither created nor destroyed, and neither are its manifestations. RICHARD: What you call awareness is ‘Unborn and Undying’ and is, of course, neither created nor destroyed, I agree. However, the awareness that is this flesh and blood body called Richard started right along with this body over half a century ago and – barring war, accidents and disease – will cease somewhere around 2030 because they are one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti may have been right: There could be nothing but intelligence. Now, it could be mysticism that is saying this. RICHARD: It is mysticism ... clearly and unequivocally. RESPONDENT: Just as mysticism may also be saying that the death of the body is the same as the death of apperceptive aware-ness. RICHARD: Not so ... there is no trace of mysticism in me whatsoever. I am a thorough-going atheist through and through. RESPONDENT: Energy is energy. RICHARD: This is as useful a statement as that supposed profundity ‘a rose is a rose is a rose’. RESPONDENT: Intelligence is just another word for energy unencumbered by self-centredness. RICHARD: The energy of the particular human brain in action comes from the food the particular human body eats. This brain in this body called Richard is unencumbered by self-centredness and he sees that this universe was already here before this body was born and will still be here after this body dies. The intelligence of this brain – the food-energy intelligence – most certainly is not the ‘foundation of all manifestation’ . This food-energy intelligence is a manifestation of this physical universe ... not the other way around. RESPONDENT: Therefore, loss of physical form is not death. It is only the destructuring of manifested energy. RICHARD: Indeed ... when ‘I am That’ – when one is god by any name – one is ‘Unborn and Undying’. Then at physical death one just loses this physical form and lives forever in some mystical transcendental realm. RESPONDENT: Now you are projecting from your own belief, aren’t you? RICHARD: No, not at all. It is the eastern mystical belief ... I was merely fleshing out your sentence. I know that the physical death of this particular body called Richard is the end of this particular intelligence. The give-away was in the use of the phrase ‘loss of physical form’ that you used to describe physical death. The mystics belief that they ‘quit the body’ at physical death ... they cast it off ‘like a suit of old clothes’. RESPONDENT: For me to say that the destructuring of the form is not ‘death’ is not to say that there is some self or ego which lives some place else after that destructuring has occurred. It is only to say that energy as life and form remains always as energy, whether the form exists or not. RICHARD: Here you are saying that ‘energy’ exists whether there is ‘form or not’ ... independent of the body. When form as a human being is ... intelligence is. When form as a human being is not ... intelligence is not. RESPONDENT: There is no need to posit either the idea of ‘death’ or the idea of some entity which outlasts the body. RICHARD: I am not positing an idea of death ... death is a fact. However, the mystics posit an entity which outlasts the body so much so that they say it is eternal. RESPONDENT: Take any form and observe its ‘death’ over time. There is only the destructuring of the form into its more subtle aspects of energy: atoms, etc., and beyond. RICHARD: Physical matter re-arranges itself, yes. Shall we keep to the subject? Which is what happens to a particular awareness at physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: The eventual destructuring of Richard’s form is nothing but the ‘de-congealment’ of intelligence. RICHARD: Aye ... I am aware that for you the word ‘intelligence’ is god by whatever name. In other words, you wish to realise your immortality ... at the expense of peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: That is sheer nonsense and guessing. RICHARD: I know it is nonsense ... yet billions of humans believe it to be so. As for me guessing ... I go by what you write. You are talking of an ‘intelligence’ that is an ‘energy’ that does not require ‘form’ ... thus all that you have written is but a variation on eastern mysticism. And western mysticism, for all that. RESPONDENT: If you had asked me I would have said that the word intelligence to me means nothing more than the energy of nature, the ability of the various form systems to operate harmoniously and to maintain their structure until they disintegrate. RICHARD: I did not have to ask you ... you volunteered enough information of your own accord to show that you are indulging in anthropomorphism. RESPONDENT: ‘I’ is the body only. When the body destructures or ‘dies’, that’s it. But the intelligence of nature still exists AS nature. What does immortality have to do with that? RICHARD: It is simple. Nature is not intelligent ... intelligence is only the human brain in action. When this particular body dies this particular intelligence dies right along with it. You say that intelligence does not die with the body as it can exist without form and – as you are this particular intelligence – you are thus saying that you are really immortal. RESPONDENT: Awareness is neither created nor destroyed, and neither are its manifestations. RICHARD: What you call awareness is ‘Unborn and Undying’ and is, of course, neither created nor destroyed, I agree. However, the awareness that is this flesh and blood body called Richard started right along with this body over half a century ago and – barring war, accidents and disease – will cease somewhere around 2030 because they are one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: I won’t argue that, but I will say that when Richard’s body ceases around 2030, the energy of that body will persist as the energy of nature. RICHARD: Not so ... this body will cease being animated. The constituent particles of the inanimate body will re-combine with other particles of matter into other forms – some of which will be carbon-based life-forms and therefore animate – but only if that life-form is another human being will there be intelligence. RICHARD: If one does not become free, as this body in this life-time, one never will because physical death is the end. Finish. Not that it matters at all then because physical death is oblivion. RESPONDENT: There is death because there is belief in a ‘me’ that has continuity. RICHARD: Not so ... physical death is a fact whether there is a continuous ‘me’ or not. RESPONDENT: Of course the body ends but there never was anyone living inside the body. If there is a thought and belief that I am this body in time, that thought is the ‘me’. RICHARD: Perhaps this is an opportune time to ask you a question: What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: What do you understand time to be? RICHARD: I understand that it is high time that you addressed yourself to the question. Which is: What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: It is a measurement of thought is it not? RICHARD: What has this sentence got to do with the question: What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: If so, it is clear that understanding of the timeless is not possible through thought. RICHARD: What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: What seems to either continue or die is an illusion. RICHARD: At physical death this body dies ... this is no illusion. RESPONDENT: If ‘I’ am not, there is death or impermanence in each moment. RICHARD: We were not talking about ‘each moment’ where there is a body living and breathing at all. Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: Life is not separate in time from death. RICHARD: Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: That separation is an illusion of memory and psychological time called ‘me’. RICHARD: Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: If there is thought to be a ‘me’ that is now but will not be later, there will be suffering, and effort to escape. RICHARD: Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: Yet what is timeless is also there each moment so it is not a problem. RICHARD: Does that which is perceiving ‘timeless’ cease to exist when the flesh and blood body called No. 12 physically dies? RESPONDENT: A wave does not die because it never was truly separate. RICHARD: This is that ‘I am everything and Everything is Me’ stuff again. Physical death is the end. Finish. RESPONDENT: If it is directly seen that in fact there is no separation, is there selfish concern about ‘my’ death? RICHARD: Whoa up there! You wish to survive physical death and live forever ... at the expense of peace-on-earth. How much more selfish can you get than that? RESPONDENT: You can produce no fact, as it were, about the afterlife. RICHARD: But facts mean nothing to you. For you there are no facts. Facts require an actuality and for you none of all this is real ... let alone actual. RESPONDENT: That it is any of the things you have listed, or that it is not is pure speculation. RICHARD: Your whole life is ‘pure speculation’ , whereas for me everything is actual. There is no identity – no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – inside this flesh and blood body to go into any ‘after-life’. Any one who says that proposing or discounting an ‘after-life’ is nothing but ‘speculation’ reveals that their identity is still intact. RESPONDENT: From here, there is nothing gained thinking one way or another about it, but I am happy to listen to your imagined outcomes. RICHARD: This stance is sometimes known as being agnostic ... and the people I have met personally, over many years that I have discussed these matters, who embrace this position have invariably been firmly convinced that this course of inaction is the intelligent approach. Mostly they have been academics ... it is a variation on that hoary adage: ‘he who says he does not know, really knows’. I guess it makes them feel intellectually comfortable. It does reveal that their identity is still firmly in place, however, for when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul die one already knows what happens at physical death. * RESPONDENT: I bid you, Richard ... for a moment at the least, move away from your rather wanker-like (I Love that word!) dissecting of me and meet the statement as it is: ‘You can produce no fact, as it were, about the afterlife’. RICHARD: Look, it is not a dissection of you ... it is a relentless exposé of the eastern spiritual mysticism that you espouse that I am doing. I make no bones about this and – as I know full well what it is that I am doing – it is not wanking ... given that a wanker is an ‘ineffectual’ person (not having any feelings I cannot relate to the ‘contemptible’ part of the dictionary meaning of the word). As for how I can know about any ‘after-life’ ... when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul die one already knows what happens at physical death. There is no identity – no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – inside this flesh and blood body to go into any ‘after-life’. Therefore, any ‘after-life’ is but an invention of pious egoists who desire immortality. They will not be disappointed, however, as physical death is oblivion. RESPONDENT: Your transformation is based on selfishness, the root of human disorder. And all you can save is your miserable flesh-and blood body, that fathom long carcass that the Buddha discarded 2500 years ago in his quest of the deathless state. RICHARD: Well now ... this seems to be an appropriate place to bring in another example to see just who is selfish. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘Thought does not have to stop for this actual world – this initially ‘other’ – dimension to be apparent. It is the ‘thinker’ that dies ... and the ‘feeler’ along with its feelings. Then thought – which is necessary to operate and function in this world of people, things and events – can think clearly and cleanly when appropriate ... uncorrupted by feelings. Such thought – apperceptive thought – is always pure ... this is innocence in action. And if one does not become free, as this body in this life-time, one never will because physical death is the end. Finish’. • [Respondent]: ‘Physical death is the end? The end of what? Surely it is the end of the actual body which you have become. This actual phenomenal flesh-and-blood body of yours is rooted in actual space and actual time as part of this phenomenal universe. I see the actual body – and the actual universe – as much an illusion as its fundamental qualities of actual space and actual time. Both the actual body as well as its ghostly possessor are illusions. The Buddha hunted down and found the deathless state, a state that transcends the death of the actual flesh-and-blood body. To die before the body dies, as Krishnamurti phrased it, is this deathless state – the eternal life that Jesus talked about. I see no death, not even of the body that – like the bird or the flower – continually re-form without end. It is not your body or my body. It is the impersonal human body that can never die’. (Richard, List B, 14a 21 October 1998) Who is it that wishes to become something that can never die? And yet it was you who accused me of being ‘selfish’ ... and a ‘product of fear’ (further above). You are so selfish – and so afraid of death – that you will willingly forgo peace-on-earth in order to save your precious immortal soul. (And saving this ‘immortal soul’ – which is what finding the ‘deathless state’ means – is to be merely saving the ego in disguise). And so another 160,000,000 people will be killed next century in wars, eh? But, whatever the price in human suffering, you will be living forever. RESPONDENT: How can immortality deserve to be in oblivion! RICHARD: Because it is but a belief ... and it is a belief that prevents one from being here at this moment in time where purity and perfection abound. Being here – which can only happen when ‘I’, the psychological entity within, abdicates its throne – enables one to be happy and harmless for, along with the ‘I’ goes sorrow and malice. Without malice, there is no war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption that is so endemic ... it is intrinsic to the human condition. Without sorrow there is no sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that is such a global incidence ... it is also inherent to the human condition. Immortality is but a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion. ‘I’ think and feel that ‘I’ am so important that ‘I’ must live forever. It is a pernicious belief with its roots buried deep in self-importance and self-aggrandisement. It is where conceit meets arrogance and become meekness and humility ... and seeks its post-mortem reward. Thus, for me, ‘Immortality’ has been banished to the oblivion it deserves. RESPONDENT: We’ll just have to see whether death is in fact final, won’t we? RICHARD: Maybe it would be best to only speak for yourself ... I already know for a fact that ‘death is final’. RESPONDENT: Yeah well will see what you tell me after you die. You won’t be so smug then will you? RICHARD: Something that I have noticed, over the many years that I have discussed these matters, in the people I have met personally who have what may be described as a religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical and/or metaphysical point of view, is that as a last resort they invariably start threatening me with the dire consequences that ensue in the ‘after-death’ state because I not agree with their belief system. So that this exchange does not devolve into you endeavouring to put the ‘fear of God’ into me (and I am not implying that you were going to), it may be advantageous to comprehend why I have every reason to be ‘smug’ (complacent, pleased, satisfied, content). I am this very material universe experiencing its own infinitude as a sensate and reflective human being; I am living my destiny. RICHARD: All of humanity’s sublime feeling and profound thought has been a purview predicated upon doom and gloom regarding life here on this fair earth. RESPONDENT: Fortunately there is life beyond death. RICHARD: Is this response not just another way of saying the same as what I wrote? Is not what you are saying here (in effect): do not even bother looking for peace-on-earth? RICHARD: I am mortal in that I was born, I live for a period of years, then I die and death is the end, finish. RESPONDENT: How can you be so sure? RICHARD: As I am this flesh and blood body, I am mortal. I will die in due course ... this heart will stop beating, these lungs will cease breathing, this brain will quit thinking. The flesh will decompose, if buried, or will be dispersed, if burnt, as smoke and ash. There could be nothing more final, more conclusive, more complete, of an ending to me than this. It is this simple: there is no identity (neither ‘I’ as ego nor ‘me’ as soul), no ‘being’ whatsoever, extant in this flesh and blood body to survive the physical decomposition and/or combustion of this body upon death. RESPONDENT: Is there a soul that lives on after death of body? RICHARD: No ... physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. RESPONDENT: Then how do you explain near death experiences, past life memories, séances, mediums, hauntings, demonic possession, astral travelling, dreams, UFO’s, clairvoyants & children who see – fairies, angels, nature spirits, demons etc. RICHARD: As there is no way anybody can explain an etcetera it is obvious that you are not asking for an explanation of each and every one of those symptoms (especially as you include Unidentified Flying Objects into the mix) but rather a general explanation. In a word, then, it is identity which generates same (including more than a few of the UFO ‘sightings’ by the way). RESPONDENT: It doesn’t make sense to exist now but not later when we die. RICHARD: What does the word ‘die’ mean to you, then, if not ‘cease to live; cease to be alive; cease to exist’ (Oxford Dictionary)? Is it not a fact that all flesh and blood bodies are mortal; that the heart stops beating, the lungs cease breathing, the brain no longer operates; that the flesh decomposes, if buried, or disperses, if burnt, as smoke and ash? There could be nothing more final, more conclusive, more complete, of an ending to being alive than that, surely? RESPONDENT: I mean we either exist or we don’t exist it can’t be both, so from the evidence we have its obvious that we exist as a body and also as an awareness entity. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body can be aware (aka conscious) sans an entity ... indeed it is the altruistic ‘self’-immolation of that entity, in toto, which enables the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent. Concomitant to the total demise of that entity all that which you ask about (further above) also ceases to exist ... as does all gods/goddesses (by whatever name). It is all so clean, clear, and pure, here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Countless spirits in contact with clairvoyants claim to have had a physical body and have died either recently or long past. These spirits seem to be experiencing a life after death. Just the fact that they exist in another frequency and can come in contact with some of us shows life exists beyond the physical world. RICHARD: Am I to take it that you were not asking for a general explanation after all (else why single out clairvoyants from what you asked about at the top of the page)? The first item you asked about is NDE’s (near death experiences) which, along with OBE’s (out of body experiences), I was asked to explain previously. So I did a little research on the topic. Viz.: (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 37, 27 October 2002). I am not about to do any more such research about specifics ... so as to obviate you re-presenting, one-by-one, each and every other one of what you asked about at the top of the page (including the etcetera as well) I will repost the following exchange: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘... why not to apply it [the scientific method] also in the supernatural phenomena? Like ectoplasm mediums that communicate with dead persons, documented with scientific observation? There are many frauds, yes, but are also documented phenomena. • [Richard]: ‘The few times I have looked-up the subject of scientifically observed psychic phenomena – and there are plenty of instances to look at – it has always turned out to have been a fraud ... as I have no expertise on the subject [of scientifically observed psychic phenomena], nor have any intention of gaining any, you may find the following to be of interest: • [Richard]: ‘... there is a reward in excess of $1,000,000, offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation, for the first person who can conclusively demonstrate any paranormal phenomena. Viz.: (www.randi.org/research/index.html). In case you do not get to access that web page the most pertinent part is this: [quote]: ‘All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the ‘applicant’ becomes a ‘claimant’. *To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests*. [emphasis added]. There is also 100,000 rupees offered by Mr. B. Premanand, of the Indian Sceptic, for ‘any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind’. Viz.: (www.indian-skeptic.org/html/rules.htm). And the Australian Sceptics offer $100,000 ... Viz.: (www.skeptics.com.au/features/challenge.htm). Plus, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a society in the U. K which offered something like 20,000 pounds or thereabouts some years ago ... and nobody ever claimed it. And there are many other people, who have also made it their business to investigate the ‘documented phenomena’ you speak of, as well’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44c, 15 September 2003). I will say it again for emphasis: it is identity which generates all that which you ask about (further above) ... and concomitant to the total demise of that entity all that also ceases to exist. As do all gods/ goddesses (by whatever name). RESPONDENT: May I ask you something please? After your death, what is the thing that will go in oblivion? RICHARD: Not ‘after’ physical death ... at physical death: when physical death occurs the sense of being here, in space and time, as a flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware will cease to exist forever. RESPONDENT: You said that identity went in oblivion while this body is alive. Feelings you don’t have. Self you don’t have and soul (being) you don’t have. So what will go in oblivion? RICHARD: At physical death both pure consciousness (the condition of being innocently conscious) and the unmediated awareness of pure consciousness (the condition of being apperceptively aware of being innocently conscious) will cease to exist ... just as in being anaesthetised, or even each night upon going to sleep, only never coming to or waking up again. RESPONDENT: Your thought and memories? RICHARD: Thought, thoughts and thinking will cease permanently, yes ... and memory will also cease to function. RESPONDENT: You have only factual thoughts. RICHARD: Thought does canvas possibilities when making contingency plans for projected outcomes ... many of which are never needed. RESPONDENT: The body does not die, only transforms. RICHARD: As all matter is perpetual, in that the very stuff of this flesh and blood body is never created nor ever destroyed, the form it is, currently, will break down into its component parts and those parts will be part of other forms. Which is what happens moment-to-moment anyway – a body is constantly shedding skin, hair, and so on – and the glass of water I am drinking now quite possibly passed through the kidneys of a dinosaur (or whatever). RESPONDENT: So in other words is as you are telling that death does not exist. RICHARD: I am not saying anything of the sort ... only an identity dreading its extinction would propose such a fantasy. RESPONDENT: There is nothing left for dying. RICHARD: As physical death is the permanent cessation of the condition of the body being conscious, and the condition of the body being aware of being conscious, you may care to rethink your somewhat misguided conclusion. RESPONDENT: The body is not afraid of death, it lives makes everything possible to survive and when it can’t go on any more it dies without objection. RICHARD: It is the identity within that fears its demise ... which dread of extinction is one of the reasons why it proposes immortality (and proposes that death does not exist for example). The main reason being, of course, the passionate survival imperative genetically endowed by blind nature. RESPONDENT: What will die consciousness? RICHARD: In a word: sentience will die. RESPONDENT: Are you self conscious? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is aware of being a flesh and blood body being conscious (which is what being self-conscious means). RESPONDENT: How can you be without a self? RICHARD: Sensately ... and I follow the entirely sensible convention of putting smart quotes around the word when referring to the entity within: if you wish to pretend ignorance of this convention then that is your business. * 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: How you arrived in such conclusion if not through logic and the scientific knowledge of today’s? RICHARD: It is quite simple: when the identity in toto went into blessed oblivion, whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive, it was, and is, patently obvious that with no identity in situ there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. In other words, physical death is the end, finish ... and this obviousness is because of direct experience, observation, and native intelligence (what is called ‘commonsense’ in the real-world) operating without being crippled by either the instinctual passions or the ‘self’ (by whatever name) they automatically form themselves into. Neither ‘scientific knowledge’ is required (I only provide complementary scientific discoveries so nobody has to take my word for something) nor ‘logic’ (I only provide reasoned responses to complement my report for people who cannot think for themselves) ... it is all experiential. As any pure consciousness experience (PCE) will verify. RESPONDENT: All this is speculation and implies belief. RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is all experiential (direct experience, observation, and a freed intelligence). RESPONDENT: Had you died to know? RICHARD: The identity within died in toto and, as a consequence, it is patently obvious there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. As physical death is the end, finish, if one does not find out whilst one is alive one never will. * RESPONDENT: And to finish once for ever with reincarnation and Krishnamurti ... RICHARD: I have read through all of the five quotes you provided (all of the 8,219 words) wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti questions not only the belief in reincarnation but the belief in resurrection as well ... and ‘belief’ is the operative word for, despite your ‘to finish once for ever with reincarnation and Krishnamurti’ claim he never denied after-death states – both in the stream and out of it (aka being on the wheel or off it) – because, just as he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, a god or a truth and denounced all such idealising as being a hindrance to realisation (including the god he had discovered, recognised, and realised), he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, an after-life and dismissed all such idealising as being irrelevant to true religiousness (including the after-life he was convinced he held a one-way ticket to). In other words: his ‘Teaching’ was that if it were not a living reality for the person concerned all things esoteric had no existence for them. RESPONDENT: I think is enough I could copy and paste hundred more. RICHARD: It is indeed enough because, if you were to provide more of the same, you would get no other response from me than more of the above as eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward ... and not about peace-on-earth. ‘Tis amazing what lengths peoples will go to rather than be happy and harmless. SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON LIFE AFTER DEATH (Part Two) 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