# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Zen RICHARD: (...) a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto hosts no identity at all/ has no feelings whatsoever – thereby living a life free of both the duality and non-duality such a faculty/ entity automatically creates by its very presence – and is thus already always directly experiencing the ultimate experience ... whether doing something (such as writing) or doing nothing. RESPONDENT: The typical Zen saying that mountains are mountains again, only a little more so? RICHARD: What you are referring to is a Koan – from a discourse attributed to Mr. Ch’ing yuan Wei-hsin – and not descriptive prose. Viz.: • ‘Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it’s just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters’. [endquote]. It is obviously not descriptive prose because he then asks: • ‘Are the three understandings the same or different?’ [endquote]. Here is a clue: the second understanding is per favour the comprehension of (buddhistic) emptiness. RESPONDENT: You certainly don’t depend upon hearing your ideas in their exact phrasing to recognize them. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following: • [Richard]: ‘... this is an apt place to inform you, up-front and out-in-the-open, that actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential and *not philosophical*’. [emphasis added]. And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not about ideals either ... or beliefs, concepts, opinions, conjectures, speculations, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, surmises, inferences, judgements, intellectualisations, imaginations, posits, postulations, images, analyses, viewpoints, views, stances, perspectives, standpoints, positions, world-views, mind-sets, states-of-mind, frames-of-mind, or any other of the 101 ways, of overlooking direct reports of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is. RESPONDENT: What distinguishes Actual Freedom from the Zen teachings of Hui-neng or Huang-po? RICHARD: For just one example here is an edited-for-brevity version of Mr. Hui-neng’s final instructions (from Chapter X of the ‘The Treasure Of The Law’ sutra): • ‘One day the Patriarch sent for his disciples [snip names] and addressed them as follows: ‘You men are different from the common lot. After my entering into Parinirvana, each of you will be the Dhyana Master of a certain district. I am, therefore, going to give you some hints on preaching (...) I am going to leave this world by the 8th Moon. Should you have any doubts (on the doctrine) please ask me in time, so that I can clear them up for you. You may find no one to teach you after my departure. (...) Are you worrying for me because I do not know whither I shall go? But I do know (...) death is the inevitable outcome of birth, and even the various Buddhas who appear in this world have to go through an earthly death before entering Parinirvana’. [endquote]. Whereas (for example): • [Richard]: ‘I am mortal. Death is the end. Finish. If you do not become free here and now whilst the body is breathing you never will’. (Richard, List B, No 19h, 14 March 1998a). And, by way of another example, here is an edited-for-brevity version of what Mr. Huang-po had to say (from a translation found in Mr. Stephen Mitchell’s ‘The Enlightened Mind – An Anthology of Sacred Prose’, Harper Perennial, 1991): • ‘All Buddhas and all ordinary beings are nothing but the one mind. This mind is beginningless and endless, unborn and indestructible. It has no colour or shape, neither exists nor doesn’t exist, isn’t old or new, long or short, large or small, since it transcends all measures, limits, names, and comparisons. (...) This pure mind, which is the source of all things, shines forever with the radiance of its own perfection. (...) Above, below, and all around you, all things spontaneously exist, because there is nowhere outside the Buddha mind’. [endquote]. Whereas (for example): • [Richard]: ‘(...) all experiencing is awareness of what is happening whilst it is happening; the mind, *which is the human brain in action in the human skull*, has this amazing capacity to be, not only aware, but aware of being aware at the same time (a simultaneity which is truly wondrous in itself). And it is where this awareness of being aware is unmediated (apperceptive awareness) that this universe knows itself’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 51, 7 October 2003. In other words, when this flesh and blood body dies this mind also ceases to operate. RESPONDENT: (They are both sources of Alan Watts, as you know, but I found the originals, at least Hui-neng, more exhilarating). RICHARD: I did not know that Mr. Hui-neng and Mr. Huang-po were sources for Mr. Alan Watts ... and neither did I find either of them at all interesting, just now, whilst copy-pasting the above quotes (let alone exhilarating). RESPONDENT: At first sight, there appear to me to be some similarities, so I would be delighted to learn precisely what it is that you do/ experience differently from them. RICHARD: Just for starters: there is this on-going experience of a world beyond their ken ... to wit: this actual world (the sensate world) which is the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. RESPONDENT: I am definitely trying to practice actualism, but I have not received one answer to any of my questions I have posed to you. You know I don’t expect you to be some sort of guru or anything, just would like some info. Earlier you asked ‘where have I ever been evasive in answering direct questions to me?’ and it seems to me that my direct questions have been evaded. RICHARD: I have just now gone back through all twelve of the e-mails you have written to this mailing list and found the following three addressed specifically to me: • [Respondent]: ‘I have been practicing your method for about 2 months now with significant changes in my life. Gotta enjoy that intense sensation in the amygdala! Before I discovered your experience/ method, I was doing Vipassana the Goenka way. There I also had big changes in my life. I still sit now, what do you think of that? I sit, and try my damnedest to be this body and every sensation that is a part of it, delighting in the change. Do you see any conflict with this and actualism? This sitting is very restful, but that seems to be its main function now. I am trying to decide if it would be beneficial for me to chuck it, but when I can really experience the sensations, I get STRONG pressures/ sensations in the amygdala, an indication of change, and I propose that this is accelerating the process – what do you think?’ (Thursday 07/10/2004 AEST). And: • [Respondent]: ‘I am new to the list, but have been practicing quite some time now. I posted a question for you right before you left recently, but you never got around to it. My question is this – What is wrong with sitting by yourself and thoroughly enjoying the changing sensations that show up in the body? (Friday 22/10/2004 AEST). And: • [Respondent]: ‘I am in a class called philosophy and psychology of the self, and I have the opportunity to have many wonderful conversations with my professor. He defines beauty as complexity harmonized – where do you have a problem with that? If you say that harmony is not a fact or is subjective, then how is peace not the same? (Saturday 23/10/2004 AEST). If all it takes is to not respond to each and every e-mail each and any person addresses to me in order to qualify as being evasive (synonyms: elusive, slippery, shifty, cagey, hard to pin down, equivocal, ambiguous, vague) in answering a direct question then all I can do is tug my forelock and say ‘guilty as charged, milord’ as there are an untold number of e-mails I have not responded to. You asked what I thought of you still doing Vipassana Bhavana – aka ‘Insight Meditation’ – in the way Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west (as in your ‘I still sit now’ phrasing), and whether I saw any conflict with that and actualism, plus what I thought of your proposal that it is accelerating the process of you trying your damnedest to be the body and every sensation that is a part of it. First of all, in regards to your query, here is what Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) had to say: • ‘Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta – Impermanence, Suffering and Egolessness – are the three essential characteristics of things in the Teaching of the Buddha. If you know anicca correctly, you will know dukkha as its corollary and anattā as ultimate truth. It takes time to understand the three together. Impermanence (anicca) is, of course, the essential fact which must be first experienced and understood by practice. Mere book-knowledge of the Buddha-Dhamma will not be enough for the correct understanding of anicca because the experiential aspect will be missing. It is only through experiential understanding of the nature of anicca as an ever-changing process within you that you can understand anicca in the way the Buddha would like you to understand it. (... ...) The real meaning of anicca is that Impermanence or Decay is the inherent nature of everything that exists in the Universe – whether animate or inanimate. The Buddha taught His disciples that everything that exists at the material level is composed of ‘kalāpas’. Kalāpas are material units very much smaller than atoms, which die out immediately after they come into being. Each kalāpa is a mass formed of the eight basic constituents of matter, the solid, liquid, calorific and oscillatory, together with colour, smell, taste, and nutriment. The first four are called primary qualities, and are predominant in a kalāpa. The other four are subsidiaries, dependent upon and springing from the former. A kalāpa is the minutest particle in the physical plane – still beyond the range of science today. It is only when the eight basic material constituents unite together that the kalāpa is formed. In other words, the momentary collocation of these eight basic elements of behaviour makes a man just for that moment, which in Buddhism is known as a kalāpa. The life-span of a kalāpa is termed a moment, and a trillion such moments are said to elapse during the wink of a man’s eye. These kalāpas are all in a state of perpetual change or flux. To a developed student in vipassanā meditation they can be felt as a stream of energy’. (U Ba Khin, The Essentials of Buddha Dhamma in Meditative Practice http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html). Thus where you say you can ‘really experience the sensations’ whilst still sitting now (doing insight meditation the way Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west) then what you are experiencing – a stream of energy known as kalāpas – is impermanence or decay, and its corollary, suffering itself ... neither of which has anything to do with who you really are as you who are trying your damnedest to be the body, and every sensation that is a part of it (aka the kalāpas), are an illusion. And I say this, not only out of my own experience, but also because of what the very goal of Vipassana Bhavana makes crystal clear: • [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘... we should understand that each action – whether by deed, word or thought – leaves behind an active force called ‘saṅkhāra’ (or ‘kamma’ in popular terminology), which goes to the credit or debit account of the individual, according to whether the action is good or bad. There is, therefore, an accumulation of saṅkhāra (or Kamma) with everyone, which functions as the supply-source of energy to sustain life, which is inevitably followed by suffering and death. It is by the development of the power inherent in the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anattā, that one is able to rid oneself of the saṅkhāra accumulated in one’s own personal account. This process begins with the correct understanding of anicca, while further accumulations of fresh actions and the reduction of the supply of energy to sustain life are taking place simultaneously, from moment to moment and from day to day. It is, therefore, a matter of a whole lifetime or more to get rid of all one’s saṅkhāra. He who has rid himself of all saṅkhāra comes to the end of suffering, for then no saṅkhāra remains to give the necessary energy to sustain him in any form of life. *On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering*. For us today who take to vipassanā meditation, it would suffice if we can understand anicca well enough to reach the first stage of an Ariya (a Noble person), that is, a Sotāpanna or stream-enterer, who will not take more than seven lives to come to the end of suffering’. [emphasis added]. (U Ba Khin, The Essentials of Buddha Dhamma in Meditative Practice http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html). Hence where you ask what is wrong with sitting by yourself, and thoroughly enjoying the changing sensations that show up in the body, you are not only committing the cardinal error of trying to identify with that which is impermanence or decay (which, according to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, is ‘dukkha’) but you who are trying to so identify are not who you really are anyway (the perfected saint who, at the termination of your life, will pass into an after-death peace). As to how all this conflicts with actualism: both who you currently are (an illusion) and who you really are (a delusion) can never be the flesh and blood body ... both the thinker (the ego) and the feeler (being itself) are forever locked-out of actuality. In regards to your professor defining beauty as complexity harmonised and, if harmony is not a fact or is subjective, then how peace is not the same: all I can say is that I have never said that harmony is not actual/ is subjective ... it is beauty itself – the very feeling of beauty – which has no existence in actuality. When I speak of living in peace and harmony I am referring to living in accord, amity, fellowship, and so on (and not as in blending, balance, symmetry, and so forth). RESPONDENT: ... I am unsatisfied with your claims of being historically unique in being actually free from the human condition. RICHARD: First and foremost: somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour ... is there any particular reason you prefer it to be somebody other than the person you are currently conversing with (and, perhaps, of some other gender, race, age, or era) that was the first to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth and thus make apparent the actual meaning of life? RESPONDENT: I have nothing against to you being the discoverer. I just believe that it’s unlikely. It’s rare but not totally unique. RICHARD: I read through your response three times ... this is what stands out as the main stumbling block: • [Respondent]: ‘I have read Zen books that report results very similar to yours’. ‘Tis no wonder this is such an issue for you ... you were under the impression that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan was the first to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth, as a flesh and blood body only, and thus make apparent the actual meaning of life, eh? * RESPONDENT: Here are some quotes from a book ‘Living Zen’ by Robert Linssen published in 1958 Grove Press. (snip quotes). RICHARD: This is what Mr. Robert Linssen has to say about the essence of Zen thought: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘As Buddhism in general and Zen in particular teach us, only the ‘void’ of our particular perceptions, of our distinct values, allows the divine spirit in us to recognize itself in all things. Such is the essence of Zen thought, translated into Christian language’. (page 213, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). Altogether the search engine found 37 instances of the word ‘Divine’ ... here is but one other example: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘... in Buddhism there is no allusion to a ‘God’ as distinct from us or outside our profound being. (...) In most of the higher forms of Buddhism and in Zen, the monks refuse to consider themselves as intermediaries between the divine, the universe and man. They devote themselves to the exercise of correct attention in order to discover their true nature ...’. (page 54, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). As to what their ‘true nature’ is (also referred to as ‘profound being’ and ‘profound nature’) he has this to say: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘After having unmasked the illusion of his ‘pseudo permanent individuality’, the attentive seeker discovers the profound nature of his being. He experiences this common essence in which things and beings are bathed. From that moment he sees that he is himself the Reality in such a homogeneity that all distinctions have vanished. That which distinguishes Buddhism from other religions is total respect for the homogeneity of the Real, the consequences of which are the absolute disappearance of all the dualities of observer and observed’. (page 50, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). And what is ‘the Reality’ (‘the Real’) that is the profound nature of his being? Viz.: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘The Zen Masters and Krishnamurti draw our attention to these dangers [the practice of a method or the application of a technique]. The Indian thinker points out to us that most of our spiritual transformations only represent a ‘modified continuity’ of the ‘I-process’. There is a second possibility: that of transformation without motive. It would be partially the expression of an obscure urge of the Real within us. ‘You cannot choose Reality,’ Krishnamurti tells us, ‘Reality must choose you.’ The presence of Reality in us is sufficient both for itself and for us. Satori is nothing but a state of availability which allows the Real to be its own law in us and by us. This law ignores all our methods. Krishnamurti and the Zen masters suggest a ‘non-method’. This cannot come about by act of choice on the part of the ‘I-process’. How do the processes of choice and convergence cease? Liberation is carried out by ‘Love-Intelligence’ and not by the ‘I-process’. (page 301, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). So, just what is ‘Love-Intelligence’? The phrase ‘Love-Intelligence’ returned 21 hits. For an example: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘What is ‘Love-Intelligence’? It is the essence and substance of everything, of all beings, of the ignorant and of the enlightened’. (page 302, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). And the word ‘Love’ returned 48 hits ... for example: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘... liberation cannot be the work of the ‘I-process’. It is Love itself that burns the bonds of associative and convergent habits. This Love is a state of being which is recreated from instant to instant. It is no longer distinct from Intelligence’. (page 304, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). Here is how to become this Love (a state of being no longer distinct from Intelligence): • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘If we allow the omnipotence of Love to work in us we die to ourselves and become nothing but Love. The presence of this Love in each new instant is then our presence’. (page 305, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). And this ‘presence’ goes by many names: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘Everything is Cosmic Mind, all is the Body of the Buddha, all is the Zen Unconscious’. (page 286, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). The phrase ‘Cosmic Mind’ returned 43 hits ... for example: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘... in texts of Buddhism in general and Zen in particular, the terms ‘pure essence’ or ‘the basis of the world’, or ‘cosmic mind’ or even ‘The Body of Buddha’ are used frequently’. (page 68, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). And the phrase ‘Body of Buddha’ returned 22 hits ... for example: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘The Ideas Of ‘The Body Of Buddha’ And ‘The Body Of Christ’: Certain common ground exists between Buddhism in general, Zen in particular and Christianity with regard to the frequently expressed notions of ‘Body of Truth’ or ‘Body of Buddha’ (Dharmakaya) of the Buddhist and the ‘Glorious Body’ or ‘Body of Christ’ of the Gospels’. (page 217, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). The phrase ‘Zen Unconscious’ returned 20 hits ... for example: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘... it is closer to what Krishnamurti calls the ‘creative void’ or also ‘creative immobility’. Everything is the Zen Unconscious. All, absolutely all, is Cosmic Mind. Everything is in good total Reality. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is outside this ‘Totality-that-is-One’. (page 82, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). And this ‘Totality-that-is-One’, outside of which absolutely nothing is, is none other than the ‘Divine’: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘That which we in the West call ‘Divine’ is represented in the eyes of the Zen masters by the psycho-physical Totality-that-is-One of man and the Universe. Outside this Totality-that-is-One nothing exists’. (page 134, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). Another phrase for the Divine, outside of which nothing else exists, is the phrase ‘Universal Mind’. It returned 28 hits: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘It is written in the doctrine of Hsi Yun (Huang-Po Doctrine of Universal Mind). ‘All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but universal mind, beside which nothing exists’. (page 248, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). Lastly, and just as a matter of interest, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti returned 38 hits: • [Mr. Robert Linssen]: ‘Similarities between Zen and Krishnamurti: points of contact between Buddhism, Zen thought and the teaching of Krishnamurti are many; so many in fact that dozens of volumes would be necessary to explain them in detail’. (page 236, ‘Living Zen’; Robert Linssen; ©1958 George Allen & Unwin Ltd, Grove Press). RESPONDENT: It makes for interesting reading in conjunction with the Actual Freedom website. There seems to be a remarkable similarity in concepts. RICHARD: You have to be joking, surely. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: I notice that a recruiting drive for a mystico-spiritual mailing list is currently occurring ... perhaps that is an option worth considering? * RESPONDENT: Thanks for your reply, Richard. It’s what I expected – it confirms that you’re trapped in your own language construct. RICHARD: Oh? But that is not what you said you expected ... this is: • [Respondent]: ‘No doubt Richard will focus his high powered linguistic microscope on tiny shades of meaning and become lost in the minutiae of stylistic differences. (...) I’m sure Richard will be able to invoke other schools of Zen thought that back up his objections but not all Zen is the same. (Mon 3/11/03 11:47 PM). Be that as it may ... I have snipped-out all of Mr. Robert Linssen’s words (further above) leaving only my words: if you can show me where this ‘language construct’ is amongst them which you say I am trapped in it will be most appreciated. Further to this point, here is the first of the two quotes, from Mr. Robert Linssen, you claim ‘makes for interesting reading in conjunction with the Actual Freedom website’ as ‘there seems to be a remarkable similarity in concepts’ ... Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘The author uses the term ‘I-process’ to highlight the illusory character of identity, seemingly unchanging but borne of process. [quote] ‘Schematically the brain could be drawn as a point or centre of pure perception endowed with extraordinary sensibility. Everything happening around this point is continually registered as electro-magnetic perturbations. And though at the beginning they were impersonal and without any individuality, they have become mechanical memories comparable with those of sound recorders. They accumulate endlessly round our centre or point of hypothetical perception. Finally this accumulation of memory becomes so complex and dense that secondary phenomena begin to appear. The memories become so loaded that suddenly by the natural effect of a certain ‘law of mass’, reciprocal action takes place between the different layers of superimposed engrams. Secondary currents spring up and set off a whole process of ‘parasitic’ phenomena. The Sages believe that consciousness of self is nothing other than a ‘secondary current’, a ‘parasitical phenomenon’. Thus an entity has been built up on what was a simple impersonal non-individualized process of pure perception. It has been erected as a result of the impression of psychological solidity given by the complexity of the memory accumulations. So where there was just one anonymous process amongst the thousands of millions of anonymous processes in the unfathomable Cosmic Play, a ‘thinker’ is born. And since then we have acquired the habit of considering ourselves as entities’. (Mon 3/11/03 11:47 PM). I invite you to provide a passage, or passages, of mine – which means from any page on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that has my name in the URL – which has/ have a [quote] ‘remarkable similarity’ [endquote] to that passage of Mr. Robert Linssen’s which you chose as an example. Specifically the passage, or passages, of mine will have to refer to: 1. Richard stating that sensory perception, initially pure and impersonal, becomes mechanical memories (comparable with those of sound recorders). 2. Richard stating that these mechanical memories accumulate endlessly round a centre or point of hypothetical perception. 3. Richard stating that this accumulation of memory becomes so complex and dense that secondary phenomena begin to appear (inasmuch the memories become so loaded that suddenly by the natural effect of a certain ‘law of mass’ reciprocal action takes place between the different layers of superimposed engrams). 4. Richard stating that secondary currents spring up and set off a whole process of ‘parasitic’ phenomena. 5. Richard stating that, just like the Sages believe, consciousness of self is nothing other than a ‘secondary current’, a ‘parasitical phenomenon’. 6. Richard stating that an entity has thus been built up (by the accumulation of mechanical memories becoming so complex, dense, and loaded, that a natural ‘law of mass’ reciprocal action takes place between the different layers of engrams) on what was a simple impersonal non-individualised process of pure perception. 7. Richard stating that the entity has been erected as a result of the impression of psychological solidity given by the complexity of the memory accumulations. 8. Richard stating that, where there was just one anonymous process amongst the thousands of millions of anonymous processes in the unfathomable Cosmic Play, a ‘thinker’ is born. 9. Richard stating that since then human beings have acquired the habit of considering themselves as entities. When, or rather if, you can satisfactorily provide the passage, or passages, of mine which has/ have a [quote] ‘remarkable similarity’ [endquote] to those 9 points we can then address the second quote of Mr. Robert Linssen which you chose as another example to demonstrate that what I have discovered is not entirely new to human experience. Over to you. * RESPONDENT No. 53: Richard, I was sleeping last night and having some dream and I got the sense that something was gonna happen and something was happening and I got this tightening feeling in the back of my head and at the top of my neck. Its still there almost 5 hours later. Right about where the back of the head curves down to the neck. This happened at about 3:20am. I woke up instantly and it was like my friend, who I was, was gone. But I am still very much here but perhaps in a different way. So far it feels like something has changed but nothing has changed. Make sense? Maybe not. I could elaborate but I will let some time pass. Anyways, since you are an expert in these affairs, perhaps you could tell me what you make of it, if anything. RICHARD: What I would suggest, at this stage, is to ask the American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal, or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples you referred to in another e-mail, as that person, having already become actually free from the human condition long before I did will have far more expertise than I do as I have only been apparent for a little over a decade now. It is your call. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 53a, 22 November 2003). RESPONDENT: Nice answer, Richard. Is that the Actualist equivalent of a crack of the cane from the Zen master? RICHARD: Ha, the equivalence betwixt actualism and the form of spiritualism known as Zen Buddhism exists only in your mind ... as is evidenced by your inability to successfully provide a passage, or passages, of mine – which means from any page on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that has my name in the URL – that has/ have a [quote] ‘remarkable similarity’ [endquote] to that passage of Mr. Robert Linssen’s which you chose as an example of such a correspondence. Specifically the passage, or passages, of mine would have to refer to: 1. Richard stating that sensory perception, initially pure and impersonal, becomes mechanical memories (comparable with those of sound recorders). 2. Richard stating that these mechanical memories accumulate endlessly round a centre or point of hypothetical perception. 3. Richard stating that this accumulation of memory becomes so complex and dense that secondary phenomena begin to appear (inasmuch the memories become so loaded that suddenly by the natural effect of a certain ‘law of mass’ reciprocal action takes place between the different layers of superimposed engrams). 4. Richard stating that secondary currents spring up and set off a whole process of ‘parasitic’ phenomena. 5. Richard stating that, just like the Sages believe, consciousness of self is nothing other than a ‘secondary current’, a ‘parasitical phenomenon’. 6. Richard stating that an entity has thus been built up (by the accumulation of mechanical memories becoming so complex, dense, and loaded, that a natural ‘law of mass’ reciprocal action takes place between the different layers of engrams) on what was a simple impersonal non-individualised process of pure perception. 7. Richard stating that the entity has been erected as a result of the impression of psychological solidity given by the complexity of the memory accumulations. 8. Richard stating that, where there was just one anonymous process amongst the thousands of millions of anonymous processes in the unfathomable Cosmic Play, a ‘thinker’ is born. 9. Richard stating that since then human beings have acquired the habit of considering themselves as entities. ‘Tis far easier to make an allegation than substantiate it, eh? RESPONDENT: I’d like to propose the following: All questions are asking for an answer within a given context. Every question we can think of uses out of it’s context a language/ meaning and has a logical base. Could we agree that asking an impossible question is without meaning/ language and logic? For if the question could be asked it is not an ‘impossible’ question! But if the question ‘is’ impossible we cannot think of a language/ meaning or logic to reflect it upon, so we cannot ask it. Hence: If it is impossible it is true that it is possible AND if it is possible it is true that it is impossible. At the risk of contradicting myself: I see truth in determining the above. RICHARD: You are applying logic to what is essentially a metaphysical theme; it is not a logical question to be solved, but a spiritual paradox to be meditated upon. It is like the Koan that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to supposedly abandon ultimate dependence on reason and to force them into gaining sudden intuitive enlightenment. An ‘Impossible Question’ is this: Who am ‘I’? The reason that it is called an impossible question is that one will never get a ‘thought-out’ answer ... which is what the proponents of logic’s supposed ability to detect truth are in need of. ‘I’, who wishes to know who ‘I’ am, can never know ‘myself’. This is because the would-be ‘knower’ is the very subject that it is desired to know. Hence the appellation: ‘The Impossible Question’. So why does one ask it? Simply stated, if it is asked in such a way as to not get a thought-out answer – a way called keeping the question open – something happens. Logical thought – not thought itself – blows its fuses and ‘I’ cease to exist as an ego, for ‘I’ as ego am nothing but a cognitive entity. Then one is living the answer in an apotheosised field of consciousness and has the power of attaining to direct metaphysical knowledge without evident rational thought and inference. In other words, one now intuitively knows who ‘I’ am. ‘I’ am the Self ... the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame. With Koans, one can always get an answer, of course. • Q: ‘What is the sound of one hand clapping?’ • A: ‘The same as the sound of the other hand’. Which is probably why Zen Masters are two bob a dozen. * RESPONDENT: Ha, ha, ha. That’s funny. Another solution is to just clap with one hand. The fingers clapping the thumb-base. What I wanted to make clear has been abundantly stated and pointed out by you in your reply. To meditate on an impossible question is not a logical thing to do. Therefore meditation as such and enlightenment if it exists as a process cannot be methodical in nature. The ‘who am I question’ has me stuck quite often lately. And it isn’t easy to bear. Does this ring a bell? RICHARD: Yes it does. Here is a suggestion: Try asking ‘what am I’ instead. RICHARD: Buddhism does not profess to totally eliminate suffering, only personal sorrow. Their ultimate condition exists after physical death ... it is called Parinirvana. Buddhism maintains that because of the intrinsic duality of being manifested in a body, then universal sorrow continues to exist after Nirvana is attained ... for as long as the physical body is still alive. And, secondly, the bliss of Nirvana is not because of the ending of what you call a negative (suffering) it is because of the ending of the ego that causes the suffering (personal sorrow). KONRAD: Again, I talk from the Zen perspective. The aim is ending all suffering. The method is the ending of ‘I’ in the sense that you UNDERSTAND that the ‘I’ not really exists. RICHARD: Well, you do not understand Zen Buddhism, then. They do not rattle on about the supremacy of logic ... Zen Koans are designed to break the hold that dualistic thinking has on a person. Also, you say that the ‘I’ cannot end; you say that an ‘I’ is essential for controlling the body; you say that peace is not possible; you deny any ultimate solution to the human condition; you say ... gosh, let me quote you: • [Konrad]: ‘I deny that ‘the process’ is the ultimate solution Buddha pretends it to be for the ‘human condition’. Just what ‘Zen perspective’ do you have? And to top it all off, you have the cheek to end with: ‘the ending of ‘I’ in the sense that you UNDERSTAND that the ‘I’ not really exists’. What do you mean? Which one of your many statements is true? RESPONDENT: [Re: The Goose In The Bottle]. For freedom is in the intelligence of discovery of how to break that bottle. RICHARD: What bottle? RESPONDENT: I’m using it here for ‘conditioning’, for another poster the bottle stands for something else, which he says is from a Zen parable. RICHARD: The metaphor ‘bottle’ does not refer to conditioning but to a contracted or crystallised ‘self’. Yet even if it did, that particular piece of conditioning is endlessly replaced by more subtle variations as fast as it is seen through and dissolved – or whatever you do with it – for as long ‘I’ persist. So it has nothing to do with ‘the intelligence of discovery of how to break that bottle’ whichever way you look at it. RESPONDENT: My point is that ‘doing absolutely nothing’ is not breaking the bottle. RICHARD: But there is no bottle ... that is the whole point of this metaphor (and breaking the bottle is expressly forbidden anyway ... you cannot do an Alexander the Great on this Gordian Knot). ‘I’ create the illusion of a bottle. Who is the ‘I’ that you say is not going to break the bottle by ‘doing absolutely nothing’? Or, conversely, who is the ‘I’ that is ‘doing something’ in order to break the bottle ... which you seem to be insisting is the way out? So that is why I asked: What bottle? RESPONDENT: And the bottle does not simply vanish when nothing is done. RICHARD: The bottle does not vanish whether one does something or whether one does not do something. This is contrary to the normal notion of cause and effect ... which is why it is used by the metaphysically inclined people. They wish to break the hold that thought has on one ... they posit that ‘I’ am a product of thought and ‘I’ create a non-existent bottle to be trapped in ... because an ‘I’ is trapped by its very nature. When faced with an intellectually impossible paradox, they say that thought (their ‘I’ as ego) gives up the ghost and – hey presto! – the goose is out of the bottle by virtue of the fact that the bottle did not exist in the first place. It is a matter of seeing that one is already free and one had to but realise this. Mr. H. W. L. Poonja of India was of the same opinion ... which is why he has been able to churn out several ‘spiritually awakened beings’ who fondly imagine that they have ‘got it’. They now know that there never was a bottle to break or vanish or get out of all along. (I wonder where Respondent No. 22 is in all this ... this stuff should be grist for his mill.) It is all rather pathetic ... but there they go with their much-revered wisdom of the ages, eh? Perhaps it is more a conundrum than a paradox ... I would ask: Who is the gullible goose that precipitously feels they are now out? That is because this question gets one closer to the root cause of all human suffering ... Zen’s much-prized ‘Original Face’. * RICHARD: The metaphor ‘bottle’ does not refer to conditioning but to a contracted or crystallised ‘self’. RESPONDENT: You are then using it the way No. 22 does. RICHARD: I was staying with the original metaphor ... there is more to being a self than conditioning * RICHARD: Yet even if it did, that particular piece of conditioning is endlessly replaced by more subtle variations as fast as it is seen through and dissolved – or whatever you do with it – for as long ‘I’ persist. So it has nothing to do with ‘the intelligence of discovery of how to break that bottle’ whichever way you look at it. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that there is only the conditioned state, and not the possibility of seeing or understanding that conditioning? Or are you merely saying that this possibility necessitates moving outside the confines of the self-perspective? RICHARD: One needs to go to the root of what it is that conditioning sticks to so that conditioning falls away like water off a duck’s back. Is it not possible to be never conditioned? * RESPONDENT: My point is that ‘doing absolutely nothing’ is not breaking the bottle. RICHARD: But there is no ‘bottle’ ... that is the whole point of this metaphor (and breaking the bottle is expressly forbidden anyway ... you cannot do an Alexander the Great on this Gordian Knot). RESPONDENT: If there is a bottle that is not there, then the rule of not breaking it does seem irrelevant. But this is merely a game: to first assume there is a bottle only to deny its existence. I prefer Alexander. RICHARD: Alexander took a sword and cut the knot ... one must ask: What knot? * RICHARD: ‘I’ create the illusion of a bottle. Who is the ‘I’ that you say is not going to break the bottle by ‘doing absolutely nothing’? Or, conversely, who is the ‘I’ that is ‘doing something’ in order to break the bottle ... which you seem to be insisting is the way out? RESPONDENT: Are you asking now for a definition of the ‘I’ or a defence of the existence of the ‘I’? This word ‘I’ is so theory laden. Which sort of an ‘I’ are we speaking about? RICHARD: The ‘I’ in this metaphor is the ego ‘I’ that arises from the soul ‘me’ that is born of the rudimentary self that all sentient beings are born with when blind nature equips one with the basic survival instincts of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. * RESPONDENT: And the bottle does not simply vanish when nothing is done. RICHARD: The bottle does not vanish whether one does something or whether one does not do something. This is contrary to the normal notion of cause and effect ... which is why it is used by the metaphysically inclined people. They wish to break the hold that thought has on one ... they posit that ‘I’ am a product of thought and ‘I’ create a non-existent bottle to be trapped in ... because an ‘I’ is trapped by its very nature. When faced with an intellectually impossible paradox, they say that thought (their ‘I’ as ego) gives up the ghost and – hey presto! – the goose is out of the bottle by virtue of the fact that the bottle did not exist in the first place. It is a matter of seeing that one is already free and one had to but realise this. Mr. H. W. L. Poonja of India was of the same opinion ... which is why he has been able to churn out several ‘spiritually awakened beings’ who fondly imagine that they have ‘got it’. They now know that there never was a bottle to break or vanish or get out of all along. (I wonder where another poster is in all this ... this stuff should be grist for his mill.) It is all rather pathetic ... but there they go with their much-revered wisdom of the ages, eh? RESPONDENT: It is just a game that they are giving spiritual significance to. Denying the original assumption is a rather cheap solution. RICHARD: It is not a game to them ... they take it all to be very, very real. They do not just deny the original assumption ... they work very hard for many years to dissolve the ego ‘I’. Only a rare few succeed. When they do, only then can they say that the ‘I’ never existed in the first place. A person with their ‘I’ intact is not well-served to say that their ‘I’ is not real, for their suffering remains extant. * RICHARD: Perhaps it is more a conundrum than a paradox ... I would ask: Who is the gullible goose that precipitously feels they are now out? That is because this question gets one closer to the root cause of all human suffering ... Zen’s much-prized ‘Original Face’. RESPONDENT: Are you speaking about existing without self? RICHARD: Yes, but not only without a self ... without a capital ‘S’ Self as well. One is well-advised to pay attention to those basic instincts that give rise to what the Christians coyly call ‘Original Sin’. ‘I’ and ‘me’, in any way, shape or form, am rotten to the core ... this is the source of all guilt and its band-aid solutions like love and compassion. Zen’s ‘Original Face’ has its genesis in the rudimentary self of the instincts. Eliminate those survival instincts and not only does ‘Original Sin’ vanish ... even the ‘Original Face’ disappears. Then – and only then – is there peace-on-earth guaranteed. This is because it is already always here. * RICHARD: There is more to being a self than conditioning. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that a not-self can also be conditioned? RICHARD: When I wrote that there was more to a self than conditioning, I was merely staying with the start of this thread for consistency. For under Eastern Mysticism’s diagnosis the ‘self’ is a contraction or crystallisation of the eternal ‘Self’ ... and in Zen terminology ‘Eternal Self’ would – very loosely – translate as ‘Original Face’ or ‘Buddha Nature’. I say ‘loosely’ because Buddhists modestly disallow any enduring personal self at all. The basic premise being that the contracted or crystallised self can expand until it regains its original size and position: ‘I am Everything and Everything is Me’. Thus – and as far as I know – they did not make as big a thing out of conditioning as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did, but if asked I am sure they would say that the ‘not-self’ cannot be conditioned. (Of course Buddhists get into a logical dilemma with ‘self’ and ‘no-self’ and end up disallowing ‘no-self’ also). Speaking personally, I do not subscribe to the Zen position – or any Eastern metaphysical position at all – for I have my own understanding born out of my own experience ... and the spiritual ‘not-self’ – by any name – is very conditioned indeed. An enlightened man and woman could raise a child on an isolated island – a tropical paradise of course – with all the love and compassion in existence and that child would still have an identity – no doubt a grandiose identity – born out of its rudimentary self. * RICHARD: ‘I’ create the illusion of a ‘bottle’. Who is the ‘I’ that you say is not going to break the bottle by ‘doing absolutely nothing’? Or, conversely, who is the ‘I’ that is ‘doing something’ in order to break the bottle ... which you seem to be insisting is the way out? RESPONDENT: Are you asking now for a definition of the ‘I’ or a defence of the existence of the ‘I’? This word ‘I’ is so theory laden. Which sort of an ‘I’ are we speaking about? RICHARD: The ‘I’ in this metaphor is the ego ‘I’ that arises from the soul ‘me’ that is born of the rudimentary self that all sentient beings are born with when blind nature equips one with the basic survival instincts of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. RESPONDENT: If all sentient beings are born with it, is that ‘I’ an illusion? RICHARD: But sentient beings are not born with an ‘I’ ... they are born with a rudimentary self. (Which is a non-verbal awareness of bodily self as distinct from other bodies and the environment at large ... this can be observed in animals). Blind nature equips sentient beings with instinctual passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... as basic survival instincts. These passions can be observed in animal infants ... and in human babies before they can think and talk. Thus malice and sorrow are intrinsic and not dependent upon conditioning. (These kind of things can be seen in the comfort of your own living-room via those fascinating National Geographic videos of the apes. These animals display passions and behaviour that is almost uncanny in their – albeit very basic – similarity to the human species.) Because humans can both feel and think and communicate their feeling-fed thoughts to other humans via language they can ruminate – as distinct from animals – upon the results of letting the instincts run free. Whereupon the infant’s rudimentary and passionate non-verbal self is persuaded, through reward and punishment and precept and example, to take on a socially-responsible identity known as a conscience ... in order to control the socially-wayward rudimentary self the baby was born with. By and large this is usually fairly well established by somewhere around the age of seven years ... according to those who study these things. One has been inculcated with the values of the particular culture one was born into and has both a feeling apprehension and a mental knowledge of what is decreed to be ‘Right and Wrong’. (This is somewhat analogous to Mr. Sigmund Freud’s ‘Id’, ‘ego’ and ‘Superego’ ... but the analogy definitely ends with his solution: A well-balanced personality is one that can juggle these conflicting demands in a compromise between social responsibility and personal gratification. His result: A troubled personality could, with analysis, be returned to normal. His definition of normal: ‘Common human unhappiness’.) Concomitant with this socialising process, a sense of identity as a personal ‘I’ percolates through feeling-backed thoughts as the rudimentary self asserts itself as a passionate ego by about age two years ... according to those who study these things. This is a naturally-occurring process in response to the demands of the environment ... natural insofar as the instincts are natural. This ego ‘I’ arises, out of the contradictory savagery and tenderness of the soul ‘me’ – the core of ‘being’ – which is born of the rudimentary self of the instinctual passions, in a vain attempt to steer the ship forcefully by infiltrating and arrogating the very necessary will. (Will is the operative thought function of the bodily consciousness). This makes the will’s otherwise smooth functioning problematic ... according to Richard who studied these things experientially. It is this ego ‘I’ that is the illusion. (Of course, when the ‘I’ is seen to be an illusion by the average spiritual aspirant, the gullible seeker searches for someone or something more fundamental ... and hey presto! ... one discovers one’s ‘Original Face’. This is where the illusion becomes a delusion because the ‘Original Face’ is the soul ‘me’ born of the rudimentary self formed by the instinctual survival passions. But that has a lot to do with the human animal’s ability to know one’s impending death ... and that is another story entirely). Zen’s ‘Original Face’ has its genesis in the rudimentary self of the instincts. Eliminate those survival instincts and not only does ‘Original Sin’ vanish ... even the ‘Original Face’ disappears. Then – and only then – is there peace-on-earth guaranteed. This is because it is already always here. RESPONDENT No. 20: And the bottle does not simply vanish when nothing is done. RICHARD: The bottle does not vanish whether one does something or whether one does not do something. This is contrary to the normal notion of cause and effect ... which is why it is used by the metaphysically inclined people. They wish to break the hold that thought has on one ... they posit that ‘I’ am a product of thought and ‘I’ create a non-existent bottle to be trapped in ... because an ‘I’ is trapped by its very nature. When faced with an intellectually impossible paradox, they say that thought (their ‘I’ as ego) gives up the ghost and – hey presto! – the goose is out of the bottle by virtue of the fact that the bottle did not exist in the first place. It is a matter of seeing that one is already free and one had to but realise this. Mr. H. W. L. Poonja of India was of the same opinion ... which is why he has been able to churn out several ‘spiritually awakened beings’ who fondly imagine that they have ‘got it’. They now know that there never was a bottle to break or vanish or get out of all along. It is all rather pathetic ... but there they go with their much-revered wisdom of the ages, eh? Perhaps it is more a conundrum than a paradox ... I would ask: Who is the gullible goose that precipitously feels they are now out? That is because this question gets one closer to the root cause of all human suffering ... Zen’s much-prized ‘Original Face’. (Richard, List B, No. 20b, 18 July 1998a). RESPONDENT: ‘No bottle to break’ is seeing the lack of any inherent existence of the bottle, conditioning or an ‘I’. Yet, we cannot say there is no bottle at all since the ten thousand things (suffering, me’s and you’s, doers, birth/ death) appear to come and go. Not doing is not something an ‘I’ can do, it is just seeing there is no truly existent ‘I’ that could ever do anything. RICHARD: Quite so ... an ‘I’ can never be ‘not doing’ no matter how inactive or detached it may try to be. An ‘I’ is ‘doing something’ by its very presence. Now, what about ‘me’ as soul ... Zen’s ‘Original Face’ (the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame). Can that be ‘dissolved’ in a like manner? That is, by just seeing there is no truly existent ‘Me’ that could ever do anything? Or is another approach called for? * RESPONDENT: First we start with our experience of what we think is true, before it can be negated from exposure. RICHARD: If this was all that ever happened then what gets negated through exposure is the concept – what one thinks to be true – and not necessarily the underlying reality. RESPONDENT: ‘Underlying reality’ seems like a concept just like the notion of some ongoing ‘I’. RICHARD: It does not ‘seem like a concept’ to the Zen people. The underlying reality – called ‘Original Face’ – is highly prized by them and they spend many, many years attaining to it. The rare few who do are recognised as being worthy of the highest approval, esteem, admiration and emulation. * RICHARD: But as you have already negated your ‘I’, by seeing the lack of any inherent existence of this ‘I’, you must be experiencing your ‘Original Face’ – or whatever you call it – as a result of having done so. So surely you are experiencing more than what you ‘think is true’? RESPONDENT: Since there is no experience of an ‘I’ experiencing a ‘your Original Face’, those ideas just come and go as they do. RICHARD: But an ‘I’ can never experience ‘Original Face’ ... what on earth are you talking about? What ideas ‘just come and go as they do’? I am referring to the ‘I’-less experience of living life ... which is known in Zen as ‘Original face’. Surely you know what we are talking about? This direct experiencing can only happen when the goose is out of the bottle ... you started writing in this thread as if you knew what was going on. If you are not experiencing this ‘Original Face’ yourself, can you not at least comprehend this simple point? * RESPONDENT: It must be observed as it occurs. RICHARD: Indeed so. Where something exists, with all the mayhem and misery its presence causes, it has an inherent existence ... whether one has a concept of it or not. Not knowing of its existence – or denying it – is simply ignorance. And so the suffering continues unabated ... as it has down through the centuries. RESPONDENT: Ignorance seems to be the beliefs in true existence, not a lack of knowing of the existence of something. What is it that seems to inherently exist? RICHARD: What the Zen people call ‘Original Face’. * RESPONDENT: If there is an experience of a ‘me’, or a soul or whatever, that is what gets attention. RICHARD: Unfortunately is has not ... so far. The Zen people have had the experience of the reality of their concept of the ‘Original Face’ for centuries now and give it the wrong sort of attention ... reverence and respect. The same applies to other cultures that worship the ‘Revealed Teachings’ of one who has realised themselves to be ‘The Self’ ... be they go under the name Avatar or Messiah or Redeemer or Saviour or Master or World Teacher or Whatever. Such adulation and adoration seems to prevent them from being able to see the obvious: they have been unable to see the connection between a rare few people being that and all the religious wars that inevitably follow the recognition of such people as being worthy of the highest approval, esteem, admiration and emulation. RESPONDENT: If there is no concept of a soul, there is no need to dissolve anything. RICHARD: Whoa up there now! First of all there is already a concept of a soul ... every culture has some word for it. Secondly, just because there is not yet a concept for something does not mean that it does not exist. Humans did not have a concept that the earth was a globe until relatively recently in human history ... even after Mr. Christopher Columbus’ epic voyage there was still disputation about the veracity of the earth’s globular nature. Yet satellite photographs demonstrate that this is so despite the lack of the concept. (Assuming, of course, that the once-flat earth did not suddenly decide to become round coincidental to Mr. Yuri Gagarin being shot into orbit). Are you not saying that all the suffering of 5.8 billion people is only because each and every one of them has not yet developed a concept that the soul is the root cause of human suffering ... even though it can be observed as an actual happening in daily life? Yet to go on and say that if such a concept is never made then there is no need to dissolve it is to bury one’s head in the sand. There is indeed a need to dissolve something ... what we are discussing is just what the nature of this something is. I am promoting the point that ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – in fact ‘being’ itself – is the root cause of all anguish and animosity. As the ego ‘I’ can be dissolved by understanding the ‘Goose in the Bottle’ parable, my question was whether this applies to one’s ‘Original Face’ ... what I was asking is whether this ‘Ground Of Being’, as it is also known, can be dissolved in a like manner ... or whether another approach was called for. So to clarify: are you saying that the ‘Original Face’ does not exist? Or are you saying that it does ... but it is not the root cause of all human suffering? RESPONDENT: Basically clinging to concepts or ideas, whether of an ongoing ‘I’ or some transcendent Self, fosters suffering. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... it is the on-going ‘I’ which fosters suffering and not ‘clinging to concepts or ideas’. For it is ‘I’ who clings, when all is said and done. You are talking about detachment ... who is the ‘I’ that is doing the ‘not clinging’? RESPONDENT: Without clinging to or depending on or acting as if there is some truly existing ‘I’ or soul, there is nothing to negate. RICHARD: But there is this ‘I’ that is doing this ‘not clinging’ and this ‘not depending’ and this ‘not acting’. Therein lies the problem. We have already discussed this back at the beginning of this thread (at the top of the page) where you said: ‘Not doing is not something an ‘I’ can do’ and I said: ‘Quite so ... an ‘I’ can never be ‘not doing’ no matter how inactive or detached it may try to be. An ‘I’ is ‘doing something’ by its very presence’. RESPONDENT: Keeping in mind that terms are only labels or pointers, ‘Original Face’ points to a state of mind where clinging to an ongoing anything is impossible. RICHARD: This is because the would-be ‘clinger’ has vanished ... and not because of an act of ‘not clinging’. Then there is this ‘Original Face’ in all its glory. RESPONDENT: If that pointer functions as an idea to cling to or depend on, then what is pointed to is obscured by that clinging. RICHARD: What is pointed to is not obscured by clinging ... but by the ‘clinger’. RESPONDENT: So I would say that soul or ‘I’ or Original Face or Self have an apparent existence, due to thought, but lack any inherently real existence. The apparent goose and bottle lack any inherently real existence. RICHARD: So the Zen people spend years and years to get to where they can truly say ‘the goose is out of the bottle’ and this state – which they use the designation ‘Original face’ for – you say lacks any inherently real existence just like the goose and the bottle that was causing all the trouble in the first place? Wow! * RICHARD: The underlying reality – called ‘Original Face’ – is highly prized by the Zen people and they spend many, many years attaining to it. The rare few who do are recognised as being worthy of the highest approval, esteem, admiration and emulation. RESPONDENT: I have not heard it mentioned that Original Face is an underlying reality, something prized or something that can be attained. Where did you hear that? RICHARD: Oh, it is something that I have known for years ... it is well known to practitioners of Zen. As I have no books on Zen to hand – and I last read Zen in 1983 or thereabouts – I am unable to be precise about where and when and from who I read it. So I wandered out onto the Internet just now and copied and pasted the first reference that I came across (it even has the Japanese character for ‘Original face’). ‘Honrai no memmoku/ pen-lai mien-mu’ I am sure that this paragraph effectively indicates a highly prized underlying reality that can be attained ... unless you wish to be ‘Zen-Clever’ and deny all this as being worth anything at all in that back-to-front way they have of disparaging what they consider the most precious. If so, you are on your own as I am not interested in playing petty Zen games. • [quote]: ‘This face, through endless kalpas without beginning, has never varied. It has never lived or died, appeared or disappeared, increased or decreased. It’s not pure or impure, good or evil, past or future. It’s not true or false. It’s not male or female. It doesn’t appear as a monk or a layman, an elder or a novice, a sage or a fool, a Buddha or a mortal. It strives for no realisation and suffers no karma. It has no strength or form. It’s like space. You can’t possess it and you can’t lose it. Its movements can’t be blocked by mountains, rivers, or rock walls. No karma can restrain this real face. But this face is subtle and hard to see. It’s not the same as the sensual face. Everyone wants to see this face, and those who move their hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand, but when you ask them, they can’t explain it. It’s theirs to use. Why don’t they see it? Only the wise know this face, this face called liberation. Neither life nor death can restrain this face. Nothing can. It’s also called the Unstoppable, the Incomprehensible, the Sacred, the Immortal and the Great Sage. Its names vary but not its essence’. RESPONDENT: I would say that soul or ‘I’ or Original Face or Self have an apparent existence, due to thought, but lack any inherently real existence. The apparent goose and bottle lack any inherently real existence. RICHARD: So the Zen people spend years and years to get to where they can truly say ‘the goose is out of the bottle’ and this state – which they call ‘Original face’ – you say lacks any ‘inherently real existence’ just like the goose and the bottle that was causing all the trouble in the first place? Wow! RESPONDENT: Nothing to do. No where to go. Nothing to attain. No goose or bottle from the first. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and with no ‘Original face’ to attain you sure have got the game sown up. Just one last observation: I have noticed that when you are writing about ‘fixing breakfast’ and things like that, I never see words about how enjoyable that is; how delightful that is; what fun that is; how marvellous that is ... or any other descriptive word that might indicate that life on earth is such a magnificent and wonderful experience that it is indeed a privilege to be here doing a mundane thing such as fixing this breakfast now. * RESPONDENT: The original face neither appears nor disappears, but is the very nature of all appearances. RICHARD: This statement is somewhat at odds with what you wrote recently. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I have not heard it mentioned that Original Face is an underlying reality, something prized or something that can be attained. Where did you hear that?’ What is the difference between ‘underlying reality’ and ‘very nature’? Are you playing an obscure game ... or is it that you do not know what you are talking about? RESPONDENT: It is not an underlying reality in the sense of being an object to be prized or attained. As I mentioned before: ‘I am not sure why you might think this is something that is prized or attainable. It seems more like the essential nature of all things (prized or attainable) rather than being some thing’. RICHARD: Then why is ‘the very nature of all appearances’ or ‘the essential nature of all things’ exempt from being not a very nature ‘in the sense of being an object to be prized or attained’ in your mind? Why do you have one rule for yourself and a different rule for others? Surely you are quibbling over terminology ... to me ‘underlying reality’ conveys the same notion as ‘very nature’ or ‘essential nature’. I am just trying to find out how your mind works. RESPONDENT: The essential nature of an object is not an object. The nature of a self or any object is that it lacks any real substantial existence. RICHARD: Yes ... but I was very clearly saying the same thing. Try this for size: For the Zen people, the underlying reality of an object is not an object. For the Zen people, the reality of a self or any object is that it lacks any real substantial existence. Is this not saying the same thing? Why this quibble over terminology? RESPONDENT: Why do you think that this is something that is prized or attainable? RICHARD: Because the Zen people spend years and years torturing their bodies (as in sitting Zazen) in order to attain it. This indicates to me that it is something that they prize highly ... what do you think? RESPONDENT: That is not my experience of Zen practice. The notion of attainment or using practice as a means to an end is not encouraged and a lot attention is brought to exposing the dualistic nature of that kind of effort. Perhaps, what you say is true of some Zen people, as you say. RICHARD: Not just some ... all. The goal is to realise one’s ‘Original Face’ ... to pretend that one is not aware of this is to be disingenuous. However, you are not the only person to experience the adoption of this stance of make-believe ignorance ... there are others that like to think that by feigning unawareness that they will achieve something. Just how they think this sleight-of-hand (or should I say sleight-of-mind) is going to be efficacious in bringing about the undesired/ desired result remains a rather moot point. Nevertheless, such dissimulation is not unknown ... the Indian Buddhists too, indulge in a similar craftiness. They pretend that they do not desire Nirvana ... in the hope that they will thus achieve it. The Christians, believing that to be alive is to remain a sinner, obediently manifest a spiritual humility in order to be worthy of God’s Grace and admission into Heaven. Some Hindus maintain that by not enjoying the fruits of their labour they will gain the ultimate fruit of such labour ... called Moksa. The same sort of sanctimony holds true for many other religions and spiritual disciplines. RESPONDENT: Why do you think that this ... [‘Original face’] ... has anything to do with the survival of a self? RICHARD: This is because their ‘Original Face’ is their very own sublimated self ... much like ‘The Self’ of Indian Mysticism. It is narcissism in yet another cultural disguise. RESPONDENT: Admittedly it is easy to see them in the same way, but it doesn’t seem that way to me. RICHARD: Why not? Zen Buddhism is not all that different to Indian Buddhism ... and Indian Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. And Hinduism – in the form of Advaita Vedanta brought aspects of Indian Buddhism back into Hinduism. Thus, whilst Buddhists maintain that there ultimately is no personal self to be ‘The Self’ like some Hinduism does (‘Atman is Brahman’) they do have re-incarnation. Thus there is something apparently enduring of a personal nature (Skandhas) until one realises one’s ‘Buddha Nature’ and comes home, as it were. Sunyata, ‘The Void’ of Nirvana, equates – more or less – with the Brahman which has no attributes. Although both Brahman and Sunyata are seen not as a negation of existence but rather as the undifferentiation out of which all apparent entities, distinctions, and dualities arise. Thus, essentially, one realises that one is god (by whatever clever name) and that god is all that exists and everything is a manifestation of god. It is much the same with Taoism. Essentially the three main religions of the East are all about realising that you are ‘That’ by whatever name ... and ‘That’ is the ‘essential nature’ of all things and appearances ... of existence itself. The same applies to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, who initially declaring himself to be god-realised in the twenties, merely substituted the word ‘life’ for the word ‘god’ and never changed fundamentally from his original position. RESPONDENT: Unlike having an actual body that is supposedly truly existing, this original face has no independent existence at all. RICHARD: There, you have just said it ... ‘supposedly truly existing’. Which means that nothing material truly exists ... the only reality is the ‘essential nature’. Which is a non-material nothingness. This is the standard solipsistic fare ... no wonder you and No. 14 are getting along famously. And so all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse roll on unto the twenty-first century ... all because, as you maintain, none of it is ultimately real (your phrase ‘Life dreaming Life’ in another post equates with ‘Brahma dreaming Worlds’). Meanwhile, in the West, where at least lip-service is paid to things being ‘inherently real’, people revere suffering as being ‘good for the soul’, and look toward a peaceful life ... after physical death! Where in all this is humankind’s much-touted humanity? Millions upon millions weep crocodile tears ... all the while too self-centred to actually care. * RICHARD: The goal is to realise one’s ‘Original Face’ ... to pretend that one is not aware of this is to be disingenuous. However, you are not the only person to experience the adoption of this stance of make-believe ignorance ... there are others that like to think that by feigning unawareness that they will achieve something. Just how they think this sleight-of-hand (or should I say sleight-of-mind) is going to be efficacious in bringing about the undesired/ desired result remains a rather moot point. Nevertheless, such dissimulation is not unknown ... the Indian Buddhists too, indulge in a similar craftiness. They pretend that they do not desire Nirvana ... in the hope that they will thus achieve it. The Christians, believing that to be alive is to remain a sinner, obediently manifest a spiritual humility in order to be worthy of God’s Grace and admission into Heaven. Some Hindus maintain that by not enjoying the fruits of their labour they will gain the ultimate fruit of such labour ... called Moksa. The same sort of sanctimony holds true for many other religions and spiritual disciplines. RESPONDENT: Why would you insist on there being a goal, when there are many teaching contrary to what you assert. RICHARD: There are no teachings to the contrary ... even Zen acknowledges this when they say: • ‘Everyone wants to see this face, and those who move their hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand, but when you ask them, they can’t explain it. It’s theirs to use. Why don’t they see it? Only the wise know this face’. RESPONDENT: I’d also like to learn more about your actual experience of there being no inner or outer, as compared to Zen, perhaps there is a link to it on your site. RICHARD: Zen Buddhism is grounded in the experience of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, who based his entire teaching on the truth of ‘dukkha’ ... all physical existence is ‘dukkha’, he decided. He thus rationalised that living amid the impermanence (‘annica’) of everything, and being themselves transitory, human beings search for the way of deliverance (‘nirvana’) to realise the deathlessness (‘amata-dhamma’) which shines beyond the transitoriness of human existence; he asserted there was no essential or ultimate reality (‘paramattha dhamma’) in the world of people, things and events. He said: ‘There is an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, an uncompounded; were there not, there would be no escape from the world of the born, the originated, the made, and the compounded’ (Nibbana Sutta; Udana viii.3). Thus, Buddhism is 180 degrees in the other direction to an actual freedom ... a total disassociation from the world of flesh and blood bodies; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the clouds by day and the stars at night – this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – insomuch as only ‘Parinirvana’ is truly real. 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). In this Pali Canon Sutra (the earliest recorded scriptures) Mr. Gotama the Sakyan is totally unambiguous and unequivocally plain-speaking in his description of the ‘deathless state’ ... for he was anti-life to the core, condemning all temporal, spatial and material existence in no uncertain terms. And any Zen practitioner who tries to remonstrate otherwise is either lying through their teeth or just does not understand what their ‘Lord Buddha’ was on about ... there is even a Web Page devoted to proving that Buddhism is environmentally aware – eco-friendly – in a puerile attempt to make Buddhism palatable for the undiscerning, the desperate, the gullible. Viz.: • Ms. Lisa Bright: ‘Our organization was founded on the premise that the Buddhist way of looking at life can play a major role in healing the planet’s environmental crisis (...) To plant a tree – carefully, mindfully, at the right place – that is Buddhism already. That’s it’. (www.earthsangha.org/index.html). Presumably trees are – all of a sudden – strangely exempt when seeing the pernicious nature of birth, disease, old age and death ... which ‘seeing’ is the only truly faithful Buddhist way of living life (the very existence of ‘birth, disease, old age, death’ being Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s profound insight into the root cause of suffering). RICHARD: The rudimentary and ancient animal self common to all sentient beings is the genesis of ‘being’ as an all-expansive and all-encompassing identity. That deep feeling of ‘me’ and/or ‘Me’ – that is ‘being’ and/or ‘Being’ itself – is at the core of identity. It arises out of the basic instincts that blind nature endowed all human beings with as a rough and ready ‘soft-ware’ package to make a start in life and is common to all sentient beings. This is why it is felt to be one’s ‘Original Face’ – to use the Zen terminology – when one accesses it in religious/ spiritual/ mystical meditation practices and disciplines (including the ‘no-method’ practices and disciplines). This is the source of the ‘we are all one’ (‘oneness’), because ‘we’ are all the same-same blind instinctual self that stretches back beyond the dawn of human memory. It is a very, very ancient genetic memory ... but hoariness does not make it automatically wise, however, despite desperate belief to the contrary. Re: Emptiness JONATHAN: From what I can recall, Richard’s view of the buddha is not in the mainstream. As I understand it, the view that Gautama believed in a universal self is held by a significant minority of scholars. But the mainstream believes that Gautama and the bhagavad gita were on to two different points of views. Because Richard is with the minority, he doesn’t speak of emptiness ever. (I found a definition of it in the AFT and I found a page referencing Zen but I haven’t found anything on emptiness as the pragmatic dharma crowd speaks of it.) My question is. Is emptiness as the dho and kfd folks talk of it a feeling? When those folks speak of emptiness and r. speaks of Being with a captial B, are they talking of the same thing? (Message 162xx, 19 Jan 2014, Subject: Emptiness) RICHARD: G’day Jon, First and foremost, it is not [quote] ‘Richard’s *view* of the buddha’ [emphasis added] which you recall reading, on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website, as I make it unambiguously clear that I lived that/ was that, night and day for eleven years, which Mr. Gotama the Sakyan rediscovered whilst sitting under an assattha/ pippal tree (‘Ficus religiosa’) around two and a half millennia ago. Second, and also because Mr. Gotama the Sakyan lived that/ was that which he rediscovered, albeit night and day for 45 years, neither is it recorded anywhere canonical that [quote] ‘Gautama *believed* in a universal self’ [emphasis added] either. Third, what you are comparing his experiential state to, by referencing [quote] ‘the bhagavad gita’ [endquote], stems from the sublative ‘no-genesis’ vedantic doctrine (i.e., ajativada) which Mr. Gauda the anchorite recovered, at Gowda Desha circa the 6th century CE, from the Upanisads – principally the Mandukya, Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanisads – which was subsequently consolidated by Mr. Adi Sankara of Kaladi (nowadays called Kerala) and which serves to epitomise what is more generally referred to as Hinduism. Fourth, what you twice characterise as [quote] ‘the mainstream’ [endquote] is, given the context, presumably the *sectarian* Theravadin lineage, of a broader religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical tradition generally referred to as Buddhism (as contrasted to what is generally referred to as Hinduism), and, as such, is comprised of the many and various practitioners, commentators, translators, scholars/ pundits, and so on, who have successively contributed to and/or perpetuated the prevailing ‘ditthi’/ ‘drsti’ (i.e., ‘wrong view; theory, doctrine, system’) about what anatta/ anatma refers to – especially obvious as it is the word niratta/ niratma which means soulless (‘soullessness or unsubstantiality’) – for at least the last two millennia. (And I say ‘for at least the last two millennia’ advisedly because it is duly recorded, in Pali text in the Mahavamsa (abbrev. Mhv. or Mhvs.), that the last Sinhalese Arahant, Maliya Deva Thero, lived during the time of King Dutugamunu (101-77 BCE), a period which is something like 500 or so years before the reformist pundit Mr. Budhaghosa penned his highly influential ‘Vizuddhimagga’ and commentaries). * Now, I mention these four points because where you then say [quote] ‘Because Richard is with the minority’ [endquote] – after having just designated that ‘minority’ as being [quote] ‘a significant minority of *scholars*’ [emphasis added] – your conclusion that this is why [quote] ‘he doesn’t speak of emptiness ever’ [endquote] is thus a non sequitur ... and actually erroneous as well. For example (regarding ‘erroneous’) from the year 2000: • [Richard]: (...) when you use such a phrase as ‘the empty nature of ...’ it invokes the Buddhist understanding that the physical world, as seen through their ‘sense-doors’, is impermanent, lacking in substance, having no inherent existence ... whereas this actual world of direct sensate experiencing – this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – is already always here being substantial, enduring, and having nothing but inherent existence. • [Co-Respondent]: That simply means that for you, the state of emptiness is just an idea. • [Richard]: No, *I lived that ‘state of emptiness’ night and day for eleven years* ... I am well aware of what the physical world is seen as when seen through their ‘sense-doors’ (it is seen as impermanent, lacking in substance, having no inherent existence and so on). [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, 12i, 27 December 2000). Moreover, a computer search through all my publicly-available correspondence – freely available on-line 24/7 for anyone with internet access – for the word emptiness returned 118 hits. Similarly, the Sanskrit word sunyata (=the Pali sunnata, abstracted from sunna, and said to mean ‘emptiness, void, unsubstantiality’ and so on) returned 42 hits. For instance (from 1999): • [Co-Respondent]: Dualistic approach is effort to bring about a desired result of freedom for me. It starts with belief that I know what is and I know what I want, what should be, so I will work to get there. But that is like a fish trying to become water. Fish or form is the time aspect and water or emptiness is the timeless aspect. • [Richard]: (...). The word ‘emptiness’ as you use it is the Buddhist ‘Sunyata’ ... which is a ‘timeless and spaceless and formless absolute’. (Richard, List B, 12d, 1 July 1999). More specifically, though, I explain that the word empty usually means ‘without self’. Viz. (from 2001): • [Richard]: This is an intriguing translation ... usually ‘empty’ means without self (the self is not to be found in the material world) ... (Richard, List B, 12o, 14 November 2001). And again (also from 2001): • [Richard]: The religio-spiritual meaning of the word ‘emptiness’ is that the material world is empty of ‘self’. (Richard, List B, 12o, 21 November 2001). * Fifth, the reason why you did not find anything in my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website on [quote] ‘emptiness as the pragmatic dharma crowd speaks of it’ [endquote] is because what they speak of is the result of the presently-popular but controversial sukkhavipassaka practice (what is known colloquially as the ‘Dry Burmese Vipassana’, as in ‘Noting/ Mahasi Style’ and ‘Goenka Vipassana’, for instance) and which is more akin to the much-diluted modern-day ‘Neo-Advaita’ form of secularised/ westernised nondualism than anything else. I have written about my degree of interest in that practice on this very forum. Viz. (emphasis in the original): #12054 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:47:49 -0000 From: Richard Subject: Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism • [Richard]: [...snip...]. • [Respondent No. 32]: This is why I wish there can be a direct dialogue between you and some of the accomplished Buddhist teachers.. • [Richard]: I have no interest whatsoever in a dialogue with accomplished *sectarian* Buddhist teachers – and especially not any such teachers of sukkhavipassaka – as the buddhaghosavacana [‘the word/ teaching of Buddhaghosa’] is too far removed from the buddhavacana [‘the word/ teaching of Buddha’] for any meaningful discussion. [...]. (Richard, List D, No. 32, 21 December 2012). To explain: that sectarian ‘ditthi’/ ‘drsti’ (i.e., ‘wrong view; theory, doctrine, system’) already mentioned – institutionalised by all those unawakened/ unenlightened practitioners, commentators, translators, scholars/ pundits, and so on, as the anatta/ anatma doctrine – has reified (reify = ‘to consider an abstract concept to be real’) and/or hypostatised (hypostatise = ‘to construe as a real existence, of a conceptual entity’) an otherwise simple expression which essentially means what the English word devoid conveys (devoid = without, sans, free from, completely lacking or wanting in, bereft of, empty of, deficient in, denuded of, barren of; destitute or void of) into being an (affectively) subjective ‘thing-in-itself’, so to speak, as in some kind of a metaphysical ‘emptiness’ and/or a timeless-spaceless-formless ‘void’ beyond all reckoning. * Having attended to all the points in your preamble your question can now be addressed as-is. Viz.: • [Jonathan]: ‘My question is. Is emptiness as the dho and kfd folks talk of it a feeling?’ [endquote]. As all subjective experiences within the human condition – taking place as they do in the human psyche – are essentially affective/ pathematic in nature (including any psychic noumena) it is all-too-easy to just say their emptiness is ‘a feeling’. (Generally speaking, ‘a feeling’ is an emotion or a passion – love/ hate, anger/ amity, sadness/ gladness, and so on, for instance – whereas a reified/ hypostatised entity such as an ‘emptiness’ and/or a ‘void’ is more a product of the affective faculty’s imaginative/ hallucinatory facility). Besides which, even a genuine awakenment/ full enlightenment is essentially affective in nature. * Lastly, your query as to whether that ‘emptiness’ the pragmatic/ hardcore dharma folk speak of is the same thing as what I refer to when speaking of [quote] ‘Being with a captial B’ [endquote] can be answered quite simply: Nothing they speak of is the same thing as what I have to report/ describe/ explain, about those eleven years (1981-1992) of awakenment/ enlightenment, as none of them experientially know what it is to be awakened/ enlightened. (See my Footnote No. 2, for example, where I have deliberately gone into a particularly pertinent aspect of what constitutes awakenment/ enlightenment, in some detail, for this very purpose). This is all such fun! Regards, Richard. 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