|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 37
RESPONDENT: You say that there is no soul or self but just flesh and bones therefore no life after death. Therefore how do you explain Outer body experiences (OBE’s) and near death experiences where people report seeing events and their own physical bodies in Real Time. It would be impossible for a thought or a feeling (self) to experience an OBE. Happy days. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List ... I would explain OBE’s (out of body experiences) and NDE’s (near death experiences), where the identity residing inside the flesh and blood body locates itself outside the flesh and blood body, in the same way I explain altered states of consciousness (ASC’s) and any other paranormal, supernatural or suprasensory experiences ... they are all the product of identity, the psychological and psychic entity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body. Why do you say that it would be impossible for ‘a thought or a feeling (self)’ to experience an OBE?
RESPONDENT: You say that there is no soul or self but just flesh and bones therefore no life after death. Therefore how do you explain Outer body experiences (OBE’s) and near death experiences where people report seeing events and their own physical bodies in Real Time. It would be impossible for a thought or a feeling (self) to experience an OBE. Happy days. RICHARD: ... I would explain OBE’s (out of body experiences) and NDE’s (near death experiences), where the identity residing inside the flesh and blood body locates itself outside the flesh and blood body, in the same way I explain altered states of consciousness (ASC’s) and any other paranormal, supernatural or suprasensory experiences ... they are all the product of identity, the psychological and psychic entity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body. Why do you say that it would be impossible for ‘a thought or a feeling (self)’ to experience an OBE? RESPONDENT: To experience an OBE I would have to exist separate from the body then I could leave the body (OBE) and still function (think) while apart from the body which is what many people who OBE experience. RICHARD: Whereas all what does happen is that the identity locates itself outside of the body – there is no leaving of the body – which is not to deny that the experience of leaving the body is very realistic (more realistic than night-time dreaming). There is a simple way to test this for validity: typically the identity (seemingly) hovers above the body – up at the ceiling level say – meaning that it should be able to see what is on top of a tall cupboard, for example, where previously someone else has taped a piece of paper with words on it that only they know. There have been umpteen tests done apparently, of a more thorough nature than this simple example, with no conclusive results. Mr. Keith Augustine, for instance, has this to say:
Ms. Susan Blackmore, a former parapsychologist who has personally investigated the subject over thirty years, has published books and articles ... some of which articles are available on-line: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/ Her interest in the subject started when she had an OBE in 1970 whilst at Oxford University ... a fascinating account of which, written three days after the event, can be found here: http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=expom&id=00075&ss=1 It is well worth a read, if you can get access to it, as not only did she (seemingly) drift about at ceiling level but over the roof tops of the college as well and off to various places – the Mediterranean, Italy, Switzerland, France, New York, South America, through the planets of the solar system, the whole galaxy itself, many other galaxies, the limit of the universe, another dimension and finally a whole new set of dimensions – before the OBE was over. She was suspicious about various aspects of the experience though ... here is what she has to say, in part, towards the bottom of that web page:
Furthermore, 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.: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html In case you do not get to access that web page the most pertinent part is this:
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.: http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/rules.htm And the Australian Sceptics offer $100,000 ... Viz.: http://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. * RESPONDENT: My beef is – If one is not free from ego at the time one physically dies (99.9% population) doesn’t then the ego continue to exist apart from the body (as in an OBE) and experience life after death with all its ramifications (heaven, hell, reincarnation) until it too dies or dissolves. RICHARD: No ... as the identity is born of the instinctual passions, genetically endowed at conception by blind nature, then when the body dies the identity ceases to exist. There is nothing to beef about ... death is the end, finish. Kaput. RESPONDENT: Another question – Does the question ‘What am I thinking now?’ have the same effect as ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ It seems a more simpler question for me to digest. RICHARD: There is more to who ‘I’ am than thought, thoughts and thinking – much, much more – as the thinker (‘I’ as ego) is but the tip of the iceberg: identity runs deep ... deep into the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself). RESPONDENT: I live in Manly, Sydney NSW and would like to talk more on these things, do you have a phone number I could ring? As I am using the local library internet computer and don’t get much time to use it. Maybe I can come up there to visit one day? Anyway thanks. RICHARD: No, I currently live a very simple lifestyle and intend to keep it schedule-free ... I am retired and on a pension and instead of pottering around in the garden I am pottering around the internet as the whim takes me. Besides which, there is nothing to be gained by talking to me in person anyway – other than to verify there actually is a flesh and blood body that types these words – as everything has already been put into words many times over ... and it is the words that convey, be it spoken words, printed words, or words appearing as pixels on a monitor. Also, if actualism does appeal, I am sure you will solve your computer access problem somehow ... I know I would have had there been somebody else before me to read about.
RESPONDENT: To experience an OBE I would have to exist separate from the body then I could leave the body (OBE) and still function (think) while apart from the body which is what many people who OBE experience. RICHARD: Whereas all what does happen is that the identity locates itself outside of the body – there is no leaving of the body – which is not to deny that the experience of leaving the body is very realistic (more realistic than night-time dreaming). RESPONDENT: Thoughts and feelings (identity) are products of the body and therefore should exist only within that domain of the body (brain and nervous system). How then could ego dislodge itself from this framework (body) and locate it self outside of this cable wiring (body) unless it had its own power source that did not rely on the body for its existence. RICHARD: Maybe it is the word ‘locates’ which is not conveying what happens too well ... the word ‘orientates’ might serve better:
RESPONDENT: Also during sleep, the experience of falling just before you wake up (very common) – is that not the soul falling back into the body as you return from the astral (dream) to the physical body? RICHARD: No ... the sensation of falling is physiological event called either an hypnic jerk or a myoclonic jerk. * RESPONDENT: My beef is – If one is not free from ego at the time one physically dies (99.9% population) doesn’t then the ego continue to exist apart from the body (as in an OBE) and experience life after death with all its ramifications (heaven, hell, reincarnation) until it too dies or dissolves. RICHARD: No ... as the identity is born of the instinctual passions, genetically endowed at conception by blind nature, then when the body dies the identity ceases to exist. There is nothing to beef about ... death is the end, finish. Kaput. RESPONDENT: There is only two possible beliefs or scenarios regarding when the body dies. 1) There is yours in which self is non-existent, not knowing anything at all (includes saying ‘I told you so!’). Therefore creating a negative attitude of living a self indulgent life at everyone else’s expense, because once I’m dead I’ll be non-existent (non-accountable) anyway. Or: 2) Self continues its existence and is held accountable for its time and actions while on the earth. Thereby creating a positive attitude of living to help others. RICHARD: First of all you are repeating the straw man premise you started this thread with as I do not say that ‘self is non-existent’ at all ... and the very response of mine which you are commenting on clearly shows this where I say that ‘when the body dies the identity ceases to exist’. The only situation where the identity is non-existent before death is where one is actually free from the human condition ... then when the body dies all that happens is that the body dies (as there is no identity extant to die along with it). For such a person your belief or scenario about a ‘self indulgent life’ does not apply as, being sans ‘self’, it is impossible to be ‘self indulgent’ (or indeed any other ‘self’-centred thing you may come up with). If this issue is now cleared up satisfactorily the remainder of what you say can be addressed on its own merits: you seem to be sketching out what could be called a fairly typical religious belief that if the identity does not survive death such a person will live in an unsociable way ... whereas if the identity does survive death such a person will live in a sociable way. Yet this very sociability is a contrived sociableness based upon an after-death reward (obtained by fear of punishment) ... which is ‘self’-centred to the extreme as the god-fearing identity’s pseudo sociability is motivated by post-mortem consequences and not because of fellowship regard for other human beings. To put that another way: the ‘living to help others’ dictum turns fellow human beings into commodities to be used as a means to an end. * RESPONDENT: Another question – Does the question ‘What am I thinking now?’ have the same effect as ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ It seems a more simpler question for me to digest. RICHARD: There is more to who ‘I’ am than thought, thoughts and thinking – much, much more – as the thinker (‘I’ as ego) is but the tip of the iceberg: identity runs deep ... deep into the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself). RESPONDENT: But what comes first the thought or the feeling (chicken or the egg)? RICHARD: The hoary ‘chicken or the egg’ nonsense does not apply: laboratory investigation by people such as Mr. Joseph LeDoux demonstrate that the feelings are primary and the thoughts are secondary (the sensory signal takes 12-14 milliseconds to get to the affective faculty as compared to the 24-26 milliseconds it takes to get to the cognitive faculty). Furthermore, the affective faculty imbues the cognitive faculty with its affective response, via a broadband shortcut, about the same time the initial signal arrives there ... thus colouring the cognitive response affectively. RESPONDENT: For me it seems to be the thoughts then the feelings, I’m not sure. RICHARD: Of course a thought can trigger off feelings ... but feelings pre-exist (infants feel long before they think). RESPONDENT: Thought seem more real to me than feeling. Feeling seems to be just sustained thought. RICHARD: The laboratory investigations already mentioned show that there is a feed-back loop wherein not only can the affective faculty imbue the cognitive faculty with its affective response, via a broadband shortcut, but the cognitive faculty has an equivalent pathway back, albeit a narrowband path, whereupon the affectively-imbued thought can either intensify or dampen the affective response, which in turn feeds back and so on and so on ... which explains why it is difficult to calm down quickly after affective arousal. And hence your ‘sustained thought’ observation. RESPONDENT: How do I dive deep into the ego and explore, as it is hard to know if I am just swimming on the surface or swimming in the deep? RICHARD: Asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive will elicit the exquisite attention necessary of its own accord. RESPONDENT: Is simply being aware of the moment to moment thoughts enough to nullify thoughts strangle hold over me or do I have to analyse thought and back track it to the moment which started that train of thought? RICHARD: Any examination necessary will happen of its own accord, each moment again, if that is what is required to get back to feeling as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible. This is because the main point of asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is to be happy and harmless as an on-going experiencing ... and if one is not being happy and harmless then one has something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt happy and harmless, and now? For example: when did ‘I’ feel happy and harmless last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous feelings? Ah ... yes: ‘He said that and ...’. Or: ‘She didn’t do this and I ...’. Or: ‘What I wanted was ...’. Or: ‘I didn’t do ...’. And so on and so on ... one does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most. And thus one is back to being happy and harmless again and, as felicitous and innocuous feelings means felicitous and innocuous thoughts, it is a joy and a delight to think them ... plus it makes it much easier to suss out how one habitually strays off the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom when one is not glum and grumpy. RESPONDENT: Should one stir up the mind (eg. sex, drugs, television) so one can observe the instincts more quicker thereby learning about how self works ... RICHARD: No, not at all ... actualism is all about enjoying and appreciating being here, each moment again, as this flesh and blood body: the normal events in one’s everyday life will soon enough bring up whatever needs to be looked at as they happen. Anything other than feeling felicitous/ innocuous is a flashing red light, as it were, signalling that something is amiss. RESPONDENT: ... or is it better to be celibate (preserve semen) and ‘live in a box’ type thing and watch mind from that angle. RICHARD: It makes no difference whether one is sexually active or not – just as it makes no difference whether one withholds orgasm or not – and the ‘preserve semen’ ancient wisdom belongs to spirituality. And, as a suggestion only, stop watching the mind ... that also belongs to spirituality and has the effect of creating the watcher (a semi-dissociated god-in-the-making). RESPONDENT: What would be quicker in getting to Actual Freedom? RICHARD: As you will have noticed ... neither. RESPONDENT: I am currently trying to be celibate by not masturbating (preserving semen) which is helping me to have energy for contemplation and also steadies the mind so that your not thinking a lot of thoughts at once. But I seem to swing like a pendulum when I eventually do masturbate. And since I have only recently discovered the Actual Freedom method while living on one side of the pendulum (celibate, no TV, no drugs) I am just curious as to know what it will be like if and when I swing back to the other side of the pendulum. I suppose you might tell me what buddha said and ‘take the middle path’ even though you bag him a lot. RICHARD: No, I will not be telling you anything, actually ... the lifestyle you live is completely up to you. But I will say this much: Buddhism is for the Buddhists ... and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s ‘middle path’ has nothing to do with the third alternative whatsoever. And I ‘bag him’ because he clearly did not like being on this fair planet we all live on and proposed an after-death peace instead of enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth into being apparent ... thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides have continued on unabated in the 2,500 years since he had the chance to become actually free of the human condition. Same as any other enlightened being ... they all had the opportunity just as I did. * RESPONDENT: I live in Manly, Sydney NSW and would like to talk more on these things, do you have a phone number I could ring? As I am using the local library internet computer and don’t get much time to use it. Maybe I can come up there to visit one day? Anyway thanks. RICHARD: No, I currently live a very simple lifestyle and intend to keep it schedule-free ... I am retired and on a pension and instead of pottering around in the garden I am pottering around the internet as the whim takes me. Besides which, there is nothing to be gained by talking to me in person anyway – other than to verify there actually is a flesh and blood body that types these words – as everything has already been put into words many times over ... and it is the words that convey, be it spoken words, printed words, or words appearing as pixels on a monitor. RESPONDENT: I have always wanted to see how a egoless body acts and responds in person as I have read all the hype about it, that’s all. RICHARD: As I am not one of those persons you have ‘read all the hype about’ – awakened or enlightened people – then you would not find what you are looking for here. An actual freedom is where both ego and soul no longer exist ... and thus no imaginary after-death realms. RESPONDENT: I am 30 years old, work rotating night shift as a security officer and have always being a deep thinker (not good) which has drawn me to the ‘spiritual life’. RICHARD: Why is it ‘not good’ to be a deep thinker? Thought, thoughts and thinking are what
sets the human animal apart from the other animals. And now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare,
evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal the blind survival passions are
no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence No other animal can do this. RESPONDENT: I am single and have never had a long term girlfriend and had a troubled upbringing. RICHARD: Okay ... it makes no difference whether one is single or not and, although this may sound dismissive, everyone had a troubled upbringing. Some more so than others, of course. RESPONDENT: Anyway thanks for your input. RICHARD: You are welcome ... perhaps this link will be of assistance: It may answer any further queries arising out of this e-mail.
RESPONDENT: When asking myself ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ what should I observe? Thought – there is approximately one thought rising every second – 80,000 seconds in a day equals 80,000 thoughts a day. Therefore every time I ask ‘how am I experiencing this moment’ answer should 99% of time be ‘I am thinking something’. RICHARD: Although ‘approximately one thought rising every second’ may sound like a lot when multiplied by 80,000 it pales into insignificance compared with sensation ... I recall reading an article many years ago that somewhere in the vicinity of 150,000 sensations happen every second. But I will leave it to you to do the maths. RESPONDENT: Feelings – There are countless sensations going on though out the body at any one time, some are more intense than others. RICHARD: Do you find it illuminating that, although you acknowledged the preponderance of sensation, your ‘approximately one thought rising every second’ observation took precedence over your ‘countless sensations at any one time’ observation when coming to your ‘99% of time’ conclusion about thinking? RESPONDENT: Emotion – what is emotion? RICHARD: Basically it is an instinctual survival package (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) genetically endowed at conception ... there are many cultivated derivations, of course, refined over the years by socialisation. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it just a intense thought? RICHARD: No ... infants feel long before they think. RESPONDENT: Should I just observe all of the above like the buddha said? RICHARD: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s advice was to dissociate from all of the above ... Viz.:
In other words: a total withdrawal from the physical world and the physical body ... a dissociation based upon Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s vision that all existence is ‘dukkha’ because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence in the first place. He clearly indicates that life as this flesh and blood body, on this verdant and azure planet, in this immeasurably vast universe, is the pits ... the only cure for which is to be ‘freed, dissociated, and released’ from it all and scarper off to the place where the sun don’t shine (‘amata’). Viz.:
In short, it is a realm that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system). Yet all the while there is an unimaginable and inconceivable purity and perfection right here at this place in infinite space just now at this moment in eternal time – the actual is magnificent beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and schemes – and this moment and this place is an ever-present ‘jumping-in’ point, as it were. Then one finds oneself walking through this actual world of veritable delight – the sensate world – where this ambrosial paradise called planet earth, with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity, is flourishing in a truly wondrous way. Every thing and every body has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, scintillating vitality that makes it all vivid and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the actualness of every thing and every body. The whole point of asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is to find out what is preventing this already always existing peace-on-earth from being apparent ... and, going by what you have written so far, I would hazard a guess that for you, at this stage, it is none other than Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s anti-life teachings. ‘Tis only a guess, though.
RESPONDENT: Also during sleep, the experience of falling just before you wake up (very common) – is that not the soul falling back into the body as you return from the astral (dream) to the physical body? RICHARD: No ... the sensation of falling is physiological event called either an hypnic jerk or a myoclonic jerk. RESPONDENT: However its explained it still feels like I’m falling backwards and then I wake up. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my response:
And just in case one is lying face down when the sensation of falling occurs:
* RESPONDENT: There is only two possible beliefs or scenarios regarding when the body dies. 1) There is yours in which self is non-existent, not knowing anything at all (includes saying ‘I told you so!’). Therefore creating a negative attitude of living a self indulgent life at everyone else’s expense, because once I’m dead I’ll be non-existent (non-accountable) anyway. Or: 2) Self continues its existence and is held accountable for its time and actions while on the earth. Thereby creating a positive attitude of living to help others. RICHARD: First of all you are repeating the straw man premise you started this thread with as I do not say that ‘self is non-existent’ at all ... and the very response of mine which you are commenting on clearly shows this where I say that ‘when the body dies the identity ceases to exist’. The only situation where the identity is non-existent before death is where one is actually free from the human condition ... then when the body dies all that happens is that the body dies (as there is no identity extant to die along with it). For such a person your belief or scenario about a ‘self indulgent life’ does not apply as, being sans ‘self’, it is impossible to be ‘self indulgent’ (or indeed any other ‘self’-centred thing you may come up with). If this issue is now cleared up satisfactorily the remainder of what you say can be addressed on its own merits: you seem to be sketching out what could be called a fairly typical religious belief that if the identity does not survive death such a person will live in an unsociable way ... whereas if the identity does survive death such a person will live in a sociable way. Yet this very sociability is a contrived sociableness based upon an after-death reward (obtained by fear of punishment) ... which is ‘self’-centred to the extreme as the god-fearing identity’s pseudo sociability is motivated by post-mortem consequences and not because of fellowship regard for other human beings. To put that another way: the ‘living to help others’ dictum turns fellow human beings into commodities to be used as a means to an end. RESPONDENT: If the ego is still there you will always live self-centred no matter what. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to spell it out in full (instead of using the word ‘self’ as I did above): as the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is not extant in this flesh and blood body it is impossible to live either in an ego-centred way or in a soul-centred way. RESPONDENT: As you haven’t died physically yet, you cannot know what actually happens once you die until you die. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... as there is no longer an identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) inhabiting this body then when this body dies it is patently obvious that all what will happen is that this body will die. Thus I can know what actually happens without having to die to find out. RESPONDENT: So your belief that its the end – (ego ends) is based on belief but not on actual experience so I wouldn’t go pushing that belief. RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in following your line of reasoning ... as the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) has already ended how can you then say that I have a belief that when this body dies the ego will end? Incidentally I am not asking you, or anybody else for that matter, to go pushing anything. RESPONDENT: You say its self centred to live that way but even though you claim no self you still live self centred (feeding and looking after your self). RICHARD: No, looking after oneself is to be self-reliant, or self-sufficient ... ‘tis only when one has others looking after oneself that one is self-centred (or self-indulgent, as you called it, further above). Which brings up a very relevant point: as the ‘living to help others’ doctrine is dependant upon there being a steady supply of peoples who are not ‘creating a positive attitude of living to help others’ it rather begs the question as to how the god-fearing identity will get to earn its post-mortem reward if every single identity were to become a god-fearing identity creating a (‘self’-centred) positive attitude of living to help others ... does it not? To put that another way: to be a giver there has to be a taker ... and when the supply of takers runs out there will be 6.0 billion givers milling about getting more and more desperate by the hour as death comes closer and closer: ‘Here, let me help you’, says a god-fearing identity, ‘for I am creating a (‘self’-centred) positive attitude of living to help others so as to earn my post-mortem reward’. ‘No, let me help you’, says the other god-fearing identity, ‘for I am creating a (‘self’-centred) positive attitude of living to help others so as to earn my post-mortem reward’ ... and so on through all six billion other god-fearing identities. A salvation which is dependant upon sinners is a sick salvation. * RESPONDENT: I am 30 years old, work rotating night shift as a security officer and have always being a deep thinker (not good) which has drawn me to the ‘spiritual life’. RICHARD: Why is it ‘not good’ to be a deep thinker? Thought, thoughts and thinking are what sets the human animal apart from the other animals. And now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal the blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation). No other animal can do this. RESPONDENT: Mental hospitals are full of deep thinkers. RICHARD: As this implies that the way to stay out of psychiatric institutions is to be a shallow thinker perhaps you may care to reconsider your response? RESPONDENT: Animals experience more happiness that humans because they don’t think (worry) and we do. RICHARD: As ‘worry’ is a feeling – be it an anxious feeling, an apprehensive feeling, a fretful feeling, a nervous feeling and so on – I would suggest looking deeper than thought, thoughts and thinking before coming to a conclusion. And, as animals can be anxious, apprehensive, fretful, nervous and so on, it is highly questionable whether they are more happy than the human animal. But whether they are more happy or not is besides the point anyway: the point being that only the human animal has the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons ... thus only the human animal can dispense with the blind survival passions. Then one is not only constantly happy but constantly harmless as well.
RESPONDENT: Is there a soul that lives on after death of body? RICHARD: No ... physical death is the end, finish. Kaput.
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 living/to being alive/to existing 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 for the remainder of one’s life. Concomitant to the total demise of that entity all that which you ask about (further above), including the etcetera, 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: 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.: 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:
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: 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: ... it is identity which generates all that which you ask about ... and concomitant to the total demise of that entity all that [which you ask about] also ceases to exist. As does all gods/goddesses (by whatever name). RESPONDENT: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc., claim there is a ‘soul’ that continues after death and that there is an afterlife. RICHARD: As there is no such entity in actuality their claims are not worth the parchment, palm leaf, paper, etcetera, they were written upon. RESPONDENT: Who are we to believe, them or you. RICHARD: Well, not me, that is for sure. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: What you are in effect saying is that the Bible, Koran, Gita, Jesus, are all wrong and you are right and that this physical world is just an accident with no meaning. RICHARD: Where have I ever said, in effect or otherwise, that this physical world is just an accident with no meaning? And before you respond I would suggest copy-pasting the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice:p> meaning of life site:www.actualfreedom.com.au Then left-click ‘search’ ... you should get about 4,310 hits.
RESPONDENT: Is there a soul that lives on after death of body? RICHARD: No ... physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. (...) RESPONDENT: Maybe an individual soul doesn’t actually exist in the end ... RICHARD: No soul, whether individual or universal, exists in actuality, period ... I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: ... [Maybe an individual soul doesn’t actually exist in the end] but while this dream world continues in this world and the next, the awareness that believes it is an individual soul will continue to experience itself as such ... RICHARD: As there is no [quote] ‘the next’ [endquote] world – there is nothing other than this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – the awareness you say believes it is an individual soul will *not* continue to to experience itself as such after physical death. RESPONDENT: ... [the awareness that believes it is an individual soul will continue to experience itself as such] and no amount of actual head knowledge about no-self will stop a person experiencing this dream as a individual in this world or the next. RICHARD: As the term [quote] ‘no-self’ [endquote] is a spiritual term then what it refers to – an egoless state of being (supposedly) immune to death – has no existence in actuality. Incidentally, to preach buddhistic homilies on this mailing list is to but fritter away a vital opportunity. RESPONDENT: There is no death in this world ... RICHARD: Au contraire: physical death is the end, finish ... kaput. RESPONDENT: ... [There is no death in this world] only transformation just as the body dies but still remains and exists in a different form so too the awareness is transformed but still remains in this dream. RICHARD: As the word awareness refers to a flesh and blood body being aware (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) then when the body dies its ability to be aware ceases.
RESPONDENT: Is there a soul that lives on after death of body? RICHARD: No ... physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. (...) RESPONDENT: Maybe an individual soul doesn’t actually exist in the end ... RICHARD: No soul, whether individual or universal, exists in actuality, period ... I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: ... [Maybe an individual soul doesn’t actually exist in the end] but while this dream world continues in this world and the next, the awareness that believes it is an individual soul will continue to experience itself as such ... RICHARD: As there is no [quote] ‘the next’ [endquote] world – there is nothing other than this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – the awareness you say believes it is an individual soul will *not* continue to experience itself as such after physical death. RESPONDENT: Millions of people who have had NDE and astral projection would beg to differ as they have experienced life beyond the physical body. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following (posted only eight days ago):
Am I to take it that you did not access that link (else why write what you wrote above)? * RESPONDENT: ... [the awareness that believes it is an individual soul will continue to experience itself as such] and no amount of actual head knowledge about no-self will stop a person experiencing this dream as a individual in this world or the next. RICHARD: As the term [quote] ‘no-self’ [endquote] is a spiritual term then what it refers to – an egoless state of being (supposedly) immune to death – has no existence in actuality. Incidentally, to preach buddhistic homilies on this mailing list is to but fritter away a vital opportunity. RESPONDENT: Well something intelligent exists isn’t it obvious to you. RICHARD: That which the spiritual term ‘no-self’ refers to does not exist here in this actual world (let alone be intelligent). RESPONDENT: What’s wrong with calling it ‘being’ soul’ ‘I am’. RICHARD: There is nothing wrong with calling it ‘being’ or ‘soul’ or ‘I am’. RESPONDENT: And what is this vital opportunity that I am missing out on? RICHARD: This one of course (from the Topica ‘List Info’ page):
* RESPONDENT: There is no death in this world ... RICHARD: Au contraire: physical death is the end, finish ... kaput. RESPONDENT: Physical death is not death but transformation. RICHARD: There is no transformation of the awareness you referred to – the awareness that you say believes it is an individual soul – at physical death as the body’s ability to be aware ceases when it dies. RESPONDENT: Transformation is a more accurate word to use as energy cannot disappear, end, finish ... kaput. RICHARD: I never said that energy [quote] ‘disappears, ends, finishes ... kaput’ [endquote] ... I was clearly referring to the cessation of the body’s ability to be aware. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: How do you explain auras – to me it is a soul or a spirit. RICHARD: The same way I explained [quote] ‘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.’ [endquote] to you eight days ago, on Saturday 6/08/2005 AEST And, as identity is born of the instinctual passions (genetically endowed at conception by blind nature as a rough and ready survival package), upon the cessation of all affections when the body dies so too does any identity formed thereof also cease. RESPONDENT: In the book – Power of Now written by Eckhart Tolle he says the key is to be in CONSTANT contact with the inner body (i.e. sensation of body) and that will rapidly transform your consciousness. RICHARD: A search of the entire book for ‘constant contact with the inner body’ returned no hits at all; a search for ‘constant contact’ similarly returned nil hits; a search for ‘conscious contact’, however, found this (on page 99):
As to what he means by [quote] ‘your inner body’ [endquote] there is this (on page 92):
Needless is it to add that a search for ‘sensation of body’ returned nil hits? RESPONDENT: Do you agree with him. RICHARD: As the full title of that book is ‘The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment’ it must be patently obvious from the very beginning that what he has to say has nothing whatsoever to do with what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... perhaps this extract, from page two, will make it crystal-clear:
RESPONDENT: You emphasise ‘flesh and blood bodies’ a lot ... RICHARD: Aye ... whereas Mr. Eckhart Tolle clearly says your true nature is [quote] ‘beyond name and *form*’ [emphasis added] in the above quote and that you are [quote] ‘beyond the outer *form*’ [emphasis added] further above. RESPONDENT: ... and your question HAIETMOBA points to being aware of the millions of electrical impulses firing through out the body at any moment. So is that all that is needed – to be permanently in touch with physical sensation of the body while living life ... so the catch phrase would be ‘Don’t think. FEEL!!! RICHARD: I see that I posted the following only 10 days ago:
The question is: did you see it?
RESPONDENT: How do you explain auras – to me it is a soul or a spirit. RICHARD: The same way I explained [quote] ‘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.’ [endquote] to you eight days ago, on Saturday 6/08/2005 AEST RESPONDENT: So auras are not real? RICHARD: In the same way that no soul, or spirit, exists in actuality no aura does either. RESPONDENT: Even though kiritilin photography can observe it. RICHARD: What is popularly known as ‘Kirlian Photography’ does not record auras of a soul or a spirit. RESPONDENT: Just a product of ego? RICHARD: If you were to cast your eyes upward you will see I specifically said [quote] ‘of identity’ [endquote] ... just as I did on the first occasion, thirty-four months ago, that you asked these same or similar questions. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Umm not very convincing argument ... cameras don’t lie ... RICHARD: If you are still referring to what is popularly known as ‘Kirlian Photography’ I would suggest doing some research before making a statement such as that (it being a non-camera process where a high-voltage/high-frequency electrical discharge is applied across a grounded object on a photographic plate, film, or paper). RESPONDENT: ... and cameras don’t have ego either. RICHARD: Neither do the mechanical objects, such as coins or paper clips, that have yielded a ‘Kirlian Aura’, either. (...) RESPONDENT: You emphasise ‘flesh and blood bodies’ a lot ... RICHARD: Aye ... whereas Mr. Eckhart Tolle clearly says your true nature is [quote] ‘beyond name and *form*’ [emphasis added] in the above quote and that you are [quote] ‘beyond the outer *form*’ [emphasis added] further above. RESPONDENT: ... and your question HAIETMOBA points to being aware of the millions of electrical impulses firing through out the body at any moment. So is that all that is needed – to be permanently in touch with physical sensation of the body while living life ... so the catch phrase would be ‘Don’t think. FEEL!!! RICHARD: I see that I posted the following only 10 days ago: [Co-Respondent]: ‘To me it seems contradicting to use (and believe) thought to stop believing in thoughts. [Richard]: ‘Put simplistically (for maximum effect): the actualism method is about using thought to examine feelings’. [endquote]. The question is: did you see it? RESPONDENT: No I didn’t see the above post ... so you use thinking to examine thinking? RICHARD: I do not use the actualism method ... never have and never will (it was the identity in residence all those years ago who did). RESPONDENT: You use the word ‘feelings’ but isn’t it more accurate to say ‘thinking’ as anger, sadness, etc. RICHARD: No, anger and sadness are emotions/passions (aka affective feelings). RESPONDENT: i.e. ‘feelings’ are actually thoughts i.e. ‘no one likes me’ ‘I am alone’ etc. RICHARD: The thought ‘no one likes me’ is not the (affective) feeling of being collectively disliked; the thought ‘I am alone’ is not the (affective) feeling of aloneness. RESPONDENT: There are sensations behind thought i.e. tightness, heaviness, sinking feeling, I give you that but the problem to be examined is the thought which creates the tightness (unhappy) feeling. RICHARD: Have you never been frightened by a sudden and unexpected loud noise (for example) before you
could think? Are you not aware that the freeze-fight-flee instinctual reaction is also observable in other animals than the human
animal? Have you not read about the laboratory tests demonstrating that feelings come before thoughts in the perceptive process Moreover, as all animals are born with instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, are you suggesting they can think? RESPONDENT: So you use a thought to judge another thought ... nothing new ... everyone does it. RICHARD: This is just a waste of a sentence.
RESPONDENT: How do you explain auras – to me it is a soul or a spirit. RICHARD: The same way I explained [quote] ‘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.’ [endquote] to you eight days ago, on Saturday 6/08/2005 AEST, and the same way I explained [quote] ‘Outer body experiences (OBE’s) and near death experiences’ [endquote] to you, thirty-four months ago, on Thursday 24/10/2002 AEST ... it is identity which generates same/they are all the product of identity. RESPONDENT: So auras are not real? RICHARD: In the same way that no soul, or spirit, exists in actuality no aura does either. RESPONDENT: How about clairvoyants, they can see brightly coloured auras around people which change colours depending on the mood of the person and actually have a dynamic interaction with another’s aura when conversing. RICHARD: In the same way that no soul, or spirit, exists in actuality none of its moods do either (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). RESPONDENT: Are you saying that what these clairvoyants see is just the imagination of the identity? RICHARD: No. * RICHARD: I do not use the actualism method ... never have and never will (it was the identity in residence all those years ago who did). RESPONDENT: Then who was it that just made the above statement? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body wrote the above words. RESPONDENT: Who is this ‘I’ you are referring to if is not the identity which has left the ‘building’ ‘all those years ago’. RICHARD: The first person pronoun is used to refer to this flesh and blood body for both the sake of convenience and to avoid being unduly pedantic ... the above sentence, for example, would look like this otherwise:
RESPONDENT: It can only be identity as without it you could not have even made that statement. RICHARD: Ha ... this flesh and blood body will draw your attention to what this flesh and blood body wrote to you in the second e-mail, of this thread, which this flesh and blood body posted only nine days before you sent this one:
* RESPONDENT: You use the word ‘feelings’ but isn’t it more accurate to say ‘thinking’ as anger, sadness, etc. RICHARD: No, anger and sadness are emotions/passions (aka affective feelings). RESPONDENT: i.e. ‘feelings’ are actually thoughts i.e. ‘no one likes me’ ‘I am alone’ etc. RICHARD: The thought ‘no one likes me’ is not the (affective) feeling of being collectively disliked; the thought ‘I am alone’ is not the (affective) feeling of aloneness. RESPONDENT: There are sensations behind thought i.e. tightness, heaviness, sinking feeling, I give you that but the problem to be examined is the thought which creates the tightness (unhappy) feeling. RICHARD: Have you never been frightened by a sudden and unexpected loud noise (for example) before you could think? Are you not aware that the freeze-fight-flee instinctual reaction is also observable in other animals than the human animal? Have you not read about the laboratory tests demonstrating that feelings come before thoughts in the perceptive process? Has it not occurred to you that a baby is born with (affective) feelings ... which is well before thinking begins? Moreover, as all animals are born with instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, are you suggesting they can think? RESPONDENT: Of course animals can think, they have a brain don’t they? They have a memory don’t they? If they have a brain then they have memory and if they have memory then they will have thoughts. One follows the other as a thought is just a memory inside the brain. RICHARD: Just for starters ... if, as you say, animals can think – that they can conceive in, or exercise the mind with, or form, or have in the mind, an hypothesis, a theory, a supposition, a plan, a design, a notion, an idea, or can conceive of mentally as in meditate on, turn over in the mind, ponder, contemplate, deliberate or reflect on and come to the understanding in a positive active way and form connected objectives or otherwise have the capacity to cogitate and conjecture and choose mentally (as in form a clear mental impression of something actual) – then how is it that when a famine or drought occurs they languish and/or die just as plants do? RESPONDENT: Anyway you say that feelings come before thought and we should examine feelings – easy said than done – what is a feeling then? RICHARD: An emotion and/or a passion ... none of which exist in actuality (hence no moods, or auras, or souls/spirits do either). RESPONDENT: To me a feeling is a physical vibration or ripple inside the body. RICHARD: There are no (affective) vibrations or ripples inside this flesh and blood body ... it is all so clean, clear, and pure, here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: What is your definition of an ‘affective feeling’? RICHARD: An affective feeling is any one of the affections – the emotions and/or the passions – none of which are actual (hence no identity is either). RESPONDENT: Some say emotion is a feeling e.g. hot sensation in head combined with a thought e.g. – ‘I look stupid’ but there are two things that make up emotion – thought and sensation in body. RICHARD: Again, have you never been frightened by a sudden and unexpected loud noise (for example) before you could think? Furthermore, are you not aware that the freeze-fight-flee instinctual reaction is also observable in other animals than the human animal? Moreover, have you not read about the laboratory tests demonstrating that feelings come before thoughts in
the perceptive process Even more to the point, has it not occurred to you that a baby is born with (affective) feelings ... which is well before thinking begins? RESPONDENT: Now if we break this down it shows the thought ‘I look stupid’ comes first or at least the same time as hot sensation, it goes hand in hand, it cant be one without the other. RICHARD: Are you so sure, upon breaking it down, that the thought of looking stupid (of being as if a fool for instance) always comes before, or simultaneous to, the feeling of stupidity (of feeling foolish for example) ... that there is no occasion whatsoever where the feeling induces the thought? RESPONDENT: How are we to approach this examining of ‘affective feelings’ – be conscious of the thought then be conscious of the feeling? RICHARD: Here is the essence of the way I have previously explained how asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive), until it becomes a non-verbal attitude/a wordless approach to life, works in practice:
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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 |
