On The Actual Freedom Mailing List
with Correspondent No. 44
RESPONDENT: Richard, thanks for answering. I don’t use to keep archives of my emails. I delete them after reading them and answered them. So I can not paste and copy, I am answering from memory.
RICHARD: You will find all the e-mails you have posted to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list in the public archives at the following URL: http://www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read
Speaking personally I find re-reading the original far more accurate than memory (hence copy and paste).
RICHARD: I live in the infinitude of this fairy-tale-like actual world, with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity, where everything and everyone has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the actualness of everything and everyone. We do not live in an inert universe.
RESPONDENT: So after the change took place in your brain, you are experiencing another world. Or if you like the world in a different way. Not necessarily everybody else is experiencing it this way. So the difference between before the change and now, is due to your brain. If was possible to reverse the process then you should be like before. That means that your brain is creating your world.
RICHARD: This is the information I have suppled to you:
Yet what is your response to these three clear and unambiguous replies? Vis.:
You even asked if I could explain what happened scientifically so I referred you to two areas of the brain-stem I had gleaned some information about from an ad hoc reading of scientific texts:
Why you choose to ignore what I have to report I cannot know, of course, yet it may very well be that the reason why lies at the end of your paragraph (above) where, after three assumptions, a preliminary judgement, and a speculation, your final conclusion is to be found:
As this is the theme you have been running all through these e-mail exchanges it may help to put it this way: when the identity expired, in toto, ‘his’ world (the reality ‘he’ pasted as a veneer over this actual world) also ceased to exist ... there is no ‘your world’ in actuality.
There is only this actual world – 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 – and any other ‘world’ is an illusion or a delusion ... a mirage, as it were.
And palaeontology, for example, evidences that this actual world was here long before humans came onto the scene to claim it for their own.
RESPONDENT: When in a recent email I was trying to explain that the brain is co-creator of the world, and I was using the example of looking at a tree, you seemed you did no wanted to understand.
RICHARD: If you were to re-read that exchange (at the above URL for example) you will see that I do understand what you were trying to explain ... just because I do not agree with what you say does not mean that I do not understand what you are saying.
I even provided practical reasons why what you were saying was invalid – which you have chosen to ignore also – and they show that I understand.
RESPONDENT: You had also called me the maximum of egocentricity.
RICHARD: No, I specifically said that what you were saying was ‘self-centred’ ... and for a very good reason. Vis.:
Here is what I mean by the word solipsism:
The ego, or ego-self, is only one half of identity (the other half being the soul/spirit or soul-self/spirit-self) and it takes far more than ‘egocentricity’ to be solipsistic as soul-centricity is a vital component of such ‘self’-aggrandisement ... it being just a hop, skip, and a jump away from the full-blown ‘I am God’ delusion.
RESPONDENT: So your above statement proves that everybody’s brains is forming the world that it experiences.
RICHARD: It does nothing of the kind ... the ‘above statement’ you are referring to is expressive prose (such as ‘fairy-tale-like’ for instance) deliberately designed to convey the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. Vis.:
The actualism writings on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism – are an invitation for the reader to directly experience for themself that they do not live in an inert universe.
Put succinctly: it is experiential.
RESPONDENT: For the moment I will go further to the end of your email, and after I will return. Please pay attention.
RICHARD: If I may point out? I have been paying attention all along – I respond to each and every one of the points you raise (to the extent of interjecting halfway through some of your sentences) – the question is: have you?
RESPONDENT: First I should like to ask you why you are breaking a question and you don’t copy and paste it in its integrity. And then to answer it.
RICHARD: Just for starters ... if the premise in first part of a sentence is invalid then the conclusion in the second half is bound to be incorrect and, as a person asks their queries from their (incorrect) conclusions, based upon their (invalid) premises, then for the sake of clarity in communication I usually set the record straight right from the start.
Also, you may find the following exchange helpful:
Perhaps if I were to put it into words you might relate to: I pay attention to what it is you have to say.
RESPONDENT: Here I am obliged to copy my whole question in its integrity. [Respondent]: ‘And to end, I should like to say what I think is happening. I think that the sense of existence, is common to all humankind. After with the different conditionings and identities, we think we are separate human beings. Right now my sense of existence is exactly the same with yours and everybody’s else. May be now I am swimming and you have headache. But the sense of existence without the identities is the same EXACTLY. [endquote]. Your answer in the last part of the question is: [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... without the parasitical identity within the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, would be very similar (if not exactly the same). [endquote]. I had mention in my question WITHOUT THE IDENTITIES. You agreed with the above statement and you added also IF NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. As I had also stated with capital letters EXACTLY. Take that answer of yours under consideration. Now I am going again in the top of your email: [Respondent]: ‘In the moment you speak about oblivion after death ...’. [Richard]: ‘First and foremost: I report the identity in toto going into blessed oblivion whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive. Second, with no identity in situ it is patently obvious that there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. Third, hence there was, similarly, nothing which predated birth. Lastly, physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again. In other words, physical death is the end, finish’. [Respondent]: ‘... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive’. [Richard]: ‘No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not’. [Respondent]: ‘You are in a state of existence’. [Richard]: ‘I exist as a flesh and blood body, in time and space, being apperceptively aware’. [endquotes]. Can you see your big contradiction here? You stated before that if the identities end then the feeling of existence is EXACTLY THE SAME for all human beings. You accepted now that the identity for you went in oblivion while the body is still alive. Then you say that the death of the body is the end, finish. What about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE if there is no identity? That’s why I said that I exist in every baby. If you say that with the death of the body is the end of the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE then you are again in contradiction, because that should mean that now you, without identity, are in separation of the other human EXISTENCE. So the body dies but what about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE that you agreed before?
RICHARD: I have not only left your ‘whole question in its integrity’ intact but also the entire section ... now may I respond to the points you raise and the assumptions you make on the way through? Vis.:
The reason why I responded to the first sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was that there is a vast difference between the sensitive (sensate) sense of existing and the affective (intuitive) sense of existence ... which is why I provided the following explanation:
In the jargon: you are talking about chalk and I am talking about cheese. Here is the second sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:
The reason why I responded to the second sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was that, as you have bought Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s insight that society and its conditioning is to blame, you were pointing the finger at thought thinking the ego-self is separate and not feelings feeling the soul-self/spirit-self which the ego, or ego-self is born out of, is separate by its very nature.
In the jargon: you are talking about apples and I am talking about oranges. Here is the first half of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:
The reason why I responded to the first half of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it should be patently obvious if (note ‘if’) you had actually paid attention my responses to you ... as exemplified by this exchange:
I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Here is the second part of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:
The reason why I responded to the second half of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was because it is one thing to make a blanket statement (such as ‘right now my sense of existence is exactly the same with yours and everybody’s else’ for example) and quite another to back it up with something substantial ... therefore, if you could provide the evidence that you and everyone else are also sans the intuitive, or instinctive, and thus affective, not sensitive, ‘sense of existence’ you are referring to I would be most chuffed.
Either that or cease making such outlandish claims. Here is the fourth sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:
The reason why I responded to the fourth sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was to re-emphasise what I had already explained further above ... to wit: the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, sans identity. This is your response to this sentence of mine in this e-mail:
Would it not serve your understanding better if you were to take my answer under consideration instead of telling me to? I only ask because if you had not ignored my point-by-point responses in your haste to tell me that you are ‘obliged to copy my whole question in its integrity’ you would have seen that I was not agreeing with you at all but restating what I had said further above:
There are two parts to the identity: the thinking-self and the feeling-self ... and by ‘feeling’ I am meaning the affective feelings (the emotional, passional, and calentural feelings) and not the sensitive feelings (the sensorial, sensual, and sensuous feelings).
In the perceptive process the sensations are primary, the affections are secondary, and the cognitions are tertiary: you are ignoring what is primary and cogitating about what is secondary ... you are theorising about what it would be like without the identity, for example, without taking into account that the identity’s affectively felt experience of existing – the ‘feeling of existence’ you speak of – is also non-existent in actuality.
Again: actualism is experiential, not theoretical.
RESPONDENT: Now I am going again in the top of your email: [Respondent]: ‘In the moment you speak about oblivion after death ...’. [Richard]: ‘First and foremost: I report the identity in toto going into blessed oblivion whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive. Second, with no identity in situ it is patently obvious that there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. Third, hence there was, similarly, nothing which predated birth. Lastly, physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again. In other words, physical death is the end, finish’. [Respondent]: ‘... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive’. [Richard]: ‘No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not’. [Respondent]: ‘You are in a state of existence’. [Richard]: ‘I exist as a flesh and blood body, in time and space, being apperceptively aware’. [endquotes]. Can you see your big contradiction here?
RICHARD: No, but then again, that would be because there is no contradiction – either big or little – to see.
RESPONDENT: You stated before that if the identities end then the feeling of existence is EXACTLY THE SAME for all human beings.
RICHARD: I did nothing of the kind ... I was most specific that I was referring to the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, sans identity and not the ‘the feeling of existence’ you make it out to be.
RESPONDENT: You accepted now that the identity for you went in oblivion while the body is still alive.
RICHARD: What do you mean by ‘you accepted now’ when I have acknowledged all along that identity in toto altruistically became extinct while this flesh and blood body was still alive?
Golly ... it is why The Actual Freedom Trust web site exists.
RESPONDENT: Then you say that the death of the body is the end, finish.
RICHARD: Indeed I do ... physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again.
RESPONDENT: What about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE if there is no identity?
RICHARD: Here is that exchange again:
The sense of being here, as a body only, will of course cease to happen upon physical death ... just as in being anaesthetised, for example, or even as in each night upon going to sleep, for another instance (provided there be no dreaming).
Being knocked unconscious is another example ... as is fainting.
RESPONDENT: That’s why I said that I exist in every baby.
RICHARD: Sure ... I do understand where you are coming from (as I lived spiritual enlightenment, night and day for eleven years, I know it intimately thus even theoretical re-hashes are easily comprehended if they be extensive enough).
RESPONDENT: If you say that with the death of the body is the end of the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE then you are again in contradiction, because that should mean that now you, without identity, are in separation of the other human EXISTENCE.
RICHARD: As I did not say ‘with the death of the body is the end of the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE’ you are referring to then whatever conclusion you come up with will be a non-sequitur.
RESPONDENT: So the body dies but what about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE that you agreed before?
RICHARD: As I never agreed to ‘EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE’ your question, arising out of your erroneous conclusion, is meaningless ... do you now see why I sometimes interject part way through a sentence and at other times respond sentence-by-sentence?
I will put it this way: if the premise in first part of a sentence – or the first part of a paragraph – is invalid then the conclusion in the second half is bound to be incorrect ... and any query arising from that incorrect conclusion is quite simply a waste of a question.
And I will not be here forever on this mailing list to answer queries.
RESPONDENT: Don’t forget that creation continues, it did not took place and continues like machine.
RICHARD: What ‘creation’ are you talking of?
RESPONDENT: If creation stops now everything will collapse.
RICHARD: As there is no ‘creation’ in actuality there is nothing to either stop or collapse.
RESPONDENT: We don’t know many things scientifically, and as David Bohm said 95% of the phenomena are invisible.
RICHARD: Are you referring to what has been called ‘dark matter’ (also called ‘the missing mass problem’), the theory of which was first formulated by the astronomer Mr. Fritz Zwicky in 1933, which has been variously proposed to comprise of between 90-99% of the mass of the universe?
Or are you referring to Mr. David Bohm’s unmanifest ‘implicate order’ (which he proposed in contrast to the ‘explicit order’ of time and space and form)? Being timeless and spaceless and formless, and thus metaphysical, it would have to be invisible ... but you may be referring to something else, of course, because in another e-mail you wrote the following:
I say ‘of course’ because neither ‘dark matter’ nor ‘implicate order’ are physical facts. Mr. David Bohm, self-acknowledged to have been strongly taken by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ phrase, had many dialogues with him ... the following excerpt may be of interest:
He clearly has ‘and matter also’ having its being in the movement that the mind emerges from as a ground (which has been called ‘the mind of god’ by Mr. Paul Davies, another theoretical physicist, who was awarded the 1995 ‘Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion’, which carried a monetary award of $1 million, for his efforts to resolve the dichotomy between science and religion).
As you are familiar with the writings of Mr. Stephen Hawking you may have heard of Mr. Paul Davies already? If not, put briefly, he initially becoming interested in the theory of quantum fields in curved space-time at the University of Cambridge – focussing much of his research in that area – and in the early seventies he joined fellow-physicists Mr. Stephen Hawking and Mr. Roger Penrose, who were researching the thermodynamic properties of black holes at the time. He published ‘The Physics of Time Asymmetry’ (1974), the first of more than 20 books directed to either his professional colleagues or the general public. Mr. Paul Davies’ most recent publications were ‘The Matter Myth’; then one of his most influential works, ‘The Mind of God’; followed by ‘About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution’ and ‘Are We Alone?’.
The basis of what the above theoretical physicists write about may be a lot of things ... but science it ain’t.
RESPONDENT: So why you make dogmatic statements like the infinity of the universe?
RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘dogmatic’ can mean:
First you propose a (continuing) ‘creation’ as if that were an established fact, plus you refer to Mr David Bohm as ‘speaking for physical facts’ when very little of what he spoke of was either physical or a fact, then you say ‘so why you make dogmatic statements ...’ as if I were the one making a priori assumptions, propounding opinions, or asserting doctrines, in an arrogant or arbitrary manner.
What on earth is the connection between the theoretical physics you keep on presenting to this mailing list and the direct experiencing of pure consciousness that would make you say ‘so why you ...’ as if there were some relationship?
Are the ... um ... the axioms of theoretical physicists facts for you?
RESPONDENT: Another thing is that when you was emailing about Jiddu Krishnamurti you find pieces to alter what he was saying.
RICHARD: I did not ‘find pieces to alter what he was saying’ at all ... they are direct quotes of his which speak for themselves. For another example:
The phrase he used often in his later years (‘stepping out of the stream’) is but another way of conveying what Indian spirituality has been on about for millennia (stepping off, or stopping, the ‘wheel of birth and death’ he refers to above):
As for the method of stepping off, or stopping, the wheel of otherwise endless rounds of existence proposed in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (a Vedic Scripture): Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly stated he had discovered, recognised, and realised god or truth. Vis.:
This is what discovering, recognising, and realising god (or truth) means in unambiguous language:
And this is what it means to be god (or truth):
RESPONDENT: The same you make with me, you copy and paste from previous emails.
RICHARD: Are you stating that I alter what you are saying when I copy and paste what you have written? If so, could you provide an example where I have done so ... and please note that if you do so from memory I will compare it to your printed words.
RESPONDENT: Is very well known that Krishnamurti never spoke that reincarnation exist.
RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. I would rather go by his printed words, however, as they are far more reliable.
RESPONDENT: I have read all his books and I did not find ones him saying that reincarnation is a fact.
RICHARD: Maybe you overlooked them, then?
RESPONDENT: You can find and copy a sentence from the bible for example and prove just what you want by one random sentence.
RICHARD: Whereas I provided five quotes, from three different time periods, which are quite self-explanatory ... as is the ‘Conversation Following The Death Of John Field’ text you posted to this mailing list about six weeks ago. For instance:
And here is another instance of similar ilk (after the assassination of Ms. Indira Ghandi):
RESPONDENT: Can you scan and paste the whole dialogue of the above quotes of him?
RICHARD: No, and for several reasons (a) I do not have a scanner and thus type all quotes by hand (I am a two-finger typist) ... and (b) as all my correspondence is published on The Actual Freedom Trust web site I have no intention of exceeding the ‘fair use’ copyright laws regarding length of quotes ... and (c) I do not have all the books the quotes originally came from but copy-pasted them from previous e-mails I wrote some years ago to a mailing list set-up under the auspices of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’.
I can, however, provide the remainder of the paragraph where he said ‘reincarnation is a fact and not a belief’ for him. Vis.:
I would be interested to hear just how I have altered what he is saying by not providing the full paragraph in the first place. And here is the continuation of the quote from the book ‘The Wholeness Of Life’ where he further explains about the nature of the stream which both exists before birth and after death:
You will see that he says you can feel the stream. And these are not isolated quotes ... here is another one:
In that quote he clearly talks of freedom from death ... and again from the ‘Conversation Following The Death Of John Field’ text (here he makes it clear that reincarnation is the stream):
How you managed to overlook that one – let alone other instances whilst reading ‘all his books’ – as it is in the last paragraph of the text you yourself posted to this mailing list about six weeks ago, has got me stumped.
RESPONDENT: I have his books and not the volumes, can you please give me the date of the speech, because I should like to read it all of it.
RICHARD: The dialogue from the book ‘The Wholeness Of Life’, about image-making going on after the death of the organism, was held in the afternoon of May 20 1976 (dialogue VI was in the morning); the quote from ‘Talks in Saanen 1974’, about a person’s thought of themselves going on as it is now when they die, was the 6th Public Talk and held on the 25th July; the quote from his ‘Truth is a Pathless Land’ speech, about the only spirituality being the incorruptibility of the eternal self, was on August 2, 1929; the quote from his early writings (Volume V), about reincarnation being a fact for him, and not a belief, was expressed in 1931; and the quote about reincarnation being a fact for him because he knows it (‘Early Writings’ Volume IV) was in a talk at the Ommen Camp in 1930.
For those who dismiss his earlier words I provide the following quote:
Hence his ‘step out of the stream’ phrase does not express a fundamental change in him ... it is but a change in expression (from ‘stop the wheel of birth and death’) of what is fundamental to his ‘Teachings’.
And what is fundamental to the ‘Teachings’ is, put colloquially, scarpering off to the place where the sun don’t shine ... he made it very clear where his peace lay: the (supposed) answer to all the ills of humankind is not to be found in the world:
Eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth ... not about peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: You wrote: [Richard[: ‘There is no ‘observer’ to be the ‘observed’ here in this actual world. [endquote]. I am asking you, is there ‘observed’ to be observed in the actual world?
RICHARD: There is neither the ‘observer’ nor the observer’s ‘observed’ here in this actual world ... when the entity within becomes extinct its reality, which it pastes as a veneer over the actual, similarly is no more.
RESPONDENT: If you say yes, then I ask you by whom? If you say no then you must accept that exist only observation.
RICHARD: All of your attempts to fit me into your (borrowed) understanding are a complete waste of time ... I have already said that an actual freedom from the human condition is 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the spiritual enlightenment Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke so eloquently about for 60+ years.
The whole point of actualism is the direct experience of actuality: as this flesh and blood body only what one is (what not ‘who’) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/‘me’) means no separation – whereas ‘I’/‘me’, a psychological/psychic entity, am inside the body busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose and, thus feeling separate from ‘my’ own creation, seek union with ‘my’ outer world (little realising it is ‘my’ own creation of course).
Yet even those who succeed in the narcissistic enterprise of unity say that (their own) creation is unknowable ... being but a delusion born out of an illusion is it any wonder why?
The identity is forever cut-off from the actual ... forever locked-out of paradise (from the world as-it-is).
RESPONDENT: In this case why you wrote me: [Richard[: ‘I notice that you have persisted in your ‘the perceiver and the perceived are one thing’. [endquote].
RICHARD: Put briefly: to say ‘the observer is the observed’ is another way of saying ‘I am That’ (or ‘There is only That’ if one is being coy).
RESPONDENT: You wrote [Richard[: ‘An actual freedom from the human condition is a freedom from the instinctual passions – not the instincts per se’. [endquote]. I am asking you without their passions, exist any more instincts?
RICHARD: One example of an instinctive reaction in oneself, that is not necessarily affective, is the automatic response known as the reflex action (inadvertently touch a hotplate, for instance, and there is an involuntary jerking away of the affected limb) or the startle response.
A classic example of this occurred whilst strolling along a country lane one fine morning with the sunlight dancing its magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; these eyes are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form as the panorama unfolds; these ears are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the early springtime ambience; this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral – there is no thought at all and conscious alertness is null and void – when all-of-a-sudden the easy gait has ceased happening.
These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows in a field nearby and are looking downward to the front and see the green and black snake, coiling up on the road in readiness to act, which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards ... an instinctive response which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals.
There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the brain-stem the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly.
Cattle, for example, are easily ‘spooked’ by a reptile and have been known to stampede in infectious group panic.
RESPONDENT: Instincts are very powerful for the reason that they help surviving reproducing etc.
RICHARD: 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 in toto).
No other animal can do this.
RESPONDENT: If you have not to eat and you have no other way to find food, are you going to die or you will steal?
RICHARD: To steal food means there must be food available in the possession of one’s fellow human beings, and, as the country I reside in operates with both an established social security system and social welfare system – plus all manner of local community aid organisations – it is not necessary to steal food these days ... nobody is allowed to starve in a modern society.
RESPONDENT: You are doing sex without the reason to make any children, that means still because of the lust are having power on you.
RICHARD: Here is the exchange in question:
How you converted my report of the total absence of ‘libido’ (Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’), which is the psychiatric/psychoanalytic term for the instinctual sex drive, urge, or impulse, into ‘you are doing sex without the reason to make any children, that means still because of the lust are having power on you’ defies any rational understanding.
What do the words ‘without the reason to make any children’ refer to if not the absence of libido (Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’)?
RESPONDENT: I wrote and you answered: [Respondent]: ‘... must happen to humankind, then nature knows when and something will take place’. [Richard]: ‘The identity who used to parasitically inhabit this flesh and blood body acted on the observation that an individual life was too short to hang about waiting for blind nature to get its act together (plus the human condition was already in place by being born replete with instinctual passions anyway)’. [endquotes]. I ask you did we arrived from the Homo Erectus for example to where we are now in a life time?
RICHARD: The human species did not evolve from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens in one lifetime, no.
RESPONDENT: What is a life time for nature? What is a life time for evolution?
RICHARD: When I re-read what you are responding to I see that I am clearly speaking of the identity who used to parasitically inhabit this flesh and blood body – who only had one lifetime – thus I have no interest whatsoever in going off into your tangent with you.
As you have made it quite clear in another e-mail that fear, for example, is something you consider a necessity I do wonder why you are even writing to me. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: I find it logical that a jump will take place when is needed.
RICHARD: Nobody is twisting your arm to become free of the human condition ... all that blind nature is on about is survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned). Blind nature does not care two hoots about your condition ... the question is: do you?
RESPONDENT: Actually blind nature cares about me, that’s why it gave me the condition.
RICHARD: If being born as such passions as fear and aggression and nurture and desire is what the word ‘cares’ means to you then so be it.
RESPONDENT: Blind nature cares about species, that’s why I told you that when it find out that is the right time will evolve the whole species.
RICHARD: And in the meanwhile, as you are going to do nothing about the passions that you are, such as the fear you say you need more than ever today, 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, and so on, will keep on keeping on.
As will all the crocodile tears being wept at all the (self-inflicted and thus unnecessary) misery and mayhem.
RESPONDENT: As far as your last question if I care, I really don’t know. I have a child to grow and a wife and I feel responsible toward them and I can not see how I can do it, by sitting with my legs on the coffee table watching comedies on TV.
RICHARD: Here is a suggestion: first cure yourself of your agoraphobia (there is nothing like a confidence boost to set things in motion).
RESPONDENT: May I ask you something please? After your death, what is the thing that will go in oblivion?
RICHARD: Not ‘after’ physical death ... at physical death: when physical death occurs the sense of being here, in space and time, as a flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware will cease to exist forever.
RESPONDENT: You said that identity went in oblivion while this body is alive. Feelings you don’t have. Self you don’t have and soul (being) you don’t have. So what will go in oblivion?
RICHARD: At physical death both pure consciousness (the condition of being innocently conscious) and the unmediated awareness of pure consciousness (the condition of being apperceptively aware of being innocently conscious) will cease to exist ... just as in being anaesthetised, or even each night upon going to sleep, only never coming to or waking up again.
RESPONDENT: Your thought and memories?
RICHARD: Thought, thoughts and thinking will cease permanently, yes ... and memory will also cease to function.
RESPONDENT: You have only factual thoughts.
RICHARD: Thought does canvas possibilities when making contingency plans for projected outcomes ... many of which are never needed.
RESPONDENT: The body does not die, only transforms.
RICHARD: As all matter is perpetual, in that the very stuff of this flesh and blood body is never created nor ever destroyed, the form it is, currently, will break down into its component parts and those parts will be part of other forms.
Which is what happens moment-to-moment anyway – a body is constantly shedding skin, hair, and so on – and the glass of water I am drinking now quite possibly passed through the kidneys of a dinosaur (or whatever).
RESPONDENT: So in other words is as you are telling that death does not exist.
RICHARD: I am not saying anything of the sort ... only an identity dreading its extinction would propose such a fantasy.
RESPONDENT: There is nothing left for dying.
RICHARD: As physical death is the permanent cessation of the condition of the body being conscious, and the condition of the body being aware of being conscious, you may care to rethink your somewhat misguided conclusion.
RESPONDENT: The body is not afraid of death, it lives makes everything possible to survive and when it can’t go on any more it dies without objection.
RICHARD: It is the identity within that fears its demise ... which dread of extinction is one of the reasons why it proposes immortality (and proposes that death does not exist for example).
The main reason being, of course, the passionate survival imperative genetically endowed by blind nature.
RESPONDENT: What will die consciousness?
RICHARD: In a word: sentience will die.
RESPONDENT: Are you self conscious?
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is aware of being a flesh and blood body being conscious (which is what being self-conscious means).
RESPONDENT: How can you be without a self?
RICHARD: Sensately ... and I follow the entirely sensible convention of putting smart quotes around the word when referring to the entity within: if you wish to pretend ignorance of this convention then that is your business.
RESPONDENT: You always are covering behind the word ‘apperceptively aware’.
RICHARD: If that is how you see what I report then apparently nothing I can further say is going to alter that conclusion.
RESPONDENT: How you know you are alive?
RICHARD: Sensately ... ... I have written about this to you twice before. Here is an excerpt:
RESPONDENT: Do you have any other mean except thought to know it?
RICHARD: Yes ... you will see, upon re-reading my response (above), that I clearly say the sense of being here, in space, as a body is not just because of sight (visual perception), sound (auditory perception), touch (cutaneous perception), smell (olfactory perception), and taste (gustatory perception) but proprioception as well.
And sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Vis.:
And consciousness means sentience. Vis.:
And sentience is direct, immediate (sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary).
RESPONDENT: ... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive.
RICHARD: No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not.
RESPONDENT: How you arrived in such conclusion if not through logic and the scientific knowledge of today’s?
RICHARD: It is quite simple: when the identity in toto went into blessed oblivion, whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive, it was, and is, patently obvious that with no identity in situ there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death.
In other words, physical death is the end, finish ... and this obviousness is because of direct experience, observation, and native intelligence (what is called ‘commonsense’ in the real-world) operating without being crippled by either the instinctual passions or the ‘self’ (by whatever name) they automatically form themselves into.
Neither ‘scientific knowledge’ is required (I only provide complementary scientific discoveries so nobody has to take my word for something) nor ‘logic’ (I only provide reasoned responses to complement my report for people who cannot think for themselves) ... it is all experiential.
As any pure consciousness experience (PCE) will verify.
RESPONDENT: All this is speculation and implies belief.
RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is all experiential (direct experience, observation, and a freed intelligence).
RESPONDENT: Had you died to know?
RICHARD: The identity within died in toto and, as a consequence, it is patently obvious there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death.
As physical death is the end, finish, if one does not find out whilst one is alive one never will.
RESPONDENT: And I should like to ask you also something else. You said that through you the universe is experiencing its self.
RICHARD: I did nothing of the sort ... I specifically say *as* this flesh and blood body. Vis.:
And the follow-up e-mail:
RESPONDENT: Does not the universe do the same through me, even if I am not one actualist?
RICHARD: It is only in an actual freedom from the human condition, or in a PCE, that the universe experiences itself apperceptively ... for the remainder of the time the identity within is standing in the way (busily experiencing its reality, as a veneer over actuality, ‘through’ the flesh and blood body).
The universe, being eternal, is in no hurry (so to speak) to experience its infinitude as an apperceptive human being
RESPONDENT: You said that the universe is much more than intelligent, so why does not transform my brain, so that it can experience its self in a better way?
RICHARD: Apart from the universe’s lack of urgency, as it were, it is because you, and only you, hold your freedom in your hands ... and as the events of your life provide an opportunity, each moment again, to be apperceptively aware the stepping-off point wherein you meet your destiny is just here right now.
‘Tis your moment of glory ... who would have it any other way?
RESPONDENT: And to finish once for ever with reincarnation and Krishnamurti ...(snip five long quotes for copyright reasons).
RICHARD: I have read through all of the five quotes you provided (all of the 8,219 words) wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti questions not only the belief in reincarnation but the belief in resurrection as well ... and ‘belief’ is the operative word for, despite your ‘to finish once for ever with reincarnation and Krishnamurti’ claim he never denied after-death states – both in the stream and out of it (aka being on the wheel or off it) – because, just as he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, a god or a truth and denounced all such idealising as being a hindrance to realisation (including the god he had discovered, recognised, and realised), he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, an after-life and dismissed all such idealising as being irrelevant to true religiousness (including the after-life he was convinced he held a one-way ticket to).
In other words: his ‘Teaching’ was that if it were not a living reality for the person concerned all things esoteric had no existence for them.
RESPONDENT: I think is enough I could copy and paste hundred more.
RICHARD: It is indeed enough because, if you were to provide more of the same, you would get no other response from me than more of the above as eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward ... and not about peace-on-earth.
‘Tis amazing what lengths peoples will go to rather than be happy and harmless.
RESPONDENT (to Vineeto): I asked him [Richard] what about if I die without being actualist and he dies also being actualist, where is the difference and he did not answered me.
RICHARD: I have just now noticed this comment of yours in your most recent e-mail to the mailing list and have looked through my response to you in the archives ... but to no avail. Vis.: www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908167538&sort=d&start=1805
I then went to your original e-mail to me in the archives to see if I had inadvertently left it out ... but to no avail. Vis.: www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908129888&sort=d&start=1780
If you could provide the text wherein you asked me ‘what about if I die without being actualist and he [Richard] dies also being actualist, where is the difference’ I would appreciate it as I have not been able to locate it ... and please copy-paste the text from your original e-mail – and not from your memory – as my interest lies in how you phrased your (above) question in such a way that it was not obvious to me.
I will be only too happy to answer it, then, of course.
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.