|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 54
RESPONDENT No. 53: Humans have been on this planet for how long, no doubt in search of the ultimate or freedom or whatever name one chooses to give it: Do you actually think no one has succeeded before you? RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ that nobody has succeeded before ... I know that nobody has. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand why you claim to know the experience of every individual that has existed bearing in mind that not everybody that has come to ‘actual freedom’ would have necessarily ‘gone public’ anyway. RICHARD: No such (abstract) person, or persons, as you imagine has ever existed. RESPONDENT: Surely it would be more accurate to say that with the current evidence available to you it appears (to you) that nobody has succeeded? RICHARD: No.
RESPONDENT No. 53: Humans have been on this planet for how long, no doubt in search of the ultimate or freedom or whatever name one chooses to give it: Do you actually think no one has succeeded before you? RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ that nobody has succeeded before ... I know that nobody has. RESPONDENT: Are you making this statement from the perspective that by definition if the ‘self’ has finished then the understanding has not been acquired by a ‘person’? RICHARD: No, it is not a matter of definition, but a matter of fact ... where are these other persons (or person) that have been, or are, already actually free from the human condition? Moreover, had you ever even known about/heard of an actual freedom from the human condition until you came upon The Actual Freedom Trust web site? Speaking personally, I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from many walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been scouring the books (and journals, magazines, newspapers, and latterly, the internet) for twenty plus years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail ... and I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples, so as to compare notes, as it were. Furthermore, since I went public in 1997 there have been many peoples like yourself asking this very question – my search engine shows that I have provided the ‘scouring the books’/ ‘whatever media’ response 48 times – and have asked the ‘where is this person/where are these people’ question on almost as many occasions ... for just one example at random:
Now, whilst I have a vested interest in the matter and have, thus, scoured the books most assiduously more than a few of my co-respondents would be only too pleased to have me be in error that the already always existing peace-on-earth has been enabled for the very first time (as strange as that may seem) ... yet in those six years nobody has ever come back to me with a single instance where somebody else is already actually free from the human condition. Mostly there is a deafening silence (other than, perhaps, the faintly decreasing patter of scampering feet as they head for hills). RESPONDENT: That I can (intellectually) at least understand. The fact is that in this body there is a sense of self, but in the body who will hopefully respond there is (according to Richards quotes) no self. Therefore there is a difference of understanding being expressed by the two bodies. Are you saying that there has only been one body in the history of mankind that has expressed truthfully this understanding? RICHARD: No, it is not a matter of truthful expression, but a matter of fact ... I am saying that, up until now, there never has been a body actually free from the human condition (mainly because everyone has been looking in the wrong direction). Given it is so patently obvious that there has never been any peace on earth thus far in human history I am wondering whether an analogy might go some way towards throwing some light on this peculiar how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it phenomenon which pops up every now and again. For example: suppose you were to announce that you had finally found the cure for cancer by discovering the root cause of the disease – hence by eliminating the cause then the effect, the cancer, is no more able to arise/exist and health abounds – and if, upon going public with this discovery, you get repeatedly told that you cannot possibly know you were the one who finally made this discovery which many, many people have sought, would you not wonder if they were all stark staring mad? Of course not ... and why not? Because virtually everybody acknowledges that there has been no cure for cancer thus far in human history – excepting snake-oil ‘cures’ of course – and it is the discovery which would be examined for validity, and not the validity of the how-can-you-know-you-are-the-first-to-discover-it explanation (in lieu of actually examining the discovery itself for validity), which seems to be an almost mandatory requirement the announcement of the long-awaited discovery of peace-on-earth brings forth. Is it an addled addiction to the snake-oil ‘cures’, a strait-jacketed fixation on logical impossibilities, an entrenched credulity that life is the pits and the universe sucks, which gives rise to this peculiar question ... or something else? Something else like an ingrained dubiety (just-who-does-this-man-think-he-is-anyway) for instance?
RICHARD: ... whilst I have a vested interest in the matter and have, thus, scoured the books most assiduously more than a few of my co-respondents would be only too pleased to have me be in error that the already always existing peace-on-earth has been enabled for the very first time (as strange as that may seem) ... yet in those six years nobody has ever come back to me with a single instance where somebody else is already actually free from the human condition. Mostly there is a deafening silence (other than, perhaps, the faintly decreasing patter of scampering feet as they head for hills). RESPONDENT: The main problem here is that as I am not in ‘actual freedom’ I can only asses others’ position (i.e. are they free) by comparing it to my conceptual model of what it is (which I realise is always going to be wrong). But, at the moment, until my ‘ego’ is done with, its all I have to go on. RICHARD: Ahh ... there is more to identity than just ‘ego’ – much, much more – as the ego-self is but the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, which the identity in toto is. RESPONDENT: Even then, I wonder if it would be possible to be sure about someone else’s understanding. Not everyone expresses themselves in as precise terms as you appear to. RICHARD: There are various key-words – fundamental truths as it were – that always stand out when reading about/listening to these other peoples’ understanding ... there will be some code-word for a non-material (aka timeless and spaceless and formless) source of everything, for instance, oft-times complete with some convoluted way of conveying they have realised that is who they really are (not all of them blatantly say ‘I am god’ if only because it clashes with the mandatory ‘I am humble’ dissimulation which goes hand-in-hand with self-aggrandisement) plus either an overt or covert way of imparting the notion of immortality. Also look for any reference to the affections (the affective feelings ... usually as a state of being) such as love,
compassion, beauty, bliss, and so on ... other than that there is a (not necessarily all-conclusive) list of the chief characteristics at the
following URL: RESPONDENT: For some reason, I do believe you are telling the truth, and I find it fascinating that the universe is not allowing you to become aware of others who have made the same discovery (you’d probably say because no-one has). RICHARD: Yep ... and, just in case there has been a misunderstanding, the universe is not god/goddess and thus neither allows nor prevents such an awareness you refer to. In other words: I am no longer psychic. RESPONDENT: Maybe not all people in actual freedom are that interested in comparing notes? RICHARD: First of all an actual freedom from the human condition is not something to be ‘in’ – it is not a state (as in a state of being/state of consciousness) – as an actual freedom from the human condition is what happens when the identity is no more. Thus, with no identity in situ, intelligence is free to operate sensibly, practically, hence only the (abstract) persons ‘in actual freedom’ you propose could have no interest in comparing notes, as it were, so as to more reliably separate out what is species specific and what is idiosyncratic ... for just one instance this flesh and blood body has zero tolerance to caffeine, alcohol, and (presumably) any other stimulant and/or mood-enhancing/ mind-altering substance, and there is no way of knowing definitively whether that is peculiar to this flesh and blood body or a characteristic of being sans the affective faculty (and thus its epiphenomenal psychic facility) in general. RESPONDENT: Another point that comes to mind is that you have labelled a state that (I think) has been labelled a ‘nidam’ (not sure of the spelling) where the seeker has a ‘god-like’ self image, as Enlightenment, because, some people have erroneously claimed this to be true Enlightenment. RICHARD: As far as I can make out ‘nidam’ means ‘nest’/‘family home’/‘resting place’ when
translated RESPONDENT: So it seems to me, you have had to create a new term, actual freedom, to supersede the old ‘Enlightenment’, when really true Enlightenment and actual freedom are in fact synonymous. RICHARD: Hmm ... it makes no difference whether it be an ‘old ‘Enlightenment’’ or a ‘true Enlightenment’ or any other brand as an actual freedom from the human condition is beyond enlightenment of any description (any of its myriad manifestations). RESPONDENT: Anyway, you’ve probably heard all this before. RICHARD: I have had people tell me before that I was not really enlightened, night and day, for eleven years ... but I
am yet to have someone tell me I have been truly enlightened, night and day, since then (for just over a decade now). Usually they tell me I need
professional help – when they are not telling me to read/listen to and absorb the wisdom of their particular enlightened being that is – or, to
be really up-to-date with the very latest gem hot off the press, listen to a country and western singer whose advice, apparently, was to be who one
is ... whatever that may be And thus does all the misery and mayhem continue unabated.
RESPONDENT: Thanks for your reply. I hate to be nit-picky but I feel compelled to clear up a few points. Here are some quotes from your writings: [Richard]: ‘Actual freedom: Actual freedom is consistent: it is neither contradictory nor hypocritical; Spiritual freedom: Inconsistency, contradiction and hypocrisy are central to spiritual freedom’. [Richard]: ‘I decide to move on to my appointment ... which is actually with a cup of specially blended and drip-filtered coffee ... plus a well earned cigarette in the quietude and cosiness of my own living room’. [Richard]: ‘For just one instance this flesh and blood body has zero tolerance to caffeine, alcohol, and (presumably) any other stimulant and/or mood-enhancing/mind-altering substance, and there is no way of knowing definitively whether that is peculiar to this flesh and blood body or a characteristic of being sans the affective faculty (and thus its epiphenomenal psychic facility) in general. Thus, with no identity in situ, intelligence is free to operate sensibly, practically ...’. [endquotes]. Is it intelligent to smoke and drink coffee if the body doesn’t really like it? Have I missed something or are these quotes inconsistent? RICHARD: I only ever use decaffeinated coffee as it is the caffeine (a chemical cousin to cocaine) which is the substance that triggers off a psychotropic episode if I were to have any ... consequently I do not consume tea, cola, chocolate, sports drinks, or anything else with caffeine in it. Also, as a similar episode occurred a couple of years ago as a result of having a dental injection to anaesthetise the jaw, I now make sure the dentist uses a procaine mixture which does not contain adrenaline, which most such mixtures do, because its effect is also psychotropic. * RESPONDENT: Another issue comes to mind. Its the old ‘I am the body’ antidotal (if that’s actually a word) argument: If ‘you’ are the body and not the entire universe then if your arm is cut off, are ‘you’ the cut off arm as well as the living body? Then there would be 2 yous? If you answer by saying there is no identity then the next quote from the actual freedom site cannot be allowed either: [Richard]: ‘Actual freedom: One is this flesh and blood body only; Spiritual freedom: One is not the physical body. [endquote]. RICHARD: What I am is this living flesh and blood body, of course, and a severed limb is as much a dead body part as is any other body part which can be removed without causing death (a kidney for example). Furthermore this body, like any body, is shedding parts of itself continuously each and every day. And, yes, antidotal is indeed a word:
* RESPONDENT: Reading the link you gave me, I still think that you are mixing dodgy Spiritual claims with descriptions of freedom (or actual freedom if you prefer) into one category and dismissing them all. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. RICHARD: If I were to use your analogy then this is the ‘baby’ that got thrown out:
In other words all spiritual claims are ‘dodgy’ as there is no ‘spirit’ or ‘presence’ or ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) in actuality ... there are no gods or goddesses of any description in this actual world. It is all so peaceful here. * RESPONDENT: One more point, this time not based in mistrust: [Respondent]: ‘For some reason, I do believe you are telling the truth, and I find it fascinating that the universe is not allowing you to become aware of others who have made the same discovery (you’d probably say because no-one has)’. [Richard]: ‘Yep ... and, just in case there has been a misunderstanding, the universe is not god/goddess and thus neither allows nor prevents such an awareness you refer to’. [endquotes]. I understand that I am placing human qualities on this thing called the universe (everything) but I don’t fully understand your reply. Could you expand on this please. RICHARD: Sure ... as the awareness you refer to is a psychic awareness it has no existence outside of the human psyche – there is no ‘spirit’ or ‘presence’ or ‘being’ in actuality – and there is no such facility operating in this flesh and blood body (when the affective faculty vanished so too did its epiphenomenal psychic facility). Hence it is impossible to be aware of anybody else actually free from the human condition by such means.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I feel like I’m reaching for a sticky bun as I do this, but I can’t resist: [Richard]: ‘What I am is this living flesh and blood body, of course, and a severed limb is as much a dead body part as is any other body part which can be removed without causing death (a kidney for example). Furthermore this body, like any body, is shedding parts of itself continuously each and every day’. [endquote]. What about nails? RICHARD: Just like when I trim the beard/get a haircut they are body parts which can be removed without causing death. RESPONDENT: They are dead but attached onto the body. RICHARD: Not ‘attached onto’ – they are part and parcel of what a body is – and a body has quite a few dead parts, that are yet to be shed, at any given moment ... dead skin, for instance, or a dried-up scab on a nearly-healed wound which is about to fall off, or a drop of sweat about to drip off the nose, and so on. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that you are this living f&bb except for the nails? RICHARD: If I understand it correctly – as I am not a biologist I may be in error – where the nail is growing from the cuticle, thus pushing the dead portion forward and hence off the end of the finger/toe, it is not dead ... just as the hair follicle is a growing filament but the keratinised hair itself, that which can be cut off, is dead filament. Perhaps if I were to put it this way? I do not go around gathering up flakes of skin, finger/toe nail clippings, trimmed hair/cut hair/shed hair (pubes in the drain hole), dried-up scabs, sweat, blood, pus, exhaled air, aromas, and so on and bury them reverently in a marked grave-site each and every day which says, in effect, something like this:
RESPONDENT: Are you saying that you are the head but not the kidneys or arms, but you are also the heart? RICHARD: No, while a kidney (with both kidneys removed a body is a dead body), and an arm/arms, are part and parcel of what a living body is, that is as much what I am as any other part/parts. RESPONDENT: You are a head and a heart etc. RICHARD: Obviously I cannot comment on the etcetera but, yes, what I am is this living (air-breathing, blood-coursing, nerve-stimulating, cell-pulsing) body currently comprising all limbs, both kidneys, heart, lungs, liver, stomach, head, neck, shoulders, torso, abdomen ... and any other piece of living tissue, that would probably require several pages to delineate, that are all part and parcel of what I am. RESPONDENT: Also, at what point does the food you eat, which by your definition, is not you, suddenly become you, the physical body? RICHARD: If I understand the digestive process correctly – as I am not a biologist I may be in error – it is when the nutrients are absorbed into the blood-stream in the small intestines (and maybe, to some extent, in the stomach itself due to enzyme action). RESPONDENT: If we are defining what ‘I am’ in these terms, then we have an equation: I = Something. RICHARD: Easy on the ‘we’ – I am not necessarily defining what I am just in those terms – I am merely responding to your queries as they unfold. RESPONDENT: If the ‘Something’ is constantly changing, and without any particular core or static essence, or intrinsic identity, as in the living flesh and blood body ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Where I say I am this living flesh and blood body I am not identifying with this flesh and blood body – identifying with this flesh and blood body as an identity be it intrinsic or not – as what I am describing is what I am (what, not ‘who’) ... only an identity would translate my descriptions as describing a particular core/a static essence/an intrinsic identity (or a true identity/a real identity or whatever). RESPONDENT: ... [If the ‘Something’ is constantly changing, and without any particular core or static essence, or intrinsic identity, as in the living flesh and blood body] then the equation should really read: I = a group of molecules within a certain proximity ... but then if we get the old microscope out we see that the molecules themselves have particular core or static essence, or intrinsic identity etc. (I’m trusting what modern science appears to be discovering, admittedly). So the new equation reads: I = something with no particular core or static essence , or intrinsic quality. Then saying I = a ‘thing’ seems to be very imprecise. The whole statement, starts to look very ambiguous. RICHARD: Again I see in that passage (I did not want to interject again) that you are looking for/seeking to locate an intrinsic identity/particular core/static essence/intrinsic quality ... even to the point of relying upon modern science (which shows that the nucleus of a cell, and not the surrounding cytoplasm, is what holds the deoxyribonucleic acid, or self-replicating material, and which is the determiner of protein synthesis). Perhaps if I were to put it this way: being alive, being a living body, is to be a process of constant change – birthing, growing, ageing, dying – on all levels (microscopic and macroscopic and anywhere in between). Furthermore, nothing is ever static – everything, literally everything, is in constant motion, constant change; nothing, literally nothing, is ever stagnant, ever stays the same – thus all is novel, never boring, all is new, never old, all is fresh, never stale. In short: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis. * RESPONDENT: Perhaps you are making the statement as an antidote to the view held by ‘spiritualists’ that ‘I’ am a permanent ‘cloud’ or bubble containing the entire universe in it? RICHARD: Also, but most specifically it came about experientially in late 1992 when the identity in toto vanished forever: previously I could look into a mirror, for example, and ask ‘who am I’ (and get all manner of inconclusive answers) whereas now the question itself simply made no sense at all ... and the only valid question was ‘what am I’ for the answer was patently obvious. To wit: I am this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto). RESPONDENT: However the statement ‘I am not the body’ as claimed by some you would no doubt describe as ‘spiritualists’ does not necessarily mean that ‘I’ am something else either (as in a soul, or God etc). RICHARD: Indeed not ... not all the mystics (that is, spiritualists who are self-realised) say ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’ and so on as the deeper enlightenment goes the more apparent it becomes that ‘There is only God’ or ‘There is only That’ and so on. Speaking personally I would say ‘There is only The Absolute’. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand why you say ‘I am the physical body’. Why not just say ‘there is a physical body’? RICHARD: Well, I quite often do actually – especially when some peoples ask me who the first person pronoun refers to – and this is an example (from further above) of how that would look if done all the time:
* RESPONDENT: Although on reflection all the above is too vague really. Surely saying there are senses in operation is more accurate than all the other stuff. I actually know that there is seeing, hearing, tasting , feeling (as in sensations reported by the skin) etc. No-one can argue with that. RICHARD: True. I have also, on many an occasion, described what I am as being these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, these nostrils smelling, this tongue tasting, this skin feeling, and these proprioceptors sensing ... whilst all the while there is an apperceptive awareness of all this happening. Which brings in the subject of consciousness: I have also said that consciousness – the condition of a body being being conscious – is what happens when this body is alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, sensible, not insensible (comatose) and that all experiencing is awareness of what is happening whilst it is happening ... in that the mind, which is the human brain in action in the human skull, has this amazing capacity to be, not only aware, but aware of being aware at the same time (a simultaneity which is truly wondrous in itself). And it is where this awareness of being aware is unmediated (apperceptive awareness) that this universe knows itself. RESPONDENT: My point really is, is that any system that attempts to describe the actual must be flawed. How could it be otherwise? RICHARD: What is flawed about saying that what I am (what, not, ‘who’) is this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto)? To be putting a flesh and blood body under a microscope, in the vain attempt to find an intrinsic identity, essence, core, or quality, is to be rightfully accused of reductionism. There is no intrinsic identity, essence, core, or quality ... what is flawed is attempting to find/locate that phantasm, that ghost in the machine, when all that needs to be done is to altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. As there is no such ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) or ‘presence’ in actuality there is nothing to lose ... except ‘who’ you instinctively know, feel, and thus think, you are. And therein lies the rub: ‘I’/‘me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/‘me’ am prepared to do
virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly RESPONDENT: I’m still convinced that actual freedom exists (or is a possible outcome), as I was before I heard of your terminology), but ... RICHARD: If I may step in for a moment? What manner of ‘actual freedom’ was it that you were convinced exists, or was a possible outcome, before you came across The Actual Freedom Trust web site? I only ask because, going by all the above, it was (and maybe still is) an ‘actual freedom’ which had at its core, or essence, a qualitative identity ... an intrinsic identity, essence, core, or quality, as it were. If so, the freedom you were/are convinced exists, or was/is a possible outcome, may be a lot of things ... but it sure ain’t actual. RESPONDENT: ... [but] I’m not sure that I’m that convinced by the logic (or consistency) of your system of describing it all. (Although I accept that the fact it grates with me a bit is not particularly important in the overall scheme of things). RICHARD: Okay ... this is the way I usually put it (just substitute the phrase ‘be convinced by’ for the word ‘believe’ and it will all fall into place):
RESPONDENT: Many thanks for your time and I look forward to your response, if you can bear the monotony. RICHARD: No problem ... I do not expect somebody – anybody – to grasp something as simple as what I am saying overnight, as it initially looks to be simplistic to the sophisticated mind, and thus what I am saying gets overlooked, again and again, as being childish nonsense. Which is why I stress that, as naïveté is essential in understanding life, then sincerity is the key to unlock such comprehension.
RESPONDENT: I’m still convinced that actual freedom exists (or is a possible outcome), as I was before I heard of your terminology), but ... RICHARD: If I may step in for a moment? What manner of ‘actual freedom’ was it that you were convinced exists, or was a possible outcome, before you came across The Actual Freedom Trust web site? RESPONDENT: I have realised that any reliance on something lasting is to set one up for a fall. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying here: statistically speaking the average life-span (in the west anyway) is approximately 75 years and the universe was here long before you were born and will be here long after you are dead ... yet you will not place any reliance upon it lasting because to do so is to set yourself up for a fall. Have I understood you correctly? RESPONDENT: The something includes anything that can be perceived (e.g. a nice feeling, enlightenment (in the sense you use), any state of mind, a job, a relationship. In other words as soon as I say ‘ahh ... that is what I am’ if that is an identifiable thing, standing out in anyway, then it will be impermanent and therefore I will have the rug pulled from under my feet when it dies. RICHARD: Oh? You plan on surviving the physical death of the flesh and blood body currently going by the name ‘Respondent’ then, eh? RESPONDENT: As I have made this mistake many times and ended up in a lot of pain, I do not wish to repeat it (I accept that if this was all fully understood, then ‘I’ would happily go into oblivion, and I agree with your comment: [Richard]: ‘and therein lies the rub: ‘I’/‘me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/‘me’ am prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Hmm ... have you not ever noticed it is never not this moment? RESPONDENT: Therefore, the actual freedom I believed is a possibility (before encountering your site) would be thus: 1) There are no permanent things (including I/Me, identity, self, states etc). 2) Consequently there is no basis for suffering to arise. Which is why I was attracted to your site. RICHARD: Ah, but have you read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site with both eyes open? RESPONDENT: Its not that it was a new concept, it’s more that I agreed with it. RICHARD: As it is your concept you are reading into what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site it is no wonder (a) it is not new ... and (b) you agreed with it. RESPONDENT: I accept that if this was all fully understood, then ‘I’ would happily go into oblivion, and I agree with your comment: [Richard]: ‘and therein lies the rub: ‘I’/‘me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/‘me’ am prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion’ [endquote]. RICHARD: I am none too sure what it is to be ‘fully understood’ by you but it certainly is not what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site RESPONDENT: I guess I realise at some level that the crux of the issue is the above (as in points 1 and 2) and that if I had to pick out the two most important things in a ‘teaching’ it would have to be those. As your teaching ... RICHARD: If I may interject? I do not have a ‘teaching’ ... what I do is offer a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, plus an unambiguous report of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings. For an example: I always make it clear that I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day teacher (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’. What another does with the method, my report, my descriptions, my explanations, and my clarifications is their business, of course, yet it goes almost without saying, surely, that if what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is indeed read as being yet another unliveable ‘teaching’ then it is fruitless to continue going again and again around the same old mulberry bush in e-mail after e-mail. What I would suggest, at this stage, is to look once more at what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... paying particular attention to the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust home page (immediately below the logo) before doing so. It would save a lot of needless repetition.
RESPONDENT: I’m still convinced that actual freedom exists (or is a possible outcome), as I was before I heard of your terminology), but ... RICHARD: If I may step in for a moment? What manner of ‘actual freedom’ was it that you were convinced exists, or was a possible outcome, before you came across The Actual Freedom Trust web site? RESPONDENT: I have realised that any reliance on something lasting is to set one up for a fall. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying here: statistically speaking the average life-span (in the west anyway) is approximately 75 years and the universe was here long before you were born and will be here long after you are dead ... yet you will not place any reliance upon it lasting because to do so is to set yourself up for a fall. Have I understood you correctly? RESPONDENT: If there is no self/ego/soul/entity etc, when the body dies there will be no-one there to say ‘oh no, my body has disappeared’ so its not really an issue. However, when I’ve thought to myself ‘ah, I’ve got it all sorted now, I’m in a state of no more suffering’, when that finishes, there is a strong sense of ‘oh no, I’ve lost something that I had hoped would be permanent’. Also, if you rely on the body as being permanent, then if you lose a leg one day, there could be a feeling of ‘oh no, I have lost one of my treasured legs’ and lots of suffering due to that. Also, I can’t conceive of a situation where I will exist and no universe will exist. Where else is there to be except in the universe? RICHARD: As a flesh and blood body ... nowhere else (nowhere else but here in space and now in time); as an identity ... anywhere else (anywhere else other than here in space and now in time). * RESPONDENT: The something includes anything that can be perceived (e.g. a nice feeling, enlightenment (in the sense you use), any state of mind, a job, a relationship. In other words as soon as I say ‘ahh ... that is what I am’ if that is an identifiable thing, standing out in anyway, then it will be impermanent and therefore I will have the rug pulled from under my feet when it dies. RICHARD: Oh? You plan on surviving the physical death of the flesh and blood body currently going by the name ‘Respondent’ then, eh? RESPONDENT: No, I was saying why bother identifying with the body. RICHARD: Indeed ... that would be silly. RESPONDENT: Why do we need to say I am the body? RICHARD: Maybe because ‘I’ am not the body and never will be? RESPONDENT: We don’t need to emotionally think ‘I am this body’. RICHARD: Indeed not ... that would be silly. RESPONDENT: It still goes around and does what it has to anyway. RICHARD: Indeed it does. RESPONDENT: That doesn’t mean we need to think ‘I am something else that will survive the death of the body’ either. RICHARD: Indeed not ... although there are many who do. * RESPONDENT: As I have made this mistake many times and ended up in a lot of pain, I do not wish to repeat it (I accept that if this was all fully understood, then ‘I’ would happily go into oblivion, and I agree with your comment: [Richard]: ‘and therein lies the rub: ‘I’/’me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/’me’ am prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Hmm ... have you not ever noticed it is never not this moment? RESPONDENT: Yes I have noticed this. But could you explain the relevance of your comment in the context? RICHARD: Here is the context (edited for the sake of clarity in communication):
* RICHARD: I am none too sure what it is to be ‘fully understood’ by you but it certainly is not what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: These are the points I am presuming have been fully understood by you (please don’t say there is no one there to understand them, or if you prefer, are a description of actual freedom):
Please point out where I have gone wrong in my understanding of what actual freedom is. RICHARD: The first part of your very first sentence – ‘there are no permanent things’ – is at odds with your ‘yes I have noticed this [that it is never not this moment]’ observation and your ‘I can’t conceive of a situation where I will exist and no universe will exist’ understanding. Not only is this universe – all time, all space, all matter (mass/energy) – a permanent (synonyms: lasting, everlasting, never-ending, unending, endless, ceaseless, continuous, interminable, incessant, perpetual, perdurable, imperishable, indestructible, enduring, undying, eternal) thing, being infinite in extent, duration, and amount (aka infinitude) it is the biggest thing of all. Things don’t come bigger than infinitude. * RESPONDENT: I guess I realise at some level that the crux of the issue is the above (as in points 1 and 2) and that if I had to pick out the two most important things in a ‘teaching’ it would have to be those. As your teaching ... RICHARD: If I may interject? I do not have a ‘teaching’ ... what I do is offer a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, plus an unambiguous report of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings. RESPONDENT: So what would you describe a teaching as then? RICHARD: That ‘teaching’ which you were referring to where you said ‘if I had to pick out the two most important things in a ‘teaching’ it would have to be those’ of course. Which I why I say I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day bodiless teacher (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another unliveable teaching. * RESPONDENT: I noticed you weren’t very interested in my body/universe points. RICHARD: No, it was not that I was not interested in your ‘body/universe points’ ... what I was not interested in was writing something – anything – which is going be read as yet another unliveable teaching from yet another bodiless teacher. Hence I did not respond to anything at all after your ‘as your teaching ...’ introduction to what you had to say about the unambiguous report of my experience, the clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, the lucid explanations of how and why, the clarifications of misunderstandings, and the do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record I share with my fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Any comments? RICHARD: Nope. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: What I would suggest, at this stage, is to look once more at what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... paying particular attention to the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust home page (immediately below the logo) before doing so. It would save a lot of needless repetition.
RESPONDENT: ... I can’t conceive of a situation where I will exist and no universe will exist. Where else is there to be except in the universe? RICHARD: As a flesh and blood body ... nowhere else (nowhere else but here in space and now in time); as an identity ... anywhere else (anywhere else other than here in space and now in time). RESPONDENT: SO are you saying if the thought arises (I am god, enlightened or any other false belief) that you are somehow ejected out of infinitude? RICHARD: Nope ... I am saying the identity within, being but an illusion/delusion, can never be here in space and now in time. Viz.:
In short: as an identity, one is forever locked-out of paradise (this actual world of sensate delight); as a flesh and blood body, one is never out of paradise. RESPONDENT: I hope not, otherwise infinitude would not be infinite. RICHARD: The only ‘infinitude’ there is, for an identity, is a metaphysical infinitude (a timeless and spaceless and formless ‘being’ or ‘presence’). RESPONDENT: I would say that regardless of the thoughts, feelings, beliefs present, it is impossible to not be in the universe. RICHARD: Ha ... it is impossible for an identity (being but an illusion/delusion) to ever be in actuality. RESPONDENT: But where else is there to be, for you are always here, even if you say I am something/somewhere else. RICHARD: An identity is never here – let alone ‘always here’ – as to be here is to be at this place in space (now at this moment in time). * RESPONDENT: The something includes anything that can be perceived (e.g. a nice feeling, enlightenment (in the sense you use), any state of mind, a job, a relationship. In other words as soon as I say ‘ahh ... that is what I am’ if that is an identifiable thing, standing out in anyway, then it will be impermanent and therefore I will have the rug pulled from under my feet when it dies. RICHARD: Oh? You plan on surviving the physical death of the flesh and blood body currently going by the name ‘Respondent’ then, eh? RESPONDENT: No, I was saying why bother identifying with the body. RICHARD: Indeed ... that would be silly. RESPONDENT: Why do we need to say I am the body? RICHARD: Maybe because ‘I’ am not the body and never will be? RESPONDENT: But you also say ‘I am this flesh and blood body only’. RICHARD: Why do you say ‘also’ when I have never said anything about ‘identifying with the body’ (and have made this patently clear to you in a prior e-mail)? Viz.:
Furthermore, it was made quite clear what the first person pronoun refers to by replacing it with what it refers to (in the first part of the above passage):
RESPONDENT: So these two statements are contradictory. Please clarify. RICHARD: When an identity says ‘I am the body’ it is identifying with something it is not; where a flesh and blood body says ‘I am this flesh and blood body’ it is stating a fact. * RESPONDENT: ... please point out where I have gone wrong in my understanding of what actual freedom is. RICHARD: The first part of your very first sentence – ‘there are no permanent things’ – is at odds with your ‘yes I have noticed this [that it is never not this moment]’ observation and your ‘I can’t conceive of a situation where I will exist and no universe will exist’ understanding. Not only is this universe – all time, all space, all matter (mass/energy) – a permanent (synonyms: lasting, everlasting, never-ending, unending, endless, ceaseless, continuous, interminable, incessant, perpetual, perdurable, imperishable, indestructible, enduring, undying, eternal) thing, being infinite in extent, duration, and amount (aka infinitude) it is the biggest thing of all. Things don’t come bigger than infinitude. RESPONDENT: Ok, fair enough, I can agree with that statement if the universe is seen as a ‘whole’ for want of a better word (maybe you would prefer infinitude). RICHARD: As time and space and matter are seamless infinitude can never be divided. RESPONDENT: However, if its divided up into discrete parts (which is what the human mind does) then none of those parts can be said to be permanent. RICHARD: If you wish to abstractly divide up that which cannot be divided up in actuality, and then bemoan the lack of permanency (not to mention the lack of actuality), then that is your business, of course. RESPONDENT: That was the point I was making. I think that you jumped to conclusions as to what I was saying. RICHARD: Quite frankly I am none too sure what it is you are saying ... I do get the impression, however, that you are arguing with yourself. RESPONDENT: Describing infinitude as a ‘thing’ is in a sense, a contradiction in terms. RICHARD: Not at all. The word ‘thing’ is a generic word and can refer to any object/ entity whether
geological/biological or manufactured/ fabricated ... whatever has a discrete, independent existence (whether it be material or immaterial as in
concrete or abstract/ physical or metaphysical) and is not a relation or a function, and so on, is a thing It is a very wide-ranging word. * RESPONDENT: By the way, your method of asking how I am I experiencing this moment, and if its not good (i.e. happy and harmless), tracking the chain of events that lead you to this point (if I have understood the Actual freedom site correctly) makes 100% sense to me. RICHARD: You do realise, I presume, that feeling good (a general sense of well-being), then feeling happy and harmless, then feeling perfect (an excellence experience), are all preliminary steps towards the penultimate experiencing of this moment of being alive ... the direct experiencing (non-affective experiencing) of a pure consciousness experience (PCE)? The ultimate experiencing, if course, is where there is an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: It’s the only method that interests me ... RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well as it is the only method on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: ... and I’m not even sure that its always necessary anyway, as long as you are attentive. RICHARD: Hmm ... to say that being attentive to how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) is not always necessary anyway as long as one is attentive is somewhat tautologous, non? RESPONDENT: Only if you act ‘unconsciously’ do you need to go back to clarify things a bit. RICHARD: Au contraire ... only if there is no pure consciousness experiencing (as in a PCE or when actually free from the human condition) is it necessary to be aware of/ attentive to how one is experiencing this moment of being alive. RESPONDENT: Some other paths ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There are no ‘other paths’ to an actual freedom from the human condition ... there may be others yet to be discovered, but the actualism method on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, being the only method in human history to deliver the goods, is the only one with a proven track-record. What I would suggest, at this stage, is to look once more at what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... paying particular attention to the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust home page (immediately below the logo) before doing so. It would save a lot of needless repetition.
RESPONDENT: ... please point out where I have gone wrong in my understanding of what actual freedom is. RICHARD: The first part of your very first sentence – ‘there are no permanent things’ – is at odds with your ‘yes I have noticed this [that it is never not this moment]’ observation and your ‘I can’t conceive of a situation where I will exist and no universe will exist’ understanding. Not only is this universe – all time, all space, all matter (mass/energy) – a permanent (synonyms: lasting, everlasting, never-ending, unending, endless, ceaseless, continuous, interminable, incessant, perpetual, perdurable, imperishable, indestructible, enduring, undying, eternal) thing, being infinite in extent, duration, and amount (aka infinitude) it is the biggest thing of all. Things don’t come bigger than infinitude. RESPONDENT: Perhaps I should have said there are no permanent conditioned things? RICHARD: Okay ... this is what the exchange would look like then (as an example only):
Here is an excerpt from the home page on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site:
As this is on the home page of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site I am being clear, unambiguous, right up-front and out-in-the-open, as to what an actual freedom from the human condition is and is not ... yet what do you have to say? Viz.:
Which is why I have said, three times so far in this exchange, that what I would suggest at this stage is to look once more at what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – paying particular attention to the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust home page (immediately below the logo) before doing so – as it would save a lot of needless repetition. * RESPONDENT: With regards to your statement that it is impossible to visualize images any more (if I have understood correctly): if you close your eyes and try and do some physical action, like turn on the TV, are there no mental images there to guide you? RICHARD: None whatsoever ... the imaginative/intuitive faculty vanished when the affections ceased to exist (and thus their epiphenomenal psychic facility). I literally cannot imagine, visualise, envisage, envision, picture, intuit, see in the mind’s eye, feel-out, dream up, fall into a reverie, or in any other way, shape or manner imaginatively conceptualise anything whatsoever. I could not form a mental image of something if my life depended upon it ... whereas in earlier years ‘I’ could get a picture in ‘my’ mind’s eye of ‘my’ absent father, mother, wife, children and so on ... or the painting ‘I’ was going to paint, or the coffee-table ‘I’ was going to build, or the route ‘I’ was going to take by car or whatever. If I were to close the eyes now, and try to visualise, all what happens is the same velvety-smooth darkness – as looking into the infinite and eternal and perpetual universe at night – which has been the case for all these years now. I simply cannot have images ... when I recall childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, being middle-aged or yesterday it is as if it were a documentary on television but with the picture turned off (words only) or like reading a book of somebody’s life. There is only the direct experiencing of actuality. RESPONDENT: If not, how do you guess where the buttons are? RICHARD: By touch and memory (the on-off button on the TV remote control is the top-right button). RESPONDENT: (I suppose I am asking whether conceptualising is actual or just a feature of the identity). RICHARD: I can intellectually conceptualise (formulate, configure, theorise, and so on) – as in 2+2=4, for instance, or ‘if this, then that’, for another – as it is the intuitive/imaginative conceptualising (visualising, idealising, romanticising, fantasising, and so on), which is a feature of identity. * RESPONDENT: When you say that the (apparent) identity disappears, does the personality/characteristics of the f&b body change at all? RICHARD: The following exchange may be helpful in this regard:
And:
RESPONDENT: That is, if the f&b b (can I refer to this as a person for now?) liked telling jokes, would the person still like this after the identity has died? RICHARD: I like to joke and I laugh a lot – there is so much that is irrepressibly humorous about life itself – and what has changed is that the joking and laughing is not malicious (as in spiteful, for instance) and/or sorrowful (as in lugubrious, for example). ‘Tis a remarkable change, by the way, and not some minor thing. * RESPONDENT: Do you think it is possible to successfully apply oneself to the path of actual freedom and still hold reservations as to whether or not Richard was the first identity to ever self-immolate? RICHARD: First and foremost: the issue of whether it was Richard that was the first, or not, is a distraction away from
the main issue – that an entirely new way to live life on this verdant and azure planet is now available – and it is this way of living which
is worthy of further investigation I am aware that I have re-posted the following before yet as the question is particularly perspicacious it is worth re-posting again:
It is somewhat difficult to report to one’s fellow human beings that one has discovered something entirely new to human experience without saying that it is ... um ... something entirely new to human experience.
RICHARD: The instinctual passions [such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire] are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. (...) Past the human conditioning is the human condition itself ... that which caused the conditioning in the first place. To end this condition, the deletion of blind nature’s software package which gave rise to the rudimentary animal ‘self’ is required. This is the elimination of ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’. The complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ is the end to all the ills of humankind. RESPONDENT: ‘Being’ to me implies an ongoing, static, state that never ends. If you say that it can become extinct, then it must be impermanent. Therefore it falls under the category of a conditioned (impermanent) thing? RICHARD: Yes ... and an illusory/ delusory thing at that. RESPONDENT: The extract you sent in the previous dialogue is dealing with erasing the human ‘self’ or ‘being’ but do you not agree that the two issues (permanency and ‘self’/identity) are linked? RICHARD: Not as an actuality, no (the issue of permanency is linked to the issue of the properties of the universe). RESPONDENT: Is not the sense of being a human being tied up with the belief in permanence, i.e. the belief that ‘I’ am at the root of everything (as a permanent entity)? RICHARD: As the (sensorial) ‘sense of being a human being’ is tied up with impermanence – as in mortality – you can only be referring to the intuitive ‘sense of being a human being’ (as in immortality) ... the affective feeling of being a ‘presence’ inside the body (aka ‘being’ itself), in other words, as a psychological/psychic entity (a metaphysical identity) rather than the sensitive feeling of being this body as a sensate/material entity (a physical creature). Hence spiritualism has it that, whilst the ego-self is impermanent, the soul-self is permanent and that ego-death, while the
body is a living body, is essential to reveal who one really is – an immortal spirit-being – whereas actualism has that identity-death in toto
(extinction) is essential to make apparent what one actually is (a mortal human being) ... and therein lies the rub: as a spirit-being one is so
very real, so very, very real at times, one is prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all This infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is not conditioned by any definition of the word (especially No. 3):
* RESPONDENT: With regards to your statement that it is impossible to visualize images any more (if I have understood correctly): if you close your eyes and try and do some physical action, like turn on the TV, are there no mental images there to guide you? RICHARD: None whatsoever ... the imaginative/intuitive faculty vanished when the affections ceased to exist (and thus their epiphenomenal psychic facility). I literally cannot imagine, visualise, envisage, envision, picture, intuit, see in the mind’s eye, feel-out, dream up, fall into a reverie, or in any other way, shape or manner imaginatively conceptualise anything whatsoever. I could not form a mental image of something if my life depended upon it ... whereas in earlier years ‘I’ could get a picture in ‘my’ mind’s eye of ‘my’ absent father, mother, wife, children and so on ... or the painting ‘I’ was going to paint, or the coffee-table ‘I’ was going to build, or the route ‘I’ was going to take by car or whatever. If I were to close the eyes now, and try to visualise, all what happens is the same velvety-smooth darkness – as looking into the infinite and eternal and perpetual universe at night – which has been the case for all these years now. I simply cannot have images ... when I recall childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, being middle-aged or yesterday it is as if it were a documentary on television but with the picture turned off (words only) or like reading a book of somebody’s life. There is only the direct experiencing of actuality. RESPONDENT: If not, how do you guess where the buttons are? RICHARD: By touch and memory (the on-off button on the TV remote control is the top-right button). RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. Surely the idea of top-right must relate to some kind of visual image? RICHARD: No, the memory of ‘top-right’ relates to (prior) visual sight – it refers to the actuality of visually seeing that is where it is located – and in day-to-day practice I very rarely look at the buttons on TV remote control anyway as through constant usage it has become automatic to go by touch (the mute button is top-left and the channel selector is bottom-right). RESPONDENT: What is memory if not partly mental images (along with words, sounds etc)? RICHARD: For me memory is intellectual – the referent words only – with neither images nor sounds. RESPONDENT: If I say to you get me an egg, there must be some kind of visual image of an egg to compare it to the real thing? RICHARD: No, there is sufficient familiarity with eggs to intellectually know what one is by now. RESPONDENT: How else can you link the word egg to the actual object? RICHARD: If no actual egg be present ... intellectually. RESPONDENT: What is the exact mental/physical process involved for one with no identity? RICHARD: If the egg be present ... the direct (unmediated) perception; if the egg be absent ... the intellectual memory. * RESPONDENT: By the way, I do read the actual freedom web site almost every day, including the introduction, its just taking a while to grasp what you are saying. RICHARD: Okay ... if it can be comprehended that, just as it is essential for there to be an ego-death to become enlightened, it is essential there be soul-death (the extinction of ‘being’ itself) to go beyond enlightenment it will all fall into place. RESPONDENT: I can’t just erase my current understanding of life. RICHARD: I do not expect somebody – anybody – to grasp what I am saying overnight, as it were, as the implications and ramifications are enormous. RESPONDENT: I have to somehow make sense of what you are saying through my own experience. RICHARD: The only experience through which it all makes sense is, of course, your own pure consciousness experience (PCE) otherwise it reads/sounds like an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... and any ASC is still a state of being no matter how sublime/profound/glorious it may be. RESPONDENT: I also know I have not dived down to the depths of the human condition, I’m just choosing my swimming trunks. RICHARD: Ha ... nudity is not optional (to be here, just here right now, is to be more naked than taking all your clothes off in the main street as to be actual is to be totally exposed). * RICHARD: Where I say I am this living flesh and blood body I am not identifying with this flesh and blood body – identifying with this flesh and blood body as an identity be it intrinsic or not – as what I am describing is what I am (what, not ‘who’) ... only an identity would translate my descriptions as describing a particular core/a static essence/an intrinsic identity (or a true identity/a real identity or whatever). (...) Perhaps if I were to put it this way: being alive, being a living body, is to be a process of constant change – birthing, growing, ageing, dying – on all levels (microscopic and macroscopic and anywhere in between). Furthermore, nothing is ever static – everything, literally everything, is in constant motion, constant change; nothing, literally nothing, is ever stagnant, ever stays the same – thus all is novel, never boring, all is new, never old, all is fresh, never stale. In short: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis. RESPONDENT: What is wrong with saying: there are no permanent conditioned things? RICHARD: Because nowhere have I ever come across a ‘teaching’ which says that ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’, is an impermanent conditioned thing ... on the contrary, all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have been saying that it is a permanent unconditioned thing (and, more often than not, the only permanent unconditioned thing into the bargain). This is what you had said (the modified version) in response to my initial query:
RESPONDENT: Is this statement at odds with actuality/your above statement? RICHARD: What is at odds with actuality/my above statement is that any ‘teaching’ has ever said that ... spirituality is all about the permanence (aka immortality) and unconditionality (aka absoluteness) of ‘being’ itself. RESPONDENT: How about: all conditioned things are impermanent. RICHARD: If your phraseology ‘all conditioned things’ includes ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’ (quite often capitalised as Being or Presence upon self-realisation) then there is no problem with putting it that way ... this is one of the ways I have summarised it before (a modified version):
And I have summarised it this way because eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth – and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward – and is not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body (sans identity/affections in toto) ... just as western spirituality is not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body either (it is fundamentally all about avoiding a (specious) post-mortem punishment and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward). In short: peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritualism – nor in materialism for that matter – which is one of the reasons why I say actualism is the third alternative to both. The main reason why is, of course, in regards to the meaning of life.
RICHARD: ... in short: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis. RESPONDENT: What is wrong with saying: there are no permanent conditioned things? RICHARD: Because nowhere have I ever come across a ‘teaching’ which says that ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’, is an impermanent conditioned thing ... on the contrary, all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have been saying that it is a permanent unconditioned thing (and, more often than not, the only permanent unconditioned thing into the bargain). RESPONDENT: Is this statement at odds with actuality/your above statement? RICHARD: What is at odds with actuality/my above statement is that any ‘teaching’ has ever said that ... spirituality is all about the permanence (aka immortality) and unconditionality (aka absoluteness) of ‘being’ itself. RESPONDENT: How about: all conditioned things are impermanent. RICHARD: If your phraseology ‘all conditioned things’ includes ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’ (quite often capitalised as Being or Presence upon self-realisation) then there is no problem with putting it that way ... RESPONDENT: Thanks. I like putting it that way. RICHARD: Are you aware this implies you like putting it that the unconditioned permanence all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have found is, in fact, a conditioned impermanent thing ... when all the while the only permanent (aka immortal) unconditioned (aka absolute) thing has been this physical universe they erroneously took to be an impermanent conditioned thing? If so, do you now comprehend why I say that an actual freedom from the human condition is 180 degrees in the opposite direction? * RESPONDENT: What is memory if not partly mental images (along with words, sounds etc)? RICHARD: For me memory is intellectual – the referent words only – with neither images nor sounds. RESPONDENT: If I say to you get me an egg, there must be some kind of visual image of an egg to compare it to the real thing? RICHARD: No, there is sufficient familiarity with eggs to intellectually know what one is by now. RESPONDENT: How else can you link the word egg to the actual object? RICHARD: If no actual egg be present ... intellectually. RESPONDENT: What is the exact mental/physical process involved for one with no identity? RICHARD: If the egg be present ... the direct (unmediated) perception; if the egg be absent ... the intellectual memory. RESPONDENT: Sorry for being a bit slow here, but when you say intellectual memory what do you mean? RICHARD: I mean the cerebral, or mental, recall of that which is not present. RESPONDENT: It seems to me there are only three options:
I can’t see any other way of remembering an object. Presumably when you read the word egg, you know what I am talking about. How can you know if not through the visual memory of an actual egg? RICHARD: It may help to recall something without a tangible shape or form such as an egg has – maybe helium for instance or some other colourless and odourless gaseous substance – and you might get an inkling of what an intellectual memory is. RESPONDENT: Are you distinguishing between visual memory and active imagination? RICHARD: No ... visual memory *is* active imagination. * RESPONDENT: One other point: If you were in the situation of looking after little kids again, I’m presuming that you would have no difficulty shouting at them if they are being naughty. RICHARD: I can speak clearly and firmly, lowering the tone and raising the pitch as appropriate, when interacting with any of my fellow human beings – and not just with the younger ones – who continue to not comply with the legal laws or not observe the social protocols even after being reminded of the sensibility of doing so ... if that is what you mean. RESPONDENT: As this would be seen to many as anger, how would you differentiate? RICHARD: Hmm ... it would appear that what I described (above) is not what you mean. RESPONDENT: Could you smack their bottoms if necessary? RICHARD: There are times when physical force/restraint is necessary with any of my fellow human beings – and not just with the younger ones – as the human condition is endemic per favour blind nature’s survival package of instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) ... no one is exempt. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that its possible to be stern and forceful without being angry? RICHARD: Indeed so ... to actually be harmless (be free of malice) means one does not have to pretend to be harmless (be a pacifist). RESPONDENT: (My experience says yes – unless I am deluding myself). RICHARD: You are not deluding yourself ... and, not all that surprisingly, interacting sans anger is far more effective anyway (especially in the long-term). RESPONDENT: Or would you not ever shout at the kids? RICHARD: Where the voice of reason has no effect (when a fellow human being is in the grip of a passion for example) or where the situation calls for instant effect (when a fellow human being is in danger for instance) speaking clearly and firmly, lowering the tone and raising the pitch as appropriate, is the only sensible course of action with any of my fellow human beings ... and not just with the younger ones. RESPONDENT: (If you say never shout at the kids, I will find this more unbelievable than the belief in a supreme being!! ;). RICHARD: Ha ... if one cannot stay one step ahead of recalcitrant children one does not deserve the title ‘mature adult’. * RESPONDENT: I’m getting the point, that one has to ‘tidy up ones house’ first before self-immolating. RICHARD: Provided it be not an excuse for continued procrastination (as in ‘I’m not ready yet’) it is entirely sensible to become as happy and harmless as is humanly possible before the magical event, which renders all such house-cleaning null and void, actually happens. RESPONDENT: I think I’ve been trying to do it without really becoming a happy ‘being’ first. RICHARD: As the general thrust of your e-mails has been that the ‘self’-immolation in toto, as described on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is not ‘a new concept’ it would appear that whatever it is you have been trying to do it has had nothing to do with what actualism is on about. RESPONDENT: I have (big) issues to sort out first before I will be able to make the leap. RICHARD: As there is no ‘leap’ – an actual freedom is not a spiritual freedom – it would indeed appear so. RESPONDENT: I guess there are no shortcuts. RICHARD: What I find telling – and this is a general observation – is just how much peoples object to being happy and harmless ... the vast majority of the correspondence in the archives is, in fact, a cutting indictment on the human condition itself. Do you realise – and this is a personal observation – you have just said, in effect, that you guess you will have to become a happy ‘being’ before you can become actually free from the human condition (as if were there a way to be thus free without having to do so you would not)? Whereas it is actually such a delight to finally be able to be happy (and harmless) ... and a relief.
RESPONDENT: I have a question. I’m sure its probably been dealt with already, but what is the actualist answer to the old riddle: If a twig snaps in a wood where no one is present is there a sound? RICHARD: As this question is only about aural perception the following can also be asked:
Upon closer inspection ‘the old riddle’ is somewhat trite, eh?
RESPONDENT: I have a question. I’m sure its probably been dealt with already, but what is the actualist answer to the old riddle: If a twig snaps in a wood where no one is present is there a sound? RICHARD: As this question is only about aural perception the following can also be asked: • cutaneous perception: if there is no one present to feel the snapped twig is there texture to the break? • olfactory perception: if there is no one present to smell the snapped twig is there aroma around the break? • proprioceptive perception: if there is no one present to ambulate around the snapped twig is the break three dimensional? • gustatory perception: if there is no one present to taste the snapped twig is there flavour in the break? • ocular perception: if there is no one present to see the snapped twig is there a break in the first place? • cognitive perception: if there is no one present to be a witness is there a twig at all (or is there a wood for that matter)? Upon closer inspection ‘the old riddle’ is somewhat trite, eh? RESPONDENT: I thought that the point of the riddle is to show that without sense organs there can be no sensual information arising. RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, the point of the riddle is to (supposedly) show that without the observer there
is no the observed ... in a word: solipsism RESPONDENT: If there is no experience of the twig, how can it be proved that the twig exists in actuality? RICHARD: Simple: point out to the solipsist that they are asking somebody who (supposedly) does not exist to prove that something else which (supposedly) does not exist does exist. In other words, the very asking of another (a tacit acknowledgement of their existence) for proof is the very proof ... as is that referral to the something else an implicit acknowledgement of its existence as well. As I said: upon closer inspection ‘the old riddle’ is somewhat trite. RESPONDENT: If the twig was not in the visual field then the only way it could be referred to would be by imagination only. RICHARD: We have been down this path before:
RESPONDENT: Surely the actual world relies on sense organs to exist, otherwise how can it be experienced? RICHARD: The physical world exists irregardless of any sentient being existing ... it is flesh and blood bodies which rely upon sense organs to experience physicality. RESPONDENT: Surely it has no way of experiencing itself other than through sense organs? RICHARD: Not ‘through’ ... as: as this flesh and blood body only one is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: What is left if there is no sense data? RICHARD: Ha ... the hoary ‘brain in a vat’ so beloved of the epistemologists, perchance? RESPONDENT: Please clarify. RICHARD: Sure ... this topic has come up before:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
There is more ... but maybe this will do for now? RESPONDENT: P.S. Even though you get a lot of stick on this mailing list, I thank you for sticking around. RICHARD: Oh, I have been the target of all manner of criticism, abuse, blame, censure, reproach, reproof, condemnation And, more significantly, that the meaning of life being can be apparent 24/7.
RESPONDENT: Richard, would you agree that without consciousness it is impossible for the experience of me typing these letters to exist. RICHARD: Ha ... without consciousness it is impossible to be typing those letters in the first place. RESPONDENT: If the answer to the above is yes, then without consciousness it is also impossible to verify the existence of the universe. RICHARD: Hmm ... without consciousness it is impossible to conduct any directed activity. RESPONDENT: Questions like ‘will the universe exist when I die’ can only exist when there is consciousness present. RICHARD: Any question can only exist when there is consciousness ‘present’ (more on this usage below). RESPONDENT: Any comments? RICHARD: Yes ... the word ‘consciousness’ refers to a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and connotes being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, and being conscious, not unconscious (comatose). All sentient beings are conscious ... and sentience means consciousness. Viz.:
A sentient being, and all animals are sentient (having the power or function of sensation), is a living organism capable of sensory perception (a virus, for example, is an organism without sentience) which means that sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Viz.:
In popular usage, however, the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... whereas the word ‘awareness’ does not usually carry that connotation. To put that another way: while the word ‘conscious’ can mean the same as what the word ‘aware’ means the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean something other that what the word ‘awareness’ means ... it can mean the (supposedly) immortal entity which makes a sentient being alive and not dead (as in the phrase ‘consciousness has left the body’ to signify physical death). Which is another way of saying consciousness is no longer ‘present’ in the body. RESPONDENT: Do these statements mean I am a solipsist? RICHARD: Given that a solipsist maintains that ‘only the self really exists or can be known’ (Oxford Dictionary) surely you can work that out for yourself? Just as a matter of interest: I experienced a period of what I then called ‘extreme subjectivity’ whilst living in the Himalayas in 1984 (I did not know of the term ‘solipsist’ until 1993 when I read an edifying account by Mr. Leo Tolstoy, who went through a period of solipsism, and later wrote at length about his experience) and it is a ghastly state to be in ... those who intellectually entertain the notion, as in a philosophy for example, have obviously never personally experienced the reality of being solipsistic. Put briefly: nothing can be verified (absolutely nothing) as everything (absolutely everything) is ‘my’ creation: to ask another, for instance, whether they independently exist is an exercise in futility as anything they might say is ‘my’ creation also ... or to seek psychiatric help, for another example, is to have one of ‘my’ creations prescribe yet another one of ‘my’ creations. Which is why I tend to be forthright with those who dabble (as in the quotes in my previous e-mail).
RESPONDENT: ... when you say intellectual memory what do you mean? RICHARD: I mean the cerebral, or mental, recall of that which is not present. RESPONDENT: It seems to me there are only three options: 1) The ‘sound’ of the word egg. 2) The ‘visual’ image of the word egg. 3) The ‘visual’ image of an actual egg. I can’t see any other way of remembering an object. Presumably when you read the word egg, you know what I am talking about. How can you know if not through the visual memory of an actual egg? RICHARD: It may help to recall something without a tangible shape or form such as an egg has – maybe helium for instance or some other colourless and odourless gaseous substance – and you might get an inkling of what an intellectual memory is. RESPONDENT: Are you distinguishing between visual memory and active imagination? RICHARD: No ... visual memory *is* active imagination. RESPONDENT: So just for the record, if I asked you to draw an egg, are you saying you would be unable to do so, as it would require visual memory? RICHARD: No, I am not saying that ... the following may throw some more light upon the subject:
* RESPONDENT: And one more question: Are you saying that there are no other levels of physicality than this one, or could there be other ‘densities’ that could be tuned into? RICHARD: To turn from the macroscopic – intuiting/conceptualising realities outside the universe – to the microscopic (intuiting/conceptualising realities inside the universe) is the same movement away from the actual ... only in a different direction. Of course it is understandable that, from a real-world perspective, another reality be proposed because there is another dimension, as it were, to that real-world reality – the actual world of the senses, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), which all people I have spoken to at length on the matter have recalled experiencing – but unless a PCE is occurring as you write then where you say ‘than this one’ you can only be referring to a real-world physicality and not the actual one. RESPONDENT: That is levels of existence with finer materiality than this? RICHARD: Nothing is either ‘fine’ or ‘gross’ here in this actual world ... all is pristine, pure. RESPONDENT: Just as if you heat up something solid, it melts, and then eventually turns into a gas. Or do you put this in the ‘spiritual mumbo jumbo’ category? RICHARD: Yep. RESPONDENT: (I’m not talking about gods etc.). RICHARD: For the sake of clarification I will take this opportunity to point out that when I say ‘god’ I am not necessarily only referring to the popular usage of the word (such as the god of a church, a temple, a mosque, a synagogue, and so on) ... I am referring to any non-material otherness (other than physical) by whatever name. In other words: that which is timeless and spaceless and formless.
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 |
