|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 89
RESPONDENT No. 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/ psychic entity’. RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter. RESPONDENT: I don’t dispute that. (... snip remainder of e-mail ...) RESPONDENT No. 87: Seems Richard simply cannot comprehend that with or without instinctual feelings the body remains consciously present. In other words apperceptively aware of itself as a conscious thinking body. RESPONDENT: Yes, that is exactly the point. RICHARD: Given you do not dispute that the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ (an amorphous affective presence, an inchoate feeler/incipient intuiter) then what you are saying [quote] ‘is exactly the point’ [endquote] is, in effect, that with or without that feeling ‘being’ (that affective presence, that feeler/ intuiter) in situ a flesh and blood body remains conscious of currently existing ... unless, of course, asleep, anaesthetised, in a faint, knocked out (or in any other way rendered comatose). In other words, what you are saying [quote] ‘is exactly the point’ [endquote] is, in effect, that either with or without a feeling ‘being’ (an affective presence, a feeler/ intuiter) in situ a flesh and blood body is apperceptively aware of being a conscious, thinking flesh and blood body ... unless, of course, asleep, anaesthetised, in a faint, knocked out (or in any other way rendered comatose). You may find the following useful:
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 87): I am again thankful that you understand this simple observation. RICHARD: If I may point out? That [quote] ‘simple observation’ [endquote] is not the same thing as this report of yours:
No flesh and blood body apperceptively aware of being a conscious, thinking flesh and blood body would ever
say such a thing ... and to ascribe to a flesh and blood body the way a feeling ‘being’ (an affective presence, a
feeler/intuiter) experiences itself is to commit the vulgar error of automorphism You may also find the following useful:
RESPONDENT No. 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/psychic entity’. RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/incipient intuiter. RESPONDENT: I don’t dispute that. RICHARD: What do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? (... snip remainder of e-mail ...) RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 87): (...) I had to get my head out of the mixer after reading his [Richard’s] email. It all sounds like dadaism [abstract literature] to me. RICHARD: If you could explain just what it is that you do dispute about what your co-respondent wrote (further above) it may very well be possible that it will all no longer sound like abstract literature to you ... and here is a clue (where you speak for yourself, about what you feel, and not about what you have read in books):
Here is what the word ‘core’ can mean:
And here is what the term ‘depths of being’ can mean:
Put expressively, ‘the depths of my being’/‘the core of my being’ is made evident when a person says: ‘but what about me, nobody loves me for me!’ For a woman it may be: ‘you only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it might be: ‘you don’t want me ... you only want me for my bank account’. For a child can be: ‘you only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. This intuitive sense of self – which is ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’ – arises out of the basic instinctual passions that blind nature endows sentient creatures with as a rough and ready soft-ware package, as it were, to make a start in life with. So, what do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)?
RICHARD: ... this may be an apt moment to point out that you are not dealing with a mere tyro, here, in these matters and, furthermore (just in case you have not noticed), that you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: What do you suggest with this statement? RICHARD: Simply that ... (1) there is eleven years of intimate experiencing, night and day, of that which the masters of the different traditions speak of for this flesh and blood body to recall (as contrasted to your book-learnt understanding) ... and (2) as what this flesh and blood body has to report/ describe/ explain is beyond that (that which the masters of the different traditions speak of) then all of your book-learnt understanding is about as useful as the teats on a bull are when it comes to participating in the discussions on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: Ok Richard. If you have the practical experience regards the core teaching of the different traditions then please tell me or refer me to the relevant pages on the AF webpage because I was unable to find the information. RICHARD: You will find the information here: RESPONDENT: In what particular initiatic ‘chain’ were you initiated and by whom? RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:
Here is my first question: in what particular [quote] initiatic ‘chain’ [endquote] was Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer initiated and by whom? RESPONDENT: Who was your guru? RICHARD: Here is my second question: who was Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer’s guru? RESPONDENT: What was the teaching you were told by your master ... RICHARD: Here is my third question: what was the teaching Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer was told by his master? RESPONDENT: ... and what was the meditation techniques you were instructed by him to exercise? RICHARD: Here is my fourth question: what were the meditation techniques Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer was instructed by his master to exercise? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Here is a supplementary question: have you ever heard the term ‘come in spinner’? Just curious. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RICHARD: (...) It is this simple: the very stuff of this body (and all bodies) is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe in that it comes out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed. I am nothing other than that ... that is what I am, literally. (...) RESPONDENT: But what does make the carrot grow? RICHARD: Put simply: nothing does make the carrot grow ... where there are conditions conducive to growth (such as fertile soil, potable water, and warm sunlight) the carrot grows of its own accord. RESPONDENT: What brings everything into existence? RICHARD: If by ‘everything’ you mean all space and all time and all matter (aka the universe) then nothing does ... the universe is already always existent. RESPONDENT: The boundary condition of life and that is the Principle, Truth, Infinite, Consciousness, Transcendent etc. RICHARD: Do you not see that it is the very asking of such a question – what is the (ultimate) cause of everything – which creates such an answer? To put that another way: upon closer inspection such a question, whilst appearing profound to more than a few peoples, is based upon an unexamined presupposition (that everything is not already always existent) which, of course, predetermines such an answer ... and which leads to all manner of twaddle, dressed-up as sagacity, about uncaused causes which, being noumenal, can only be apprehended intuitively. RESPONDENT: You say it, yes, of course, everything is already always existent. That is exactly what I have been trying to explain all the time along. RICHARD: It is not at all what you have been trying to explain all along – let alone exactly – as you make it quite clear that by ‘everything’ you do not mean all space and all time and all matter (aka the universe). This may be an apt moment to point out that it is impossible to marry actualism and spiritualism ... and to also point out there have been many who have already come and gone before you, on both this and other mailing lists, having tried in vain to do just that. An actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history.
RESPONDENT: ... Richard himself destroyed all his writings during his enlightenment time, that is, when he thought to be the Paraclete (an appellation of the Holy Ghost). RICHARD: If you could provide the text, with an appropriate reference, wherein Richard said he thought
to be the Paraclete – a god spiritually, as distinct from fleshly, active in the world Incidentally, Richard burnt all what he had written, in that period, post-enlightenment/ awakenment ... not during.
RESPONDENT No. 68: Richard, when talking with a female friend about your Journal she asked the following questions: 1) Were all three people in the three-way relationship with Irene, yourself and Grace engaging in sexual relations ... RICHARD: Yes (... snip detailed response ...) RESPONDENT No. 68: 2) Was there any hint that Irene may have been jealous of your sexual relationship with Grace? RICHARD: No (... snip detailed response ...) RESPONDENT No. 68: 3) Why, if you had a ‘perfect’ relationship with Irene, would you want to add a third party? RICHARD: This is the way I described how it all began (... snip detailed response ...) In short: the ménage à trois was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy ... and not sex and sexuality. RESPONDENT No. 68: I don’t remember this being covered thoroughly in past correspondence and now that I think about it, that is rather surprising to me. RICHARD: Oh? Are you not aware then, that were your female friend’s question to be asked in a world-wide context, rather than from a parochial point of view, it would look somewhat odd ... as in rather unusual or out of place? Mr. George Murdock, an anthropologist by profession, catalogued 853 societies globally: 83.5% of them permitted or preferred polygyny, with but 16% (mainly western) imposing monogamy by law (yet which, by allowing divorce, permit successive polygamy) and only four societies, out of the 853 catalogued, permitted polyandry. In other words a ménage à deux is not the norm. RESPONDENT: Sorry, I cannot follow. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way? The fact that I have been involved at least twice in a
(male-female) ménage à deux – ‘an arrangement or relationship in which two people live together’ (Oxford Dictionary) – prior to my current living arrangement features on quite a few occasions on my portion
of The Actual Freedom Trust web site Could it be that words like ‘marriage’ and ‘wife’, carrying with them the nuptial connotation And could it also be that the very term ‘ménage à trois’ might conjure up images in the mind of an
undiscerning reader/ listener RESPONDENT: When it fits into your case you support it with ‘the norm’ ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As I am currently living in a male-female ménage à deux (which is to be not supported by the norm) your ‘when’ assertion makes no sense at all. RESPONDENT: ... but otherwise the norm is just abnormal for you (= human Condition). RICHARD: As your conclusion is based-upon/drawn-from a nonsensical premise it is, perforce, also senseless ... a senselessness, by the way, twice-removed from what really is the case. But, then again, most rhetorical devices designed for (cheap) effect are. Just for the record: the human condition is so much the norm as to be ubiquitous – blind nature hereditarily bestows instinctual passions upon all human beings at conception without exception – thus far from equalling abnormality it is, being a natural occurrence and therefore globally endemic, entirely normal ... so normal, in fact, as to give rise to expressions such as ‘you can’t change human nature’, and so forth. Which could very well be why such queries as those, both further above and in another e-mail, arose in the mind of my co-respondent’s female friend.
RESPONDENT No. 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/ psychic entity’. RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter. RESPONDENT: I don’t dispute that. RICHARD: What do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? (... snip remainder of e-mail ...) RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 87): (...) I had to get my head out of the mixer after reading his [Richard’s] email. It all sounds like Dadaism (abstract literature) to me. RICHARD: If you could explain just what it is that you do dispute about what your co-respondent wrote (further above) ... RESPONDENT: What are you doing? RICHARD: I am asking you if you could explain just what it is that you do dispute about what your co-respondent wrote, at the top of this page, such as to induce you to inform them that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity ... and, given you do not dispute that the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ (an amorphous affective presence, an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter), it is a very reasonable question to ask. So reasonable, in fact, that I asked it eight times (in the e-mail which you got your head into the mixer whilst reading) in a variety of ways. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: We are over this topic. RICHARD: I have read each and every one of the fifty-one e-mails you posted after that e-mail of mine asking those eight variations on the question appeared in the archives and nowhere could I find you responding in such a manner as to occasion you to confidently assert, without any acquiescent input from me, that [quote] ‘we are over this topic’ [endquote] ... nowhere at all. Obviously, then, the e-mail in which you did respond so convincingly (as to not require my written concurrence) to those eight variations on the question has gone astray ... if you could point me to where it can be found it would be most appreciated. Until then we are, of course, not over this topic in any way, shape or manner ... indeed, it lies at the crux of why that e-mail of mine sounded like abstract literature to you. * RICHARD: ... [If you could explain just what it is that you do dispute] it may very well be possible that it will all no longer sound like abstract literature to you ... and here is a clue (where you speak for yourself, about what you feel, and not about what you have read in books):
RESPONDENT: I am not speaking about me here. RICHARD: As a suggestion only: as that be the case, then, it would be handy to not preface such (apparent) testimonies with the words [quote] ‘speaking for myself’ [endquote] as it creates the impression that you are, albeit somewhat uncharacteristically, speaking for yourself about what you feel, and not about what you have read in books, in that paragraph. RESPONDENT: I am speaking about the ‘entity’ here and as much as there is entity in me I speak about ‘me’. RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication, regarding what you mean by [quote] ‘as much as there is entity in me’ [endquote], here is what you have said elsewhere:
And:
I will, accordingly, put scare quotes around the personal pronouns:
RESPONDENT: This is not me personally but the ‘me’ in everyone. RICHARD: Again I will put scare quotes around the personal pronouns:
RESPONDENT: And the word ‘being’ here is totally unrelated to the word ‘being’ above. RICHARD: Whilst it is standard practice for intellectuals to distance themselves from what they are
studying RESPONDENT: You also use the word being in different contexts differently. RICHARD: The context in that paragraph is about ‘me’, deep down at the core of ‘my’ being, affectively feeling that ‘my’ life (aka ‘my’ existence) in this world is like a life (aka an existence) in exile and, hence, ‘I’ affectively feel bad by default, is it not? RESPONDENT: You talk about ‘fellow human beings’ and distinguish these ‘beings’ from the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RICHARD: When I write ‘my fellow human being’ I am obviously meaning my fellow (human) creature as ... (a) I have made it quite clear on numerous occasions I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world ... and (b) there is no way I can truthfully say, for instance, ‘my fellow (human) feeling of ‘being’’. Of course, not being either a fool or a simpleton, I am well aware that my words will be hijacked by the identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), whose very ‘being’ (aka ‘existence’) feels so real as to be felt to really be immortal when sublimated and transcended, as I have much experience in dealing with recalcitrant egos and compliant souls. RESPONDENT: So I distinguished between ‘being’ as understood as ‘being here’, ‘being conscious’ and ‘existing’ (like there is a cup on the table) and ‘being’ as understood as a ‘feeling of being’, which is what defines the entity, hence ‘being an entity’, ‘being something’, ‘being a soul’ etc. RICHARD: As you clearly say that what defines the entity is ‘being’ as understood as a [quote] ‘feeling of being’ [endquote] then just what is it that you do dispute about what your co-respondent wrote, at the top of this page, such as to induce you to inform them that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/psychic entity? RESPONDENT: There is a difference of ‘being here’ like ‘being in the room’ or ‘being present’ and ‘being something’ like ‘being an entity’. RICHARD: I am well aware of the difference between being here (as in being here in this room or as in being present somewhere/ somewhen) and being something (as in being an entity/being a body) ... yet to be here, as in being in a room, is to be present someplace (in that room for instance) at sometime (either day or night for example) *as* something (as an entity/as a body), is it not? And to be here at this specific place, now at this precise moment, as a particular entity/a particular body, is to be (to exist) ... and as existing=being then that entity/ that body is being (is existing or is extant), right? However only a body can actually be (actually exist); only a body is actually being (actually existing): an entity, deep down at its core, can only feel that it is existing and, as there is only a feeling of being (existing=being), then just like with ‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘my’ and so on, the scare quotes – as in ‘being’ – indicate that the entity’s very existence is nothing other than that feeling ... the feeling of ‘being’. Yet what you told your co-respondent was that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the (rudimentary) feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the (rudimentary) feeling of being a psychological/psychic entity. Here is my question put in an entirely different way: what creates that feeling of ‘being’, then, if not the instinctual passions? RESPONDENT: In other words: The instinctual passions are not creating the feeling of ‘being’ but the feeling of ‘being something’, that is, ‘being an entity’ or ‘being a soul’ but not just ‘being’ like in ‘being here’. RICHARD: Why are you so insistent that the [quote] ‘feeling of ‘being something’, that is, ‘being an entity’ [endquote] is not a feeling of being (a feeling of existing)? RESPONDENT: Therefore I said ‘being’ doesn’t depend on ‘being something’. RICHARD: If I may ask? Where did you say [quote] ‘being’ doesn’t depend on ‘being something’ [endquote]? And the reason I ask is that what you wrote to your co-respondent was that Richard (the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail) does not stop ‘being’ as he is obviously still here in that he is the mortal body. Viz.:
Clearly you are saying that ‘being’ (in your usage of that word) does depend upon being something (a mortal body) ... else why say, by way of evidence, that it is obvious that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is still here inasmuch the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is the mortal body. Indeed, you were most categorical about ‘being’ (in your usage of that word) depending upon being something in your follow-up e-mail to me. Viz.:
And:
And:
Do you see that you were most clear as to what it was you meant by your usage of the word ‘being’ (the body existing)? And yet there is more:
And:
And:
And yet, despite all those emphatic assertions that ‘being’ does depend on being something (as in being a body), you are now informing me that you said [quote] ‘being’ doesn’t depend on ‘being something’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: You are free of the entity but you still are. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is indeed free of the entity; this flesh and blood body most certainly still is. RESPONDENT: Hope this clarifies it! RICHARD: Hmm ... what it has clarified is that the following is a lie:
* RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘core’ can mean:
And here is what the term ‘depths of being’ can mean:
Put expressively, ‘the depths of my being’/‘the core of my being’ is made evident when a person says: ‘but what about me, nobody loves me for me!’ For a woman it may be: ‘you only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it might be: ‘you don’t want me ... you only want me for my bank account’. For a child can be: ‘you only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. This intuitive sense of self – which is ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’ – arises out of the basic instinctual passions that blind nature endows sentient creatures with as a rough and ready soft-ware package, as it were, to make a start in life with. RESPONDENT: Yes, that’s all fine. RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding:
If (note ‘if’) your answer to No’s 1, 2, 3, 4, *and* 5 is in the affirmative then here is my question: what is that intuitive sense of self – which is ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’ (an affective presence, a feeler/ intuiter) – arising out of the basic instinctual passions if it be not [quote] ‘the feeling of ‘being’ [endquote]? * RICHARD: So, what do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? RESPONDENT: See explanation above. RICHARD: I have more than seen your explanation above – I have gone through it sentence-by-sentence so there could be no possible misunderstanding – yet my initial question, in all its eight variations, still remains unanswered ... here it is once more, yet again put differently, for your considered response: What creates the intuitive (as in instinctive and not as in insightful) feeling of ‘being’, then, if not the instinctual passions?
CORRESPONDENT No. 89 (Part Three) 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 |
