|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 45
RICHARD: The whole point of this Mailing List is to discuss together each others’
experience so as to clarify what oneself understands. There is enough written by enough people to find similarities that may be
reliably taken as a prima facie case for investigation without having to believe anyone RESPONDENT: I agree, thank you for these words. With that objective I would like to ask you what do you mean when saying ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul? What is the difference between ‘I’ and ‘me’ and between ego and soul? I cannot understand what you are trying to convey. RICHARD: There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual. The first two ‘I’s are ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) which are the two halves of identity ... thus the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can dissolve/ expand/ transmogrify so as to reveal/create the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) spoke of (soul or Self). Usually I write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer fame (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). Mystical liberation (Moksha) from the bonds of samsara (anava, karma and maya), consists of the soul (atman or purusha) extricating itself from its mistaken assumption of personality or individuality (aham or ‘I’ as ego). This assumption is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on the real-world (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds. These bonds do not cease to exist but no longer have the power to fetter or bind the soul (atman), until its final release at physical death (Mahasamadhi) whereupon atman is Paramatman (or the Brahman) ... oft-times referred to as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (‘That Thou Art’ or ‘I Am That’). An actual freedom from the real-world (samsara or prakriti) is when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct – which means ‘being’ itself expires – and not what happens when ‘I’ as ego transmogrifies into ‘Being’ (Paramatman or Brahman). I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul.
RICHARD: There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual. RESPONDENT: What is the third ‘I’? RICHARD: The flesh and blood body only. I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. * RICHARD: The first two ‘I’s are ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) which are the two halves of identity ... thus the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can dissolve/expand/transmogrify so as to reveal/create the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (soul or Self). Usually I write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer fame (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). RESPONDENT: By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways:
It is also traditionally held that these broad definitions are not exclusive of each other (there are elements of Bhakti and Yoga in Jnani; there are elements of Jnani and Yoga in Bhakti; there are elements of Jnani and Bhakti in Yoga) and that they refer to the main emphasis, of the whole approach, on the part of the practitioner. RESPONDENT: Is thought involved in this process? RICHARD: Only initially ... the goal is to become thoughtless and senseless because that which is sacred, holy, cannot come into being whilst thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are operating. RESPONDENT: Is thought the essence of both ‘I’ or is there anything more? RICHARD: Both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are held to be the essence of the first ‘I’ (ego or self) but are, most certainly, not considered to be the essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self). The essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self) is solely affective (neither cognitive nor sensate) and is generally held to be a state of ‘being’ ... which is why I usually write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). * RICHARD: Mystical liberation (Moksha) from the bonds of samsara (anava, karma and maya), consists of the soul (atman or purusha) extricating itself from its mistaken assumption of personality or individuality (aham or ‘I’ as ego). RESPONDENT: I understand that the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’), and this second ‘I’ can extricating itself from the first ‘I’ or individuality, whereupon there is mystical liberation (Moksha). Is this what you mean? RICHARD: Yes. However, this extrication also includes extrication from both the physical body and the physical world (detachment from both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) inevitably results in dissociation) ... hence the common expression ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’ (maya). * RICHARD: This assumption [the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality] is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on the real-world (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds. RESPONDENT: Why are they reincarnational? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that karma, born of the craving for physical existence, is the reason for re-birth. Hence ‘maya’ (which translates as ‘only apparently real’) is the manifestation of ‘samsara’ (which translates as ‘the running around’) which metempsychosis is the result of ‘karma’ (which translates as ‘act’ or ‘deed’). In Hinduism and Jainism, samsara describes the vocation of the soul which – once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self-Consciousness’ – is born as a creature and continues through transmigration until ‘moksa’ (which translates as ‘release’). Buddhism regards all existence as being samsara – and therefore ‘dukkha’ because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence – and teaches that salvation is to be found in the place where the sun don’t shine. Vis.:
As to what it is that happens, in the place where the sun don’t shine, that the craving arises in the first place, the explanation you provided to this Mailing List, on Monday, 19 June 2000, is as useful or as useless as any other facile explanation. Vis.:
* RICHARD: These bonds do not cease to exist but no longer have the power to fetter or bind the soul (atman), until its final release at physical death (Mahasamadhi) whereupon atman is Paramatman (or the Brahman) ... oft-times referred to as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (‘That Thou Art’ or ‘I Am That’). RESPONDENT: I understand that with this releasing at physical death the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’) will be Brahman. If so, what is Brahman’s essence, is it a creation of the mind? RICHARD: Ha ... Brahman’s essence is held to be unknowable, ineffable and inviolable (never to be questioned). * RICHARD: An actual freedom from the real-world (samsara or prakriti) is when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct – which means ‘being’ itself expires – and not what happens when ‘I’ as ego transmogrifies into ‘Being’ (Paramatman or Brahman). I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: If both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul have become extinct, does something remain when physical death comes? RICHARD: Yes, that which always was, already is, and always will be, remains.
RICHARD: The first two ‘I’s are ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) which are the two halves of identity ... thus the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can dissolve/expand/transmogrify so as to reveal/create the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (soul or Self). Usually I write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer fame (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). RESPONDENT: By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways: 1. Jnani (cognitive realisation as epitomised by the ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this; not this’ approach). 2. Bhakti (affective realisation as epitomised by devotional worship and surrender of will). 3. Yoga (bodily realisation as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’). It is also traditionally held that these broad definitions are not exclusive of each other (there are elements of Bhakti and Yoga in Jnani; there are elements of Jnani and Yoga in Bhakti; there are elements of Jnani and Bhakti in Yoga) and that they refer to the main emphasis, of the whole approach, on the part of the practitioner. RESPONDENT: Do you mean that the second ‘I’ is not indeed a direct creation of the first ‘I’ (thought) ... RICHARD: The first ‘I’, the ‘thinker’, is mostly the result of ‘me’, the ‘feeler’, at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) becoming intuitively self-conscious ... and the ‘feeling being’ is primary because ‘being’ is primordial. The first ‘I’ can create the second ‘I’s name and ascribe properties, assign qualities and attribute values according to personal feelings or cultural norms ... but the nature of ‘being’ itself eludes the comprehension of both self and Self. RESPONDENT: ... but this first ‘I’ can decide to initiate a process of Jnani or Bhakti or Yoga and these processes will lead to the rising of a second ‘I’ which is not of thought? RICHARD: Yes ... ‘rising’ is as good a word as any (‘emergence’, ‘appearance’, ‘manifestation’ and so on) inasmuch the second ‘I’ is ignorantly allowed to have free reign anyway. RESPONDENT: If so, is there not a second ‘I’ in a flesh and blood body if never involved in these ways or processes during the physical life? RICHARD: Oh, yes, the ‘soul’ or ‘being’ is ever-present ... ‘tis the deepest feeling of being ‘me’ (deeper than the surface emotions). * RESPONDENT: Is thought involved in this process? RICHARD: Only initially ... the goal is to become thoughtless and senseless because that which is sacred, holy, cannot come into being whilst thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are operating. RESPONDENT: Right, but what is the relation between that which is sacred, holy, and the second ‘I’? Are both an inward creation of the mind or the so called sacred and holy is an exterior factor? RICHARD: Neither a ‘creation of the mind’ nor an ‘exterior factor’ ... both are affective (the deepest feeling of being ‘me’). The mind can name it, ascertain properties, determine the qualities of those properties and derive values from those qualities ... but it all comes from feelings. * RESPONDENT: Is thought the essence of both ‘I’ or is there anything more? RICHARD: Both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are held to be the essence of the first ‘I’ (ego or self) but are, most certainly, not considered to be the essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self). The essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self) is solely affective (neither cognitive nor sensate) and is generally held to be a state of ‘being’ ... which is why I usually write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). RESPONDENT: If the second ‘I’ is neither thought (cognition) nor perception (sensation) but affective, what do you mean by ‘affective’? Can you unravel further the meaning of ‘affective’? RICHARD: Sure ... the word ‘affective’ means of or pertaining to the affections, the feelings (the emotions or passions). * RICHARD: This assumption [the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality] is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on the real-world (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds. RESPONDENT: Why are they reincarnational? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that karma, born of the craving for physical existence, is the reason for re-birth. Hence ‘maya’ (which translates as ‘only apparently real’) is the manifestation of ‘samsara’ (which translates as ‘the running around’) which metempsychosis is the result of ‘karma’ (which translates as ‘act’ or ‘deed’). In Hinduism and Jainism, samsara describes the vocation of the soul which – once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self-Consciousness’ – is born as a creature and continues through transmigration until ‘moksa’ (which translates as ‘release’). Buddhism regards all existence as being samsara – and therefore ‘dukkha’ because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence – and teaches that salvation is to be found in the place where the sun don’t shine. Vis.: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; ... neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. (Udana 8.1; PTS: viii.1; Nibbana Sutta). As to what it is that happens, in the place where the sun don’t shine, that the craving arises in the first place, the explanation you provided to this Mailing List, on Monday, 19 June 2000, is as useful or as useless as any other facile explanation. Vis.: ‘God is the one who introduces the soul into the stream of transmigration so that he might discover his spiritual nature’. RESPONDENT: Yes, it was in the thread [‘Human Condition and Afterlife. What did mankind say?’]. I was quoting the point of view of theistic Hinduism as stated by Ramanuja and Madhva. Vis: *‘According to them: 1. (...). 2. God is the one who introduces the soul into the stream of transmigration so that he might discover his spiritual nature. In the incarnated state, (...). 3.(...)’. (archive0006/msg01021.html). Above you have stated what has been traditionally held on this point, but I would like to ask you why did you use the word ‘reincarnational’? RICHARD: I was using ‘reincarnational’ in the traditional meaning of the word as I was detailing what enlightenment promises (release from re-birth). The liberation or salvation of enlightenment, being anti-life, does not include, and cannot enable, peace-on-earth (as expressed so explicitly in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s description of the place where the sun don’t shine as being ‘there, I say ... is the end of dukkha’). RESPONDENT: What do you mean by yourself with that word? RICHARD: The word has no meaning to me whatsoever... physical death is the end. Finish. * RICHARD: These bonds do not cease to exist but no longer have the power to fetter or bind the soul (atman), until its final release at physical death (Mahasamadhi) whereupon atman is Paramatman (or the Brahman) ... oft-times referred to as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (‘That Thou Art’ or ‘I Am That’). RESPONDENT: I understand that with this releasing at physical death the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’) will be Brahman. If so, what is Brahman’s essence, is it a creation of the mind? RICHARD: Ha ... Brahman’s essence is held to be unknowable, ineffable and inviolable (never to be questioned). RESPONDENT: Above you pointed that the essence of the second ‘I’ is ‘affective’. If the second ‘I’ is affective and at physical death will be Brahman then Brahman’s essence would be also affective, could it be so? RICHARD: Yes. * RICHARD: An actual freedom from the real-world (samsara or prakriti) is when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct – which means ‘being’ itself expires – and not what happens when ‘I’ as ego transmogrifies into ‘Being’ (Paramatman or Brahman). I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. [I am this flesh and blood body only]. RESPONDENT: If both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul have become extinct, does something remain when physical death comes? RICHARD: Yes, that which always was, already is, and always will be, remains. RESPONDENT: When the first and the second ‘I’ become extinct while the body lives the third ‘I’ remains, and when physical death comes the so called third ‘I’ also remains. Is this your meaning? If so, when the flesh and blood body dies the third ‘I’ remains as what? RICHARD: No ... the third ‘I’ (the only one which is actual) is this flesh and blood body only (it is not an affective and/or cognitive entity inside the body as are the first two ‘I’s). When the flesh and blood body physically dies it is the end of animation and the finish of consciousness ... but not the demise of matter. The physical matter remains: the material of the body decomposes, or is dispersed as ash and smoke, or is consumed by other animals, and thus re-arranges itself, as it always has done and always will do, into another configuration of matter (either animate or inanimate). The physical matter which currently is the flesh and blood body is the very matter of this universe – meaning that the matter in its configuration as this flesh and blood body is the same age as the universe – and this physical universe is comprised of an inestimable amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in novel varieties of form all over the incalculable reaches of space throughout the immeasurable extent of time. Which is why I always advise peoples to come to their senses – both metaphorically and literally – and thus be the direct experiencing of the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling boundlessly as the infinitude that this universe is.
RESPONDENT: Do you mean that the second ‘I’ is not indeed a direct creation of the first ‘I’ (thought) ... RICHARD: The first ‘I’, the ‘thinker’, is mostly the result of ‘me’, the ‘feeler’, at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) becoming intuitively self-conscious ... and the ‘feeling being’ is primary because ‘being’ is primordial. The first ‘I’ can create the second ‘I’s name and ascribe properties, assign qualities and attribute values according to personal feelings or cultural norms ... but the nature of ‘being’ itself eludes the comprehension of both self and Self. RESPONDENT: If the essence of the first ‘I’, the ‘thinker’, is thought and is mostly the result of the second ‘I’, the ‘feeler’, which essence is affective, where does this affective essence come from, what does create the ‘feeler’ or second ‘I’? RICHARD: The instinctual survival passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are
what constitute the inchoate basis of ‘being’ ... they are both the core of self and the source of the instinctive impression
of self and other (the other may be animal, vegetable or mineral). The evidence that the ‘feeling being’ can be intuitively
self-conscious RESPONDENT: Also, many feelings are felt only when the thinker is thinking on it, but when the thinker stops and there’s silence those feelings also stop, seeming that the thinker and the feeler are only the two sides of the same coin. RICHARD: The surface emotions, the agitated feelings, stop but not the deepest, most quiet feeling of being ‘me’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being which is ‘being’ itself). As for ‘only the two sides of the same coin’: the ‘thinker’ cannot exist unless the ‘feeler’ exists – however quiescent it may be (as in ‘pure being’ or ‘a state of being’) – whereas thought, thoughts and thinking can either operate or not operate irregardless of either the presence or the absence of the ‘thinker’ or the ‘feeler’ (the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). A pure consciousness experience shows that thought, thoughts and thinking can either operate or not operate sans the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – apperceptive awareness is ever-fresh – which means both the innate feeling of ‘being’ and its affective feelings are not necessary at all to operate and function in the world of people, things and events. On the contrary ... it and its precious feelings are a hindrance to both personal and communal salubrity. RESPONDENT: On the other hand, when observing a sunrise and the conscious thinking is stopped a feeling of beauty can also rise in silence, seeming that the thinker and the feeler are different. RICHARD: Yes, well said, for therein lies the allure which has beguiled many a soul for millennia: this is where most investigation into the nature of ‘being’ ceases and all effort is focussed upon stopping thought (under the mistaken notion that thought alone creates the ‘thinker’) so as to dwell in the feeling of beauty. This is because, apart from beauty being a grand passion, beauty is where what is called ‘the truth’ can be intuitively encountered. RESPONDENT: The feeler seems to be a thinking-dependent process in the first case and independent of conscious thinking in the second. RICHARD: The ‘thinking-dependent process in the first case’ is all-too-common and leads to the notion that thought creates feelings. They do not ... thought can only trigger off the prior existing feelings. The second case is the demonstration of this being factual (as is the instant instinctive feeling of fear, for another example, in an imminently dangerous situation). It has been exhaustively tested and scientifically (repeatable on demand) demonstrated that feelings come before thought in the perception-reaction process. RESPONDENT: How do you interpret both observations? Is the feeler the same in both cases? RICHARD: Basically the same, yes ... but the degree to which the ‘feeler’ is felt is dependent upon whether surface emotions or deep feelings are stirred. Thought can stir deep feelings (as in unrequited love or grief at losing a loved one) as well as the more easily agitated surface emotions (as in irritation whilst on one’s own at what he said/she said earlier that day). Conversely, the thoughtless feeling of beauty and love can also agitate the surface emotions (as in frustration at its impermanence or envy of another living in/as truth and with/as compassion) if one’s own living be but spasmodic experiences. Exploring the affective feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – is a fascinating venture which is far more rewarding than merely exploring the twists and turns of thought in order to have thinking cease. It is not for the faint at heart and the weak of knee, though, as it requires nerves of steel to plumb the stygian depths of one’s psyche (which is the human psyche) so as to ascertain the nature of ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). * RESPONDENT: Is thought involved in this process? RICHARD: Only initially ... the goal is to become thoughtless and senseless because that which is sacred, holy, cannot come into being whilst thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are operating. RESPONDENT: Do you mean by ‘thoughtless’ without mental chattering? RICHARD: No ... the total cessation of cognition in its entirety (including wordless acknowledgement/ registration). RESPONDENT: When mind is in this situation awareness through the senses increase hugely, so that what do you mean by ‘senseless’? RICHARD: I am not referring to ‘Nature Mysticism’ ... by ‘senseless’ I mean literally no
sensation (no sensate experience) whatsoever. The total cessation of cognition (including wordless acknowledgement/registration)
requires that all perception ceases ... including proprioceptive sensations. There is no consciousness at all ... this
consciousness-less state is what the Sanskrit word ‘dhyana’ (mistranslated as ‘meditation’) refers to in the East (known
as ‘jhana’ in Pali). It is otherwise known as ‘entering into samadhi’, a trance state called catatonia in the West (or
catalepsy Apart from Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer in his early years, possibly the best-known example could be Mr. Gadadhar Chattopadhyay (aka Ramakrishna) ... onlookers can see the body is totally inward-looking, totally self-absorbed, totally immobile, totally functionless: the body cannot and does not talk, walk, eat, drink, wake, sleep ... or type E-Mails to mailing lists. A never-ending ‘dhyana’ or ‘samadhi’ would result in the body wasting away until its inevitable physical death ... as a means of obtaining peace-on-earth it is completely useless. * RESPONDENT: What is the relation between that which is sacred, holy, and the second ‘I’? Are both an inward creation of the mind or the so called sacred and holy is an exterior factor? RICHARD: Neither a ‘creation of the mind’ nor an ‘exterior factor’ ... both are affective (the deepest feeling of being ‘me’). The mind can name it, ascertain properties, determine the qualities of those properties and derive values from those qualities ... but it all comes from feelings. RESPONDENT: If the sacred, holy, comes from feelings, from the second ‘I’ (the deepest feeling of being ‘me’ or soul), then the so called sacred would be not an exterior factor but a creation of the second ‘I’ or feeler, is that what you mean? RICHARD: Yes. That which is sacred, holy is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). RESPONDENT: Also, it seems that you consider ‘mind’ and ‘being (soul or second ‘I’)’ as different, which are these differences? RICHARD: The mind is the human brain in action inside the human skull (cognition is a neuronal activity) whereas the ‘being’ is the instinctual passions in action in the ‘lizard brain’ at the top of the brain-stem (at the base of the skull). * RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that karma, born of the craving for physical existence, is the reason for re-birth ... Buddhism regards all existence as being samsara – and therefore ‘dukkha’ because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence – and teaches that salvation is to be found in the place where the sun don’t shine. <snip>. RESPONDENT: Above you have stated what has been traditionally held on this point, but I would like to ask you why did you use the word ‘reincarnational’? RICHARD: I was using ‘reincarnational’ in the traditional meaning of the word as I was detailing what enlightenment promises (release from re-birth). The liberation or salvation of enlightenment, being anti-life, does not include, and cannot enable, peace-on-earth (as expressed so explicitly in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s description of the place where the sun don’t shine as being ‘there, I say ... is the end of dukkha’). RESPONDENT: Why is it anti-life? RICHARD: Is it not obvious? A total withdrawal from the physical world and the physical body ... a dissociation based upon Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s insight that all existence is ‘dukkha’ because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence in the first place. Vis.:
Apart from being ‘freed, dissociated, and released’ from ‘form’ and ‘feeling’ and ‘perception’ and ‘[mental] fabrications’ and ‘consciousness’ (aka ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’) he is also ‘freed, dissociated, and released’ from ‘birth’ and ‘aging’ and ‘death’ (aka ‘unborn and undying’ aka ‘immortal’). Lastly he clearly indicates that life as this flesh and blood body, on this verdant and azure planet, in this immeasurably vast universe, is ‘dukkha’ and is ‘āsava’ ... the only cure of which is to be ‘freed, dissociated, and released’ from it all and scarper off to the place where the sun don’t shine. The word ‘āsava’ is particularly telling ... it is a cutting indictment of the body, the planet and the universe. RESPONDENT: What would be anti-life and cannot enable peace-on-earth in Buddha’s supposed enlightenment and ending of sorrow? RICHARD: The end of ‘dukkha’ he says, is to be found neither on this verdant and azure planet nor anywhere in this immeasurably vast universe. Vis.:
The whole point of enlightenment is release from re-birth ... peace-on-earth is not even on their agenda. * RESPONDENT: What do you mean by yourself with that word? RICHARD: The word has no meaning to me whatsoever... physical death is the end. Finish. RESPONDENT: Was you pointing by yourself or just stating what is traditionally held when saying about the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’): ‘until its final release [in Brahman] at physical death’? RICHARD: I was providing what is traditionally held. RESPONDENT: Do you consider that the first or the second ‘I’ or any residual activity of thinking or whatever can remain in any form when the body dies? RICHARD: None whatsoever. It goes on in other people, of course, meaning that all babies are genetically encoded with the instinctual survival passions the moment the spermatozoa penetrates the ova and the first cell starts doubling. RESPONDENT: If the second ‘I’ is affective and at physical death will be Brahman then Brahman’s essence would be also affective, could it be so? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: Then, do you consider the so called Brahman just and only a creation of the second ‘I’? RICHARD: Yes. ‘Being’ exists only in the affective faculty of living peoples. * RICHARD: An actual freedom from the real-world (samsara or prakriti) is when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct – which means ‘being’ itself expires – and not what happens when ‘I’ as ego transmogrifies into ‘Being’ (Paramatman or Brahman). I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. [I am this flesh and blood body only]. RESPONDENT: If both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul have become extinct, does something remain when physical death comes? RICHARD: Yes, that which always was, already is, and always will be, remains. When the flesh and blood body physically dies it is the end of animation and the finish of consciousness but not the demise of matter. The physical matter remains: the material of the body decomposes, or is dispersed as ash and smoke, or is consumed by other animals, and thus re-arranges itself, as it always has done and always will do, into another configuration of matter (either animate or inanimate). RESPONDENT: Do you mean that just remains the pure matter of the body and its ulterior decomposition without any other form of residual activity from the dead being? RICHARD: Yes (decomposition and recomposition and decomposition and recomposition so on ad infinitum). * RICHARD: The physical matter which currently is the flesh and blood body is the very matter of this universe – meaning that the matter in its configuration as this flesh and blood body is the same age as the universe – and this physical universe is comprised of an inestimable amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in novel varieties of form all over the incalculable reaches of space throughout the immeasurable extent of time. Which is why I always advise peoples to come to their senses – both metaphorically and literally – and thus be the direct experiencing of the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling boundlessly as the infinitude that this universe is. RESPONDENT: From personal observations I can conceive something like order and intelligence in the so called inanimate matter, and also can conceive this inestimable amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in novel varieties of form all over the incalculable reaches of space. RICHARD: With disorder (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in absentia the PCE shows matter to be more than just orderly ... and that intelligence is the human brain in action in the human skull. This immeasurably vast universe is far, far more than merely intelligent. RESPONDENT: But it seems inconceivable the rising of this universe by itself, without something behind, and the own matter becoming conscious of itself as human being and feeler. RICHARD: This physical universe always was, already is, and always will be. RESPONDENT: On the other hand, though the thinker seems to be indeed a material process, near 6 billions humans consider the thinker as an immaterial soul. RICHARD: Yet the 6.0 billion peoples have got it wrong ... hence all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on go on forever and a day.
CORRESPONDENT No. 45 (Part Three) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ 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 |
