Richard’s Selected Correspondence
Re: Near Actual Caring
RICHARD: (...) the topic is essentially about being self-centred – with especial attention upon that term referring to each and every ‘self’ being both ego-centric and soul-centric – in respect to the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness, which religio-spiritualists generally equate to self-centredness, via putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’).
Now, the incident to which Claudiu responded thusly was when feeling-being ‘Alan’ placed the affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ before the actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan (otherwise depicted as “giving myself 100% to another” in Message № 23179) being apparent 24/7 by forgoing ‘his’ second attempt at ‘self’-immolation, there-and-then, due in the main to feeling-being ‘Alan’ already being about an hour late for their prearranged rendezvous.
In other words, feeling-being ‘Alan’ prioritised the (potential) affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ – a conditioned happiness, dependent upon the situation and circumstances, and of a temporary nature – over the (potential) actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan – an unconditioned happiness, due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only, and of a permanent nature – which happiness also has the priceless advantage of having no trace of any malice whatsoever to later supplant it. (Richard, List D, No. 45, 28 July 2016)
MARTIN: Hello Richard. Isn’t there a combination of conditional / caused happiness and unconditional / non-contingent happiness?
As a caused, or conditional, happiness has a beginning and an end – it is dependent upon situations and circumstances – and an uncaused, or unconditional, happiness is perpetual, aeonian (beginningless and endless) it is self-evident they are categorically distinct; as such, there obviously cannot be “a combination” of the two.
Here is what a dictionary has to say:
Put simply: doing something pleasant and/or beneficial – or something pleasurable and/or beneficent happening – is a bonus on top of the sheer delight of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only.
MARTIN: For example, even when one’s enjoyment and appreciation is solely to being alive / being here, that may involve enjoyable activities that have a beginning and an end, for example eating something tasty. Shouldn’t one enjoy those activities?
RICHARD: Where enjoyment and appreciation are due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only (neither ego-centric nor soul-centric; i.e., no self-centredness whatsoever) – which is what ensues either in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or upon an actual freedom from the human condition – there is the added bonus of pleasurable activities and events to enjoy and appreciate (along with the distinct advantage that unpleasant activities and events do not detract one whit from that sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only).
For instance (in regards to that latter, parenthesised, observation):
In other words, an apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity is not dependent upon experiencing sensate (bodily) pleasure; an apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity occurs all the while sensate (bodily) pain is happening as well.
MARTIN: But what exactly is the perspective in doing so that maintains an unconditional happiness as being paramount?
RICHARD: The very fact of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only – sans both identity in toto/the entire affective faculty – is what maintains (to use your terminology) the paramountcy of an unconditional/ uncaused happiness.
Put differently: a non-contingent happiness – a felicity not dependent upon either the situation or the circumstances – is the default condition of the very fact of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans both the instinctual passions and the feeling-being formed thereof).
There is a lengthy email exchange on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site, starting on May 11 2006, which goes into this ‘happiness is the default condition’ topic in extensive detail. It all began when I reported that happiness is inherent to perfection.
As the resultant email exchange extends over 16-17 posts, all told, it will take a while to follow it all the way through.
MARTIN: Doesn’t one have to almost focus on the unconditional happiness to the exclusion – or rather not giving much weight to – the various experiences, which may be good or bad?
RICHARD: As an unconditional/ uncaused happiness automatically ensues where no self-centredness prevails – either in a PCE (where both ego and soul are abeyant) or upon an actual freedom (where both ego and soul are extinct) – no focus whatsoever is required.
Even the relatively unconditional happiness of a virtual freedom – remaining virtually sorrow-free despite the normal vicissitudes of life – requires no such focus as pure intent is what keeps one on track with regards to both the immediate and the ultimate goal.
(As a virtual freedom involves remaining as happy and as harmless (as free from sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible, come-what-may, it is thus not dependent upon the situation and the circumstances. In that sense, then, the virtually sorrow-free felicity of a virtual freedom can also qualify as an unconditional happiness but as it is neither permanent nor totally sorrow-free it is relatively, and not absolutely, unconditional).
MARTIN: Are they two separate things which co-exist, or does an unconditional happiness encapsulate the caused happiness – I’m asking because you gave the example of delighting in eating a hamburger on the website which is a conditional happiness:
It’s almost as though it doesn’t matter that you’re eating the delicious hamburger (which is a conditional happiness with a beginning and an end), and yet you’re completely delighting in it – this is what I’m struggling to wrap my head around – the way that what is conditional is experienced unconditionally if you like. Sorry if this sounds stupid you’ve probably explained it in that link with the eternal time stuff, but can you put it any more simply?
RICHARD: First of all, that part-quote you provided there is an ‘as requested’ response to my co-respondent (№ 15 on Mailing List ‘A’) asking me “How do I do this while eating a hamburger?” by way of a rejoinder to my previous explanation of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of apperception (‘the mind’s perception of itself’) as being what happens when the ‘self’ ceases to function as a perceiver and perception happens of itself.
So I took him step-by-step through the “nuts and bolts”, as asked, of having perception happen of itself whilst he was eating his hamburger (couched in the first person active voice, rather than the second or third person, so he could read it as if it were himself actively engaged in doing it) via advising him to appreciate how this moment – this moment he is biting into his hamburger – is the only moment he is actually alive and to also be aware that, out of all the hamburgers he has ever eaten or will ever eat, only this one he is currently eating actually exists.
Of course, were he to have actually put into action those “nuts and bolts” he asked for – the “nuts and bolts” of having perception happen of itself while eating his hamburger – he would have then experientially known what the word ‘apperception’ refers to as per the actualism lingo.
Howsoever, his follow-up email readily demonstrated that he was not really interested in the “nuts and bolts”, of having perception happen of itself while eating his hamburger, after all.
I have gone into some detail regarding the reason why this passage you part-quoted from was written, and why it was written in that particularised manner, because your immediately following words – [quote] “It’s almost as though it doesn’t matter that you’re eating the delicious hamburger...” [endquote] – convey an impression that those “nuts and bolts” of having perception happen of itself, whilst eating something delicious, were somehow overlooked when you selected that particular section to quote.
In other words, were you to receive a report from me about how the unconditional/ uncaused felicity of being alive/ being here does not “encapsulate” the conditional/ caused felicity which gratuitously occurs as a bonus on top of that sheer delight (upon engaging in activities and events of a pleasant and/or beneficial nature) it would probably add very little to your comprehension.
What I can do, however, in regards to your [quote] “the way that what is conditional is experienced unconditionally if you like” [endquote] words, is to draw your attention to the following exchange:
I have emphasised the vital parts of that exchange as more than a few persons have seized on the “scale of 1-10” portion as being meaningful in itself – and thus miss the true import of what is being reported there – as I am none too sure how I can [quote] “put it any more simply” [endquote] than that.
(Here is the key to comprehension: by virtue of being this flesh-and-blood body only every last little bit of me is the very stuff of infinitude itself).
MARTIN: Do you experience life as a combination of caused and uncaused happinesses, and so still head towards pleasurable activities and experiences?
RICHARD: As I would have to be pretty silly to head towards displeasurable activities and experiences – especially when pleasurable activities and experiences are available by the bucket-load (as a bonus on top of the utter delight of simply being this flesh and blood body only) – then drawing your attention to the following passages should be self-explanatory.
MARTIN: Another example: Perhaps a manager makes a decision at work of how I should do things that will lead to a lot of unecessary extra work. Or perhaps I am expected to work longer hours at work thus potentially losing free time. Or I no longer have the same level of access to pleasant activities / conditions / experiences.
RICHARD: Again, given that certain managers are prone to making such decisions/ expecting you to work longer hours/ preventing you from have the same level of access/ and so on and so forth, why set yourself up to no longer feel good (a general feeling of well-being) as such events occur when it is your choice, and your choice alone, as to how you feel, each moment again, while these events are happening.
MARTIN: An unconditional happiness has to encompass all of these issues / ups and downs that would affect my wellbeing in a conventional sense... with no defensiveness or self-pity at losing out. I know a non-contingent happiness would have to work whether one is in a nice environment or in solitary confinement, but I personally can’t help be at least somewhat affected by the viscittudes.
RICHARD: Aye, an unconditional happiness does indeed encompass all those events – including events which have an effect on physical well-being (senescence alone, in my case, has increasingly engendered such effects of late) – yet experience shows that certain feeling-beings have, personally, indeed been able to help themselves to not be at least somewhat affected by the vicissitudes.
MARTIN: I can see how the human condition is geared towards seeking conditional happinesses, and that actualism is about making a radical shift – almost like moving to a different dimension – to a non-contingent happiness, and I’m trying to figure out how to do this (bearing in mind billions of people have not been able to discover what you did Richard).
RICHARD: Good ... in the meanwhile, until you do figure out how, why not set feeling good (a general feeling of well-being) as a bottom-line of experiencing so it can become ‘second-nature’ to feel good, each moment again come-what-may, sooner rather than later?
MARTIN: If I try to be happy now, my instinctual energy wants some stimulation as it operates with a sense of going somewhere. I sort of think ‘well I could be happy now, but what then – just sit here like a lemon?’ (that ‘wanting something more’ or ‘there must be more to life than this’ comes into play even in regards to the actualism method itself!).
RICHARD: Well, of course ... after all, the ultimate aim of the actualism method is to uncover, for oneself, the ‘secret to life’, or the ‘riddle of existence’, or the ‘purpose of the universe’, or the ‘meaning of life’, or whatever one’s quest may be called.
RESPONDENT: I didn’t mean to compare my feeling more neutral with respect to ‘disapproving of the universe happening’ with a PCE. Not at all.
RICHARD: The two descriptions I provided were in the nature of realisations – not PCE’s – and may very well throw some light upon what ‘neither approving nor disapproving’ means (other than being neutral) as the middle ground between black and white, for an analogy, is grey.
As a general rule of thumb, when one comes upon a dichotomous situation, there is quite often a third alternative ... the most obvious one being neither suppressing nor expressing a feeling, such as anger for a ready-enough example, whereupon the feeling is put into a bind, as it were, and in the interregnum a third alternative can hove into view.
RESPONDENT: I did make the connection to ‘I didn’t ask to be born’ when the insight happened and wondered why those particular words didn’t click and the former ones did.
RICHARD: It sometimes can take more than a few repeats before the import of something which ‘clicks’ actually sinks in and takes effect ... many was the time that, all those years ago, when browsing back through notes jotted down as a particular realisation occurred, say 6 months prior, ‘I’ would think how insightful that observation was and why on earth had ‘I’ not been doing it all this while.
RESPONDENT: I want you to know I do use HAIETMOBA? ...
RICHARD: Yes, my error ... I did see, when that e-mail came into my mail-box from the list and I re-read it for any typos I may have missed, that I should have said ‘why not give the actualism method a full go’ as you had already said you had been using it for three months.
And by ‘full go’ I mean to the stage where the benevolence and benignity of the vast stillness, which is the essential character of the infinitude this universe actually is, is able to operate (where one is as happy and harmless as is humanly possible) as a human being ... instead of ‘me’ vainly trying to be infinitely/eternally beneficent and magnanimous.
All one needs to do, to put it in its most simplified form, is be felicitous/ innocuous – a boots and all felicity/ innocuity – then one is not on one’s own in this, the adventure of a lifetime, as the universe is with one all the way.
And help don’t come bigger than that!
RESPONDENT: ... but I see what is missing is I must generate felicity as my resident mood and not just be in touch with it sometimes.
RICHARD: Yes ... and then, further along the way, be felicitous/ innocuous (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).
RESPONDENT: That is difficult ...
RICHARD: What I advise is to be realistic and set the bottom line as feeling good (a general sense of well-being) each moment again so as to get the ball rolling (get a momentum going) ... the generalised example I provide goes something like this: what has happened, between the last time I felt good and now? When did I feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous feelings? Ahh ... yes: ‘He said that and I ...’. Or: ‘She didn’t do this and I ...’. Or: ‘What I wanted was ...’. Or: ‘I didn’t do ...’. And so on and so on ... one does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most.
Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive.
The more one enjoys and appreciates being just here right now – to the point of excellence being the norm – the greater the likelihood of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) happening ... a grim and/or glum person has no chance whatsoever of allowing the magical event, which indubitably shows where everyone has being going awry, to occur.
Plus any analysing and/or psychologising and/or philosophising whilst one is in the grip of debilitating feelings usually does not achieve much (other than spiralling around and around in varying degrees of despair and despondency or whatever) anyway.
RESPONDENT: ... but thank you for pointing out why because, obviously, how can I be happy when my attitude is ‘I didn’t ask to be born.’? HA!
RICHARD: Indeed not ... that basic resentment, the fundamental grievance, will dog every best effort otherwise and render all endeavour useless.
RESPONDENT: On the AF site you have often taken the time to say the same thing in at least fifty different ways. Someday one of those ways may be (or trigger) the right words in my head (for AF to happen).
RICHARD: Or even a virtual freedom: someone once said, after reading maybe 60-70 pages of my journal, that Richard repeats himself a lot and stopped reading ... which occasioned me to recall someone else saying that they had read it eight times and were onto their ninth read ... and each time discovering layers of meaning (if only because of the repetition) overlooked in each previous read-through.
RESPONDENT: First question: If you don’t have feelings what else could happiness be if not a feeling when you remember the past which was pleasant? I’ll give it a try, then you’ll have your chance to comment.
Mind can never find happiness as when you pursue and find a sensation. Sensation can be found again and again, for it is ever being lost; but happiness cannot be found. When you say ‘I am happy’ surely, what you were aware of was the sensation of an experience which you call happiness; but that is not happiness. What you know is the past, not the present; and the past is sensation, reaction, memory. You remember that you were happy; but can the past tell what happiness is? It can recall but it cannot be. Recognition is not happiness; to know what it is to be happy, is not happiness. Recognition is the response of memory; and the very recognition prevents the experiencing.
When there is happiness, are you aware, conscious of it? Consciousness comes only with conflict, the conflict that remembering and wanting more generates. Happiness is not the remembrance of the more. Where there is conflict, happiness is not. Thought at all levels is the response of memory, and so thought invariably breeds conflict. We leave ‘Freedom’ for next time when we have agreed, cleared and finished with the theme ‘Happiness’. There is a lot to be said about it but this email is getting too long. I trust you consider my honesty and reply frankly.
RICHARD: Okay ... your question does not make sense in its present form (‘if you don’t have feelings what else could happiness be if not a feeling when you remember the past which was pleasant?’) so perhaps you could re-word it so it does?
As there is neither a feeler nor its feelings extant in this flesh and blood body then, when on the few occasions I do remember the past (all of which are pleasant memories), there is no way there can be happiness as a feeling.
RESPONDENT: Now I have some questions for you. ‘Why you want to be happy and harmless?
RICHARD: As I do not want to be happy and harmless I cannot answer your question ... I have been here, in the perfection of this actual world, all along simply having a ball.
In other words: it was the identity within who desired happiness and harmlessness ... and ‘he’ desired it like ‘he’ had never desired anything before.
RESPONDENT: Is this not a desire?
RICHARD: It was for the identity within ... ‘twas the mother of all desires, in fact.
RESPONDENT: But you said you have not desires.
RICHARD: I have indeed said that ... and I will say it again: I have no desires whatsoever.
RESPONDENT: ‘You say you had a nice day and tomorrow you will have another one.
RICHARD: What I have actually said is that I have had a perfect day – and that tomorrow will be another perfect day – and copy-pasting the words ‘nice day’ into the search engine and sending it through all the words I have ever written brought up only one hit. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: How do you know it was a nice day if you had no feelings?
RICHARD: The direct experience of perfection informs of a perfect day: in the (above) context the ‘nice day’ is being sensately experienced ... and not affectively.
RESPONDENT: ‘If you don’t have I or being then who knows it?
RICHARD: Not ‘who’ knows it ... what knows it: this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware knows it.
RESPONDENT: There exist people that suffer from anhedonia. Is a fact. Does the brain of these people are different from yours as you operate now?
RICHARD: First of all, anhedonia is usually defined as the inability to affectively feel pleasure (from the Greek ‘an-’ [‘without’] plus the Greek ‘hedone’ [‘pleasure’] which is akin to Greek ‘hedys’ [‘sweet’] from the Latin ‘suavis’) and what is usually overlooked is the inability to affectively feel pain ... as in the pleasure/pain principle so often mentioned in mystical texts.
It has nothing to do with physical pleasure/pain.
Second, usually anhedonia is a central feature of a psychotic disorder ... for example:
Third, from the descriptions I have heard and read it is a psychiatric condition for them ... and not a liberating condition. You may find what Ms. Kristina Luna has to report at the following URL illuminating in this regard: http://juns.nursing.arizona.edu/articles/Fall%202002/luna_anhedonia.htm
Here is the abstract, summary, and conclusion, of that article:
As [quote] ‘the aetiology of anhedonia is still unknown’ [endquote] and anhedonia is [quote] ‘little understood by many in the psychiatric field’ [endquote] I cannot answer your query as to how the brain of those people operates differently from the brain in this skull other than to say that it appears to be a psychological condition and not a physiological condition (given that therapy can reverse the process somewhat).
RESPONDENT: I mean what is the difference of these patients and you?
RICHARD: In a nutshell: they are not free from the human condition ... they are more deeply entangled than the norm, in fact.
RESPONDENT: You said that you felt a brain change.
RICHARD: More specifically: I said that there was a physical sensation in the brain-stem (at the base of the brain/nape of the neck).
RESPONDENT: Did you ever thought that you might altered your brain?
RICHARD: No ... all the activity occurred in the brain-stem.
RESPONDENT: Please don’t take anything personal, we are discussing.
RICHARD: As there is no personality in situ to ‘take anything personal’ that can never happen ... and I have no problem at all about being quizzed anyway as anybody stating that they have the solution to all the ills of humankind can expect to be examined rigorously.
RESPONDENT: 4) How is it that better than 80% of Americans report positive ‘life satisfaction’ in recent surveys reported by some of the ‘positive psychologists’ (see David Myers ‘The Pursuit of Happiness’, Dr. David Lykken ‘Happiness’ and Martin Seligman ‘Authentic Happiness’) studying things like happiness and life satisfaction – and people all over the world reporting in general relatively positive life satisfaction – yet you still refer to life in the real world as ‘abysmal’ and ‘grim and glum’ and ‘miserable?’
RICHARD: To illustrate what a life of total fulfilment and utter satisfaction looks like I will quote from a book by one of the three ‘positive psychologists’ you refer to:
In short: life here in this actual world *is* such an intense experience, each moment again, as the intense experience he describes (a PCE lasting a few seconds 40 years ago) yet despite his well-explained (referencing Mr. Aldous Huxley’s account) glimpse of the perfection of the purity of this actual world (as experienced when 4 years old) he opts instead for the ‘life satisfaction’ of positive psychology ... all the while presuming, with spurious justifications, that this life I am living is [quote] ‘maladaptive in adults’ [endquote].
Yet I am neither in gaol nor a psychiatric institution; I can orient myself in space and time and get from point A to point B; I am not easy meat for prowlers; I feed, clothe and house myself, paying all my bills on time; I manage four net-worked computers, an internet domain, a web page, a mail server, and so on, without any prior experience or training; I write millions of words meaningfully strung together in sentences and paragraphs ... all the while [quote] ‘entranced by colours, smells, and textures’ [endquote] to an extent much, much more than a PCE allows (as evidenced by Mr. Aldous Huxley not being able to bear it for example).
RICHARD: This is just a guess, as I can only go on the words you write, but I would venture to suggest that the ‘self image’ you were invested in developing over all those years has resurrected itself in the guise of an (intellectual) caring which is (ostensibly) not a feeling caring. (...) Being a ‘loving, caring person’ is born of the instinctual passion of nurture – as most moralistic/ ethicalistic caring is – and as the instinctual passions are particularly tenacious it may be apposite to enquire into who the grief you mentioned in another e-mail was being felt for. (...) ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.
RESPONDENT: Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I’ve always been aware that there was a gulf between how I used to care and what is happening when I am asking the actualist question and being happy and harmless. It seems that I was trying to extend the concept of moralistic altruism and ‘imitating the actual’ beyond what you intend. The confusion is cleared up now though – I see clearly that you mean altruism merely in the biological sense is needed for the actualist process and that imitating the actual specifically means being happy and harmless and acting benevolently from that position.
RICHARD: Yes, though where one is happy and harmless then benevolence and benignity act of their own accord ... thus it is effortless.
RESPONDENT: Here is how I think the confusion arose. I was seeing all feeling caring as stemming from separation – something an actualist is to be wary of. So I figured, there must be a kind of caring which isn’t based on feeling – which must be ‘altruism’. That seemed to match up with a kind of caring that doesn’t seem to have much premeditative thought or feeling – ‘spontaneous’ caring which one could call altruistic since one doesn’t think or feel much about how the action would affect oneself. So I was equating ‘altruism’ with ‘actually caring’ and ‘benevolence’. So I thought maybe that’s what was meant – that feeling caring changes into a sort of spontaneous caring which is not consciously related to one’s personal aims (actually caring) – which would make caring happily and harmlessly not a feeling caring, but a spontaneous altruistic caring – which is the ‘launch-pad’ to an actual freedom. But I see now this was just a wild goose chase. I was simply misunderstanding. Even one in virtual freedom still uses feelings to care – only happy and harmless ones – benevolence.
RESPONDENT: Richard, sorry for jumping to this question before replying to our ongoing long correspondence. I want to know what does ‘happiness’ mean to you. To be honest, to me it still is a feeling. I ask this question in relation to your post to No. 3 in which you wrote: [Richard]: ‘A happy and harmless person has a much better chance of precipitating a PCE ... which is the essential pre-requisite for an actual freedom (otherwise this is all theory). It goes without saying, surely, that a grumpy person locks themselves out of being here ... now’. Which means that being ‘happy and harmless’ is a pre-requisite for actual freedom (at least it gives better chances). So it is very important to know what is this happiness which is required before one even attempts for actual freedom.
RICHARD: There is nothing mysterious going on here, it is only a matter of how the English language is structured ... try reading it this way:
Nevertheless, there is more to it than that: the phrase ‘He is an angry person’ or ‘She is an hysterical person’ refers to someone who is more prone to be angry or hysterical – and more extreme in their anger and hysteria – than the average person. Likewise: ‘He is a bully’ or ‘She is a bitch’ refers to a person who displays an attitude and behaviour that automatically classifies them as being more extreme than the average person. So when I write ‘a happy and harmless person’ I am indicating someone who is more extreme in their happiness and harmlessness than the average ... similarly ‘a grumpy person’ indicates someone more extreme in feeling grumpy than the average person (and please do not ask me to define ‘average’ ... because have you ever realised that half the people that you know are necessarily below average!).
Perhaps this is an excellent opportunity to clarify this whole issue about feelings. Often people who read about actual freedom gain the impression that I am asking people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire affective faculty is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the psyche itself is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings. It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly know as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others (‘repressed’ not ‘suppressed’). In a PCE the feelings play no part at all – the self is in abeyance – but can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an ASC ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings. What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. I make this very clear in my writing:
KONRAD: Suppose someone follows your metaphysics completely, and live it. Then, psychologically speaking, they have definitely found a way to sensate beauty. But this can only be experienced as long as they themselves are an existent. This means, that when they are confronted with death, there is instant realisation that they will lose all of it. And since the happiness is so intense, this means a loss that is proportional to their happiness. This problem is the fundamental problem of happiness in every form. If you have found it, the realisation that you are a finite being with only limited time at your disposal causes the very sources of happiness to transform into potential things you will lose, and therefore to psychological pain.
RICHARD: Ah, so you do believe in life after death after all. I did ask you in an E-Mail months ago and you replied in the negative then. Is this another of your sudden insights ... or were you lying to me then?
KONRAD: This fact is clearly realised in the East. It has caused a disaster there, for it has caused the East to be even hostile to the whole idea of happiness. To strive for happiness is at the same time to strive for something, that makes you to be attached to existence, and therefore to suffer when you realise that in death everything ends.
RICHARD: Yet I am on record as having written: ‘without physical death I could not possibly be happy’. I will leave it to you to work that one out.
KONRAD: Their solution: deny the world. But then you deny your own potential to be happy. This solution is at the root of for example the tremendous poverty you can find in India. It is no coincidence that this country that is the most spiritual in the world is at the same time one of the poorest. However, while the solution of denying your potential to be happy might be wrong, and it is, this does not make this problem of happiness less real. There is a real problem with happiness, and it has everything to do with our finiteness.
RICHARD: If one lives fully – which is to actually be here as this body at this moment in the universe’s eternal time and this place in this universe’s infinite space – one experiences infinitude for twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, for the remainder of your life. It sure beats the specious immortality so beloved of the mystics ... who long for physical death to release them from this much-derided ‘finite’ existence.
You can always use your logic on this one, Konrad: If eternity exists, where do you think it is located? Only before birth and after death? Does eternity stop happening whilst you are alive and breathing? What kind of eternity is that? Is it an intermittent eternity? No? Is it already here ... now? Yes? No? If no, then where is it?
KONRAD: Oh no. I do NOT believe in life after death. The only thing I say is, that in the face of death the sources of pleasure are sources of pain in the realisation that you will be robbed from them. This is the basic problem of happiness. Let me be clear about this. When you’re dead, you’re gone. To be more exact: there is no after life in the sense that when you close your eyes on your death bed at the moment of dying, there is a next moment wherein you open your eyes, and you then see that you still exist in another place, another form, or whatever. In that sense, dead is dead. However, the ‘I’ IS a thought. It can, as an informational structure, be present in your body, controlling your body, and it can control the body of others. So the ‘I’ can survive, hence the activity of so many people to convince others of them being right. You can even explain who you are, and another can take your characteristic. Still, as an existent this does not help much. When you close your eyes on your death bed, you become unconscious, never to be conscious again. In that sense, dead is dead. In the above I only addressed the problem. If you know you are finite, because you have a clear understanding of the concept of time, and you are happy, then you can be reluctant to give these sources of happiness up. Especially when you have worked hard to obtain them. So these sources of pleasure then become potential sources of pain. THAT is what I say, no more no less.
RICHARD: So I take it that you do not dare to be happy because you are afraid of the pain of losing it? Is this all that you are saying? I had understood you to be hinting at something non-temporal to be enduring and therefore more worthwhile cultivating. Okay, then what the above amounts to is that you are going to stay unhappy because if you become happy now you will be unhappy about losing your happiness just before your physical death. You will forego a lifetime of happiness just to avoid the imagined keen disappointment just prior to death. Is that it? Is that your fear?
RESPONDENT No. 14: I have, in reviewing some Krishnamurti material, come across on odd quote: ‘God or enlightenment is the ultimate pleasure, uninterrupted happiness. No such thing exists. Your wanting something that does not exist is the root of your problems. Transformation, Moksha, Liberation, and all that stuff, are just variations of the same theme: permanent happiness. The body can’t take uninterrupted pleasure for long; it would be destroyed. Wanting to impose a fictitious permanent state of happiness on the body is a serious neurological problem’. Two aspects of this statement strike me as odd. The first is that Krishnamurti equates happiness with pleasure (physical pleasure). Second, he make the very broad insistence that permanent happiness is impossible. As one who is consistently happy I am left wondering, what have I done wrong? More, why would anyone wish to equate happiness with physical pleasure? It is easy for me to say it is my pleasure to be happy, yet I would not say that it is my pleasure that is my happiness. It seems to me, that generally, Krishnamurti was more careful than to propose absolutes. What about this particular subject brought him to a point where he felt he could decide what was possible or not in the most broad and conclusive sense. I look forward, happily, to your comments.
RESPONDENT No. 20: Without knowing the talk or context of this quote, this task of interpretation is quite difficult. But perhaps a few remarks might be helpful: That Krishnamurti uses happiness in this way here, does not mean that this is how he normally defines happiness. He may just be using the term here to make a point to the audience about their cherished beliefs, and that they want what does not exist, which is the source of much of man’s inner conflicts and disorder. Pleasure as a neurological matter cannot be sustained for long. That is quite factual. Permanent happiness is a goal that many people do have, and that motivates them to believe in all sorts of spiritual and religious nonsense. This is the a sweet prison that encloses the mind and blocks looking for oneself at one’s unhappiness, or looking at whatever the actual conditions are. Permanent happiness is only an idea because it involves a prediction into the future. It is a misunderstanding for it takes happiness to be a fixed state, when it is a movement. And so the continuity of this movement is not secured or promised, but involves moment to moment living experience and relationship.
RESPONDENT No. 14: Hmm. Your input is interesting, yet I must decline from making such a generally conclusive posit. I am wondering, however, does ‘quite factual’ represent ‘completely factual’ in this instance? But what if these beliefs are their happiness? I think this gets back to the assertion that ‘thought is your enemy’. What relegates a belief, if in fact that belief results in happiness, to the category of nonsense? As you probably remember, I do not support the contention that there are actual conditions to examine. The examination, in fact, is the actual conditions. But then again so does the assertion that permanent happiness is impossible. I do not think that this is conclusively demonstrated by the statement. Whether happiness is a stream as it were, or a fixed state of existence, really has little to do with whether it is sustainable or permanent, yes? This also raises in my thoughts a broader problem of the fixed/non-fixed dilemma. What would movement mean, if in fact all was movement? What in fact would be the non-movement through which movement could be defined? Perhaps this is fodder for another discussion, eh? However this does not address the crux of the statement, which has less to do with the promise as with the assertion that promised or continuously revealed, permanent happiness is impossible. Thank you. The quickness of your response is surprising considering the wisdom communicated. May our further conversation more sweetly distil the subject at hand.
RESPONDENT No. 20: In that I am not able to explain to you the neurological evidence, I will have to remain with ‘quite factual’. I can then upgrade after doing some research. Thought is not anyone’s enemy, that sounds rather foolish. Whether or not belief in nonsense or foolishness can be called anyone’s happiness, depends on how you are defining happiness. In that happiness which is based on foolishness is based on shaky ground, it does seem that this happiness cannot be deep or lasting. That sort of happiness cannot rest on illusion. That is just one of the consequences of believing in illusions. Belief in illusions are not necessarily nonsense, to be nonsense they have little support in factual evidence, experience or common sense. A belief that results in happiness can therefore be nonsense. Are you rejecting the difference between what is actually going psychologically and what a person believes is going on psychologically? That is, are you saying that a person is never wrong about what they think they feel? Is there not self-deception? Is there not ignorance of who we are, of what is going on? Permanence in movement, quite poetic. It does however stretch the meaning of permanence. We contrast permanence with change. Its root means ‘to remain’. But the point is understood. In that it moves it is an ongoing continuum. The non movement is conceptual, but is reflected in the patterns or structure that is revealed in movement. To someone who believes that all is in movement, we normally conclude that nothing is permanent. Could this then be the problem in understanding K, that you are giving a non standard meaning to permanent to mean ‘continuously ongoing’? If the point above is correct, concerning the non standard use, then what you are asking is whether Krishnamurti is saying that happiness as this movement will not continue indefinitely. The answer to this is that he is not saying this. He himself seems to be rather concerned with positing a continuous ongoing moment to moment happiness. It is a happiness not based on thought or wish or illusion, as this ‘permanent happiness’ is. So perhaps the gap is not as large between you and Krishnamurti as once perceived? Yes in the sweetness of that paradox of permanent movement.
RESPONDENT No. 28: This is the way I see it. Krishnamurti used the word ‘happiness’ in the sense it is conventionally used. Lets say he was using the colloquially accepted meaning behind the word ‘happiness’. Just see the qualifier ‘uninterrupted’ in front of it. In that there is a demand for an interval of time which must not end. Anything seen in that temporal projection is always a desire, always a demand, always a becoming. I would take the word pleasure without splitting it into physical, mental. All pleasures are mental, there is none which is otherwise. When we seek God for our ‘ultimate’ pleasure we leave the equation incomplete. How else pleasure could be known if not in contrast to pain? So an ‘ultimate pleasure’ is like a barren-woman’s pregnancy. The question you raised is: Is ultimate ‘happiness’ possible? How do we tackle this question? Do we speculate on it or do we look into it by looking into the much used word ‘happiness’, the word ‘possibility’? Mighty waves rise up from the ocean and then fall back on the surface only to yield to other waves. All these dynamics enhance only the beauty that the ocean is. There is no single ‘consistently mighty’ wave that does exist apart from the ocean. Every rising wave would carry along with it the very depression, the trough, onto which it would coalesce. Who is then this ‘I’ that is ‘consistently’ happy, unhappy, sad, depressed, or joyous? Who is this ‘I’ that wonders ‘What have I done wrong?’ separate from the totality? The person who is ‘consistently happy’ is equating happiness with ‘pleasure’ because time is now introduced, because there is now an introduction of a measure to compare. Krishnamurti in a subtle manner tried to seduce his listeners by sneaking in arbitrary conclusions. Why should we fall for it? Why can we not transcend all conclusions unless it is necessary?
RESPONDENT No. 00: Krishnamurti wrote: ‘God or enlightenment is the ultimate pleasure, uninterrupted happiness’. To which one would add ... that is why all of you are on this list ... seeking God, enlightenment or uninterrupted pleasure. This is the way of the world. Krishnamurti wrote next: ‘No such thing exists’. Stop seeking God, enlightenment and ultimate pleasure. Anything that ‘you’ find is a product of you own mind (thoughts ... conditioning). Seeking ultimate pleasure and God is the death of you ... even though it looks like life.
RESPONDENT No. 20: I take note of the expression ‘all of you’, and not ‘all of us’. Meaning that No. 00) is not on this list seeking this. Is he excluding himself from this uninformed fallacious generality, that is meant to be provocative rather than accurate? Your wish is but another command. A ‘should be’ acting as a switch to knout a few fools with. Learning does not lend itself to exhortations and the imperative mode.
RESPONDENT: This reflects a common equation in both the secular and religious realms – the secular anthem is found in the U.S. Declaration Of Independence: ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, while so many intentional ‘seekers’ in the so-called religious/spiritual milieu look forward to uninterrupted bliss, a permanent trip to la-la land, e.g. ‘I am dancing at the feet of my Lord, all is bliss, all is bliss’. Permanent happiness in the sense of (‘secular’) pleasure or (‘spiritual’) bliss is impossible. You are showing every sign of having a mature definition of ‘happiness’, one that does not imply continuous pleasure or bliss. He was, as far as can be seen from here, correct given the consensus, immature ideas of what comprises happiness found in both the commercial/secular and religious/spiritual marketplaces. In both spheres, there is a futile quest for an ongoing, permanent sense of personal gratification, it seems to me that the ‘transformation’ or ‘mutation’ that Krishnamurti so often spoke of is something else entirely, something quite apart from a drive or hope for personal gratification, and that a person with a mature understanding of happiness (a ‘healthy ego’, perhaps) experiences not ongoing gratification, but rather a sense of gratitude related to the miracle of conscious existence itself. This meta-gratitude is what endures, whether the contents of consciousness in the moment include intense sensory enjoyment, abject sorrow and/or physical pain, astonishing natural beauty, or the purely blissful void – it is all received effortlessly, without resistance, as ‘what is’. Thanks for bringing up the issue.
RICHARD: Some people appear to be quite ready to explain anything at all about what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – who some maintain is not their mentor – meant by anything at all he said. This includes the ability to insist that he did not say he was god made manifest where he did say just that. What was written above is indicative of the approach of virtually everyone on this List who – while professing to be conducting a genuine inquiry – actually do not budge one iota from their adopted position. Perhaps the following dialogue might throw some light on the relevance of the quote that started this thread for anyone who would like to begin a genuine discussion – a discussion free of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s influence – for the very first time.
Given that no one on this List has – so far – wanted to sincerely explore the issues I have raised, it is rather pointless to respond to the nugatory objections raised in the twenty or so posts that are awaiting my attention. I consider that what No. 5 wrote a few short weeks ago is very relevant and worth re-posting:
RESPONDENT: The description is not the thing. Seeing does not involve the symbolic. To say things like: there is nothing sacred, life is a beneficence, or other such nonsense may in fact be from seeing, but only images are projected.
RICHARD: I am well aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti repeatedly said: ‘the description is not the described’ and yet you are doing what he said not to do. To wit: ‘do not quote anyone, least of all the speaker’.
Unless you are living the actuality of that phrase ‘the description is not the described’ then you are mouthing empty rhetoric. You go on to demonstrate your lack of understanding by dismissing, as ‘such nonsense’, the seminal discovery that ‘that which is sacred, holy’ is but a delusion born out of an illusion.
As for ‘life is a beneficence’ being only a ‘projected image’ ... well, all I can suggest is that you continue to live in your grim and glum reality, with brief moments of a break-though into a loving and compassionate delusion as a reprieve.
Meanwhile, living in the ‘projected symbol’ called the actual world of people, things and events as I do, I will, without doubt, continue to experience the ambrosial beneficence of the infinitude of this material universe with a carefree gaiety. For concomitant to the extinction of malice and sorrow is blitheness and benignity. To be rid of animosity and anguish is to be happy and harmless. This benediction (‘benediction’: something that promotes goodness or well-being) has been going on for twenty four hours a day for the last five years.
Not bad going for a ‘projected symbol’ eh?
RESPONDENT: You misread the post. It said: ‘To say things like: there is nothing sacred, life is a beneficence, or other such nonsense may in fact be from seeing (i.e.: actual) but only images are projected’ (i.e.: heard by others).
RICHARD: I did indeed misread the post ... I understood you to mean that I was living in a projected image. I stand corrected. Maybe the next part of this dialogue will achieve something other than projecting images ... that is, as heard by others.
RESPONDENT: This is even more the case with the image of egolessness that can be attained. That is why Krishnamurti’s pointing to freedom in the beginning seems wise.
RICHARD: Which amounts to ‘instant freedom’. Unfortunately it does not work that way. Nobody, but nobody, has had ‘freedom in the beginning’ ... despite sixty plus years of this being pointed to.
RESPONDENT: If there is sadness or anger or whatever, it is included in the field of perception and examined with great interest as ‘what is’ reveals itself. See what I mean?
RICHARD: Yes, indeed I do. This is the essence of ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ The past – although being actual whilst it was happening – is not actual now. The future – although it will be actual when it happen – is not actual now. Only this moment is actual. If I am not happy and harmless here and now, then I am wasting this precious moment of being alive. Yesterday’s remembered happiness and harmlessness means nothing if one is not happy and harmless here and now ... and the same applies to tomorrow’s anticipated happiness and harmlessness.
If one is not happy and harmless now, then one has something to look at to discover why not ... and one keeps on looking until one is back on track. Being ‘on track’ means a general sense of well-being ... a grumpy person has no chance whatsoever of becoming free. Once one has established this base, one up-levels the ‘feeling happy and harmless’ experience to ‘feeling the sheer perfection of being alive here and now’. It is possible to experience this for ninety-nine percent of the time ... and the other one percent provides very little trouble. I call this a virtual freedom. Virtual freedom far exceeds normal human expectations anyway, so if nothing else happened one would be light years ahead of normal.
Virtual freedom is the essential springboard into an actual freedom. Through reflective thought and fascinated contemplation of the fact that one is already always here, one finds oneself stepping into the actual world of sensual delight ... leaving one’s ‘self’ behind in the ‘real’ world where it belongs. Fear – existential angst at finding oneself to be the contingent ‘being’ one always suspected oneself to be – is both the barrier and the way to freedom. Always included in fear is a thrilling aspect, and by focussing upon this and not fear itself, an energy gathers momentum which does the trick for one (thrilling as in a exciting sensation through the body, stirring, stimulating, electrifying, rousing, moving, gripping, hair-raising, riveting, joyful, pleasing. throbbing, trembling, tremulous, quivering, shivering, fluttering, shuddering and vibrating).
RESPONDENT: One might make the same observation of Tibet and its people, but all indications are that the Tibetans, even those forced out of their homeland, remain happy and satisfied with their way of life.
RICHARD: I also spent three months in the Himalayas about one hundred kilometres from the Tibetan/Nepalese border. I had ample time to interact with and converse deeply with many, many Tibetan refugees. I can assure you that they were far from being happy and satisfied with their way of life.
RESPONDENT: One most choose their qualifiers carefully when making a statement as broad as you have.
RICHARD: I do indeed choose my ‘qualifiers’ very, very carefully. I may be a lot of things ... but I am not silly. And to forestall any further charge of ‘broad statements’, I have also read extensively – being an avid reader I have devoured thousands of books in fifty-odd years – and watched many television documentaries. I do not live in an ivory tower; I am not detached; I am not indifferent to the plight of my fellow human beings ... and I do not suffer from dissociation.
RESPONDENT: The real suffering arises when people are drawn away from their self generated contentment and lead into relying on certain standards of external environment for happiness.
RICHARD: You say: ‘real suffering arises when ...’. May I ask – just out of curiosity – what is unreal suffering then? Every single man woman and child on this planet suffers from malice and sorrow – which is born out of the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire that blind nature endows all sentient beings with. This is a fact ... this is real suffering. Which is why most peoples seek some form of self generated contentment and rely upon certain standards of external environment for happiness. However, such happiness is spasmodic, intermittent, random, unreliable and ultimately unsatisfying. Which is why people seek the ultimate satisfaction and fulfilment, that they are assured by Saints and Sages, lies in accessing the divine love and compassion that lies within.
This has been going on for century after century ... and there is still no peace on earth. A recent estimate that I read about demonstrates that only .000001 of the population throughout recorded history have ever become enlightened.
RICHARD: Of course, once you get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy’. And after that: ‘feeling perfect’. These are all feelings, this is not perfection personified yet ... but then again, feeling perfect for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day is way beyond normal human expectations anyway. Also, it is a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once. One starts to feel ‘alive’ for the first time in one’s life.
KONRAD: Is there something you advise us to do to reach this marvellous state of pure happiness you are apparently in?
RICHARD: Yes. Ask yourself this, each moment again: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?
It is essential for success to grasp the fact that this is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now ... and a hoped-for happiness harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All you get by waiting is more waiting. Thus any ‘change’ can only happen now. The jumping in point is always here ... it is at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus, if you miss it this time around, hey presto ... you have another chance immediately. Life is excellent at providing opportunities like this.
What ‘I’ did, eighteen years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective method of ridding this body of ‘me’. (I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). It takes some doing to start off with, but as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes automatic to have this question running as an on-going thing ... because it delivers the goods right here and now ... not off into some indeterminate future. Plus the successes are repeatable – almost on demand – and thus satisfies the ‘scientific method’. ‘I’ asked myself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?
As one knows, from the pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) that everybody has at some stage in their life, that it is possible to experience this moment in time and this place in space as perfection personified, ‘I’ set the minimum standard of experience for myself: feeling good. If ‘I’ am not feeling good then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end that good feeling? Ah ... yes ... ‘he said that and ... ‘, or ‘she didn’t do this and I ... ‘, or ‘what I wanted was ... and I didn’t get it ... ‘, and so on. One does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most. (‘Feeling good’ is an unambiguous term ... if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all.)
This way, the reward is immediate; by finding out what triggered off this loss of feeling good, one commences another period of enjoying this moment of being alive. It is all about being here at this moment in time and this place in space ... and if you are not feeling good you have no chance whatsoever of being here in this actual world. (A grumpy person locks themselves out of the perfect purity of this moment and place). Of course, once you get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to feeling happy’. And after that: ‘feeling perfect’. These are all feelings, this is not perfection personified yet ... but then again, feeling perfect for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day is way beyond normal human expectations anyway. Also, it is a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once. One starts to feel ‘alive’ for the first time in one’s life.
Being ‘alive’ is to be paying attention – exclusive attention – to this moment in time and this place in space. This attention becomes fascination ... and fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only then – apperception can occur.
Apperceptive awareness can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive right now. This moment is your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time than now. And, wherever you are, one is always here ... even if you start walking over to ‘there’, along the way to ‘there’ you are always here ... and when you arrive ‘there’, it too is here. Thus attention becomes a fascination with the fact that one is always here ... and it is already now. Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. As one is already here, and it is always now ... then one has arrived before one starts. The potent combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking and thinking takes place of its own accord ... and ‘me’ disappears along with all the feelings. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity ... as a sensate body only, one is automatically benevolent and benign.
It is really important to understand about the soul ... getting into feelings like this – ‘perfect’ feelings – leaves one in imminent danger of the seductive snare of Love and Beauty, and, conveniently ignoring their opposites, becoming enlightened, or at least illuminated. ‘Me’ – that sense of ‘being’ that I call the soul – sugar coats itself with Love and Compassion and Beauty and Truth and swans along in a state of Blissful Euphoria. Thus one then goes off into some mystical State of Being in some metaphysical world and misses out on the clean and clear perfection of this actual world. It is very, very difficult to get out of the enlightened state and go ‘beyond it’ into this actual world of the senses.
Your sense of being – the real ‘me’ – is what is evidenced when one says: ‘But what about me, nobody loves me for me’! For a woman it is: ‘You only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it is: ‘You only want me for my money ... and not for me’. For a child it is: ‘You only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. This sense of ‘me’ – this being – arises out of the basic instincts that blind nature endowed us all with as a rough and ready ‘soft-ware’ package to make a start in life. These instincts – mainly fear and aggression and nurture and desire – appear as a rudimentary self. This is why it is felt to be one’s ‘Original Face’ – to use the Zen terminology – if one is open to ‘what is’.
You need to have a keen sense of humour. This business of becoming free is not – contrary to popular opinion – a serious business at all. Be totally sincere ... most definitely utterly sincere, as genuineness is essential. But serious ... no way. An actual freedom is all about having fun; about enjoying being here; about delighting in being alive. All that ‘being serious’ stuff actively works against peace-on-earth. One has to want to be here on this planet ... most people resent being here and wish to escape. This method will bring one into being more fully here than anyone has ever been before. If you do not want to be here, then forget it.
So: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? It beats any pathetic mantra by a country mile ... because it is useful and effective.
KONRAD: Or is it something that emerges spontaneously into being by some fortunate few?
RICHARD: One will never become free by sitting in a deck-chair on the patio waiting for the ‘Grace Of God’ to descend. One has to reach out – extend oneself – like one has never done before. One has to want peace-on-earth as the number one priority in one’s life. One has to desire freedom from the Human Condition to the point of obsession and beyond ... it is that urgent and essential. Treat unhappiness and harmfulness as if it were a terminal illness that one has to rid the body of. And one does it for a two-fold purpose: for the good of oneself in particular and for one’s fellow humans in general. After all, a happy and harmless person is a pleasure to be with ... if you are not good company for yourself, then what are you for others?
RICHARD: Pure consciousness is where this flesh and blood body can be apperceptively aware of this actual world ... the world as-it-is. And what-it-is is a rather magical play-ground full of pleasure and delight ... and nary a feeling to be found anywhere. Sorrow and malice cease to exist ... one is happy and harmless in character without any effort. Needless to say, the word ‘integration’ is not at all applicable, here.
RESPONDENT: Richard, aren’t your feelings of pleasure and delight integrated into your flesh and blood body?
RICHARD: Nope, not at all. Integral, yes indeed (as in: essential, necessary, indispensable, requisite, basic, fundamental, inherent, intrinsic, innate). But integrated, no way (as in: unite the various parts, join, combine, amalgamate, consolidate, blend, incorporate, coalesce, fuse, merge, intermix, mingle, commingle, assimilate, homogenise, harmonise, mesh, concatenate).
RESPONDENT: Are you saying that pleasure and delight are essential, necessary, and indispensable but not part of the body as in fused, joined, homogenised?
RESPONDENT: Why do you think one must to be void of feelings and emotions in order to not be abusive, a rapist, a murdered or suicidal.
RICHARD: Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings.
It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly know as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others. What the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is on about is a virtual freedom wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to be feeling good, feeling happy and harmless and feeling excellent/perfect for 99% of the time. If one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception). If it does not ... then one is way ahead of normal human expectations anyway as the aim is to enjoy and appreciate being here now for as much as is possible.
RICHARD: But I do not want you (or anybody) coming to me – for their own freedom – as I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples, who cannot think for themselves, trooping daily through my front door. The Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there is actually a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... there is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here. The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: Richard, you have said many times in the past that you are free of all feelings.
RICHARD: Yes ... more specifically: free of the persistent identity (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). It is impossible to be a stripped-down ‘self’ (divested of feelings) ... such a person who tries to do that absurdity has what is called by psychiatry ‘a sociopathic personality’ (commonly known as a psychopath).
RESPONDENT: Is not this ‘fun’ you are having part and parcel of the feeling of enjoying what you are doing?
RICHARD: Not the ‘feeling’ of enjoyment ... direct enjoyment: I have not felt happy for years and years.
RESPONDENT: Could you even go so far as to say that you love what you are doing?
RICHARD: No ... this is much, much more than ‘loving’ what I am doing. It is also much more than being in love and even more than being love.
RESPONDENT: It is quite obvious that you take great delight in knowledge and your knowledge of words and are quite a showman with the English language.
RICHARD: Yes ... words are vital; knowledge is vital; knowledge of words is vital. As for ‘showman’ ... I freely acknowledge that my writing is flowery – which is a polite way of saying ‘convoluted and over-ornamental’ as an editor once explained to me – but that is an idiosyncrasy which brings me great delight. I make no apologies for an extravagant exuberance with words ... I am conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself.
RESPONDENT: Are there ever times when there are absolutely no words, no movement of this knowledge inside the flesh and blood body that is you.
RICHARD: Yes, large parts of my daily life are comprised of ‘absolutely no words, no movement of this knowledge’ ... thinking is an episodic event that occurs of its own accord as the situation and circumstances require. All the while however, thought or no thoughts, there is an apperceptive awareness, of being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time, which is full, complete and utter ... neither thoughts nor no-thoughts, neither knowledge nor no-knowledge, neither showmanship nor non-showmanship can ever disturb this on-going experiencing of infinitude. Being just here right now is so fulfilling, so utterly satisfying in itself that to be doing something (including thinking) is but a bonus on top of this completeness.
RESPONDENT: In other words, is there a freedom from knowledge that is as much a part of the human condition as the genetic makeup of instinctual passions?
RICHARD: Yes ... most of what I write is a story or a description (an accurate story/description mind you) of why it is the pits to be in the ‘normal-world’ reality (where 6.0 billion people live) and why it sucks to be in the ‘abnormal-world’ Greater Reality (where 0.0000001 of the population live) ... and how one wound up being there in the first place. When there is nobody around none of this happens. And, despite my millions of words, I essentially have only one thing to say. Vis.:
GARY: Apparently, after self-immolation has taken place, having a good laugh is not ruled out, as Richard has written else-where about nearly rolling on the floor in laughter. Is this then ‘an affective experience’?
RESPONDENT: Sounds like it to me, Gary. Perhaps Richard could elaborate on this apparent contradiction?
RICHARD: It is only an ‘apparent contradiction’ if all laughter is first determined to be affective ... one can laugh with the sheer delight of being alive or in moments of great pleasure. I recall that when freedom first happened there was much laughter because it was as if I had been playing a great joke upon myself by searching everywhere and everywhen for something that was already always just here right now ... I am chuckling even now as I write about it (all suffering is self-caused and totally unnecessary).
Also, one can laugh where something is ludicrous, farcical, absurd, ridiculous and so on ... speaking personally, I find the TV series ‘3rd Rock From The Sun’ humorous as it oft-times demonstrates many of the foibles of human nature (as in the first thirty four years of my life). Plus it is hilarious that for eleven years I lived-out the experience of being the latest saviour of humankind ... there is much about life which is irrepressibly funny.
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.