|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On ‘I’ as an ‘Identity’, ‘I’ as a ‘Being’
RESPONDENT: G’day Richard, How do I learn and discover the essence of who ‘I’ am? Thank you. RICHARD: G’day No. 11, In a word: intuitively (aka feeling yourself out subjectively). Also, much use can be made of what is known as hypnagogic (pre-dormient) and hypnopompic (post-dormient) states which occur, respectively, in the drowsiness stage of intermediate consciousness preceding sleep or in the semiconscious state of transitional consciousness preceding waking ... of the two the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago found the pre-dormient state the easier to manifest. However, as it was the hypnopompic state which revealed the essence of who ‘I’ am – the precise nature of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – an anecdote from that period may throw some light on the matter. I was on a coastal sea voyage, making a northerly passage under sail in a trimaran I then owned, off the north-eastern seaboard of Australia when a storm came up from the south late in the day. Rather than make a run for the port I was heading for under a storm jib alone (with all that entails) I chose to anchor overnight in the lee of a nearby island until the storm blew itself out. A perusal of the appropriate chart showed a narrow bay, between two jagged coral reefs, with a tiny beach at its head and the notation ‘fair-weather anchorage’. I figured, were the worst to come about, I could beach my yacht (an advantage multihull yachts have over monohull yachts) and weather the storm out thataway. I negotiated the two jagged coral reefs, dropped anchor several boat-lengths short of what was actually a miniscule beach, and retired below for the evening. I slept soundly, despite the storm howling all about and the yacht pitching and tossing at anchor, only to emerge from deep sleep into a crystal-clear fully-lucid hypnopompic state just after midnight. (Please note that it was, of course, the ‘I’ who was hypnopompic). In that crystal-clear fully-lucid hypnopompic state ‘I’ was able to penetrate deeply into ‘myself’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – or, rather, the penetration took place via ‘my’ full acquiescence – and there, in the centre of all the feelings swirling around, the essence of who ‘I’ am lay gorgeously exposed ... not all that unlike a beautiful rosy pearl, nestled coyly amidst the delicate fleshy tissue of its host, in its shimmering nacreous shell. Except that the essence of who ‘I’ am was a void (and not a ‘thing’ like a pearl is) so the analogy of the void at the centre of whirlpool of water – which is the whirling water in motion – is more apt (albeit not conveying the ethereal radiant beauty of the rosy pearl analogy). Or, in other words, the essence of who ‘I’ am is akin to the calm, still centre of a swirling cyclone/ hurricane/ typhoon. The swirling air/ whirling water is, of course, all the feelings – all of the emotions/ passions – which ‘I’ am comprised of (as in ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). * At that point, as the storm howled even louder and the yacht lurched sluggishly at anchor, I was fully awake in an instant; sitting up and swinging my legs to the edge of the bunk I stood up ... knee-deep in seawater! Now, when something like that happens in a house one can quickly discern that one’s home is being flooded; on a ship at sea, however, it can mean only one thing ... to wit: one’s home is sinking. But, all the while I was starting the auxiliary engine (mostly underwater) and hauling in the anchor (getting thoroughly soaked) and somehow driving the water-logged trimaran up onto the miniscule beach (unseeable in the pitch black night) without dashing to pieces on the enclosing jagged reefs, that penetration into the essence of who ‘I’ am became indelibly etched into the memory banks. And, as ‘I’ knew exactly who ‘I’ was, that very knowledge was in itself empowering (to use the jargon) and thus contributed enormously to ‘my’ eventual demise. Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: Hi Richard You write:
Would you say that this experience of yours could have been a hallucinatory state which you interpreted according to the fundamental thrust of your seeking, as is common in dream-emergent states? I realize that the last part (after the ellipses in the above sentence of yours) is a metaphor, but I cannot help but think that the ‘I’ is such an inchoate and slippery entity (or void) that to actually see its essence and non-existence in the way you mention could have been due to your persistent desire to look for it in a particular way over an extended period of time, fuelled partly by a memorable insight already in place that there is no ‘me’ or emotional ‘being’ in actuality. In other words, I suspect that your realization (in my words), that the ‘I’ am the felt illusory center of the eddy of feelings and passions, might have been already there in some embryonic form, which embryonic realization then enabled you to see it and recognize it with your own eyes (as it were) on that fateful day. RICHARD: G’day No. 2, So as to put it into perspective: it was a response to being asked how to learn and discover the essence of who ‘I’ am, and not who ‘I’ am in general (social-self + ego-self + soul/ spirit-self), and my anecdotal reply refers to what took place the sixth year (1987) of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment. Prior to the penetration deep into ‘myself’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) there had been no pre-existing model, not even embryonic, of such a nature to have insinuated itself into that gorgeous exposure of ‘my’ glorious essence. Indeed, the only pre-existing model (per favour my second wife in the period before that penetration) was in the nature of a dot in the centre of a circle; the dot represented essence and the circle was representative of (self-protective) egoic activity. Because you specifically mention ‘a memorable insight already in place that there is no ‘me’ or emotional ‘being’ in actuality’ it must be stressed that the penetration did not reveal that at all; what lay exposed (as in completely unprotected) was the essence of ‘me’ in all ‘my’ glory ... beautiful, radiant, resplendent and unquestionably worthy of the utmost adoration, worship and veneration. (Hence my lustrous pearl analogy; the eddy analogy is for void, in contrast to thing, as the essence of who ‘I’ am is formless). Kings and Emperors and Sages and Seers alike tremble at the rare honour bestowed only on a graced few, to prostrate before that sacred effulgence, upon choice revelation of its almighty presence. For instance:
Regards, Richard. P.S.: I had to chuckle where you asked whether it could have been a hallucinatory state as the entire phenomenon is nothing
but a massive hallucination – a magnipotent delusion – from the very beginning to its absolute end. RESPONDENT: And, to pick up on what No. 97 asked, where does that identity live, neuronwise? RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest:
And:
RESPONDENT: How can we see that it [identity] has gone away in a flesh and blood body other than our own? RICHARD: In the same way you can see it has not gone away in a flesh and blood body other than your own ... feeling for it affectively/psychically (intuitively). My previous companion, for instance, would oft-times say ‘there is no-one in there’ or ‘there is no-one home’ when feeling me out whilst looking at me quizzically ... she also would explain to others that, contrary to expectation, it was sometimes difficult to live with Richard (it could be said that living with some body that is not self-centred would always be easy) as it was impossible for her to have a relationship because there was no-one to make a connection with, or form a bond with/be tied to, or unite with/be in union with, or in any other way be at one with (oneness). She would also say that Richard does nor support her, as an identity that is, at all ... which lack of (affective) caring was disconcerting for her, to say the least, and my current companion has also reported this absence of (affective) consideration. * RESPONDENT: So self-immolation, to speculate wildly, implies some restructuring in/bypassing of/deletion of/change in the firing pattern of neurons in the substantia nigra? RICHARD: Given that you start your query with [quote] ‘so ...’ [endquote] it is pertinent to note that nowhere do I mention neurons/neurones (aka nerve cells) – let alone an implication in regards any restructuring/ bypassing/ deletion/ change thereof – in the above text? Indeed, I specifically say ‘psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) ‘self’-immolated’ –
and not neuronally (by a neurone or neurones) and neurologically (as regards neurology) ‘self’-immolated – and especially mention that
identity has not been located in such a manner ... in accordance to the neurone theory
RESPONDENT: Richard, would it be correct to say that while you can experience physical pain, you still cannot suffer, as suffering requires a ‘sufferer’? RICHARD: Yes ... and that observation goes someway towards explaining the query you report as having burnt within you 10 days ago:
The following may be of assistance:
RICHARD: I have said, over and over again, that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the ‘identity’ is the ‘image-maker’ in K-speak) is extinct and that the intuitive/imaginative faculty has vanished. RESPONDENT: Yet you still use the pronoun ‘I’ – hmm. RICHARD: Yes ... I am this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. As such, I am alive and breathing and until the day I die I will continue to make use of the words that existed long before I was born ... words like <Richard> and <I> and <me> and <my> and so on. I am sure it has not missed your eagle eye that I follow the sensible convention of putting the identity pronoun (‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘my’ and so on) in little quotes so as to forestall confusion. I could have said: ‘One has said, over and over again, that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the ‘identity’ is the ‘image-maker’ in K-speak) is extinct and that the intuitive/imaginative faculty has vanished’. But, of course, when I do use the word <one> on this Mailing List there is often some clever person asking who this ‘one’ is ... so it does not really matter much which word I use. I suppose I could say: ‘The speaker has said, over and over again ...’ if that would please you. What was the point you were making? RESPONDENT: Simply that you are a walking – I mean talking – contradiction of terms. RICHARD: Where are the ‘contradiction of terms’? The word <Richard> is a convenient human agreement to refer to the flesh and blood body that the name appertains to. The word <I> is a convenient human agreement for the flesh and blood body called <Richard> to use when referring to the flesh and blood body that the name <Richard> appertains to. Would it be better to say: ‘Yes ... Richard is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. As such, Richard is alive and breathing and until the day Richard dies Richard will continue to make use of the words that existed long before Richard was born ... words like <Richard> and <I> and <me> and <my> and so on. Richard is sure it has not missed your eagle eye that Richard follows the sensible convention of putting the identity pronoun (‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘my’ and so on) in little quotes so as to forestall confusion. Richard could have said: ‘Richard has said, over and over again, that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the ‘identity’ is the ‘image-maker’ in K-speak) is extinct and that the intuitive/imaginative faculty has vanished’? Is this, if not dim-witted, objection of yours a remonstration somehow linked to your re-write of the dictionaries, perchance? 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 is indicated in the chimpanzee, for an example, but not in the monkey. RESPONDENT: I understand that you consider a primordial ‘being’ or third ‘I’ (this flesh and blood body) which has instinctual survival passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) because the body needs them for living. RICHARD: No, the ‘primordial ‘being’’, the core ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), is the root of the second ‘I’ and has nothing to do with the flesh and blood body only. Where I initially said that there are three I’s altogether it would have been clearer for communication, in retrospect, to have said that there are three I’s altogether (and not have used smart quotes in that particular sentence). I did go on to say, however, that 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 ... as in: I am this flesh and blood body only. My mistake ... I will put it this way: the third <I> is not an entity (identity). Therefore, this ‘primordial ‘being’’ (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation) is, genetically, umpteen tens of thousands of years old ... ‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘Being’ is so anciently old that ‘we’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘I’/‘me’ is thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future in flesh and blood bodies (not as flesh and blood bodies). RESPONDENT: From these primordial feelings rises the ‘feeling being’, to be intuitively conscious of the own existence, and from this primordial feeling rises the sense of feeler or second ‘I’, and from this feeler or second ‘I’ thought/cognition makes the thinker or first ‘I’. Is this what you mean? RICHARD: Yes. Being a ‘self’ is because the only way into this world of people, things and events is via the human spermatozoa fertilising the human ova ... thus every human being is endowed, by blind nature, with the basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Thus ‘I’ am and/or ‘me’ is the end-point of myriads of survivors passing on their genes. ‘I’ am and/or ‘me’ is the product of the ‘success story’ of blind nature’s fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Being born of the biologically inherited instincts genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova, ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’ and ‘I’ am aggression and aggression is ‘me’ and ‘I’ am nurture and nurture is ‘me’ and ‘I’ am desire and desire is ‘me’. These passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’
rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates
into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. That this process is aided and
abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born – which is conditioning and programming and is part and parcel of
the socialising process – is but the tip of the ice-burg and not the main issue at all. All the different types of conditioning are well-meant
endeavours by countless peoples over countless aeons to seek to curb the instinctual passions. RICHARD: This discussion is about consciousness being bereft of the invidious and pernicious identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... and a consciousness ‘unpolluted and uncontaminated’ by any feeling of ‘being’ whatsoever results in a perfect day in a perfect life in a perfect world day-after-day. RESPONDENT: You refer to yourself as Richard and ‘I’ but claim that identity doesn’t exist for you. That doesn’t tally. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body could, of course, write the offending paragraph thus: [quote]: ‘when this flesh and blood body goes to bed at night this flesh and blood body has had a perfect day ... and this flesh and blood body knows that this flesh and blood body will wake up to yet another day of perfection. This has been going on, day-after-day, for years now ... it is so ‘normal’ that this flesh and blood body takes it for granted that there is only perfection. Plus this flesh and blood body can easily put it all into words so as to unambiguously share what this flesh and blood body experiences with this flesh and blood body’s fellow human beings. Thus this flesh and blood body can easily describe how this already always existing peace-on-earth became apparent: it was through the complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ as an irrevocable event’. [endquote]. Speaking personally, I prefer to use the singular (first person) nominative pronoun (I) or the oblique singular nominative
pronoun (me, my) ... and favour the employment of the name already ascribed to each flesh and blood body (Richard, Rachel, Mark, Mary and so on)
for ease and convenience RESPONDENT: You talk about your day but say there is no feeling of being. How then can you write about your experience? RICHARD: As is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), the flesh and blood body is entirely capable of thinking, reflecting, appraising and implementing considered action for benevolent reasons of its own accord. In fact it is remarkably simple: it is surprisingly easy to live and function without any ‘I’ and/or ‘Me’ or any ‘self’ and/or ‘Self’ whatsoever ... it is such a vast improvement upon ‘me’ doing all the daily tasks that it is a delight to just contemplate the difference. ‘I’ unnecessarily complicate this otherwise simple living with ‘my’ needs, ‘my’ demands, ‘my’ wants, ‘my’ shoulds, ‘my’ musts, ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ morals, ‘my’ values, ‘my’ principles, ‘my’ ideals, and so on. Not to mention ‘my’ sadness and ‘my’ empathy, ‘my’ likes and ‘my’ dislikes, ‘my’ loves and ‘my’ hates, ‘my’ fears and ‘my’ trusts, ‘my’ revenges and ‘my’ pardons, ‘my’ jealousies and ‘my’ faithfulness, ‘my’ blamings and ‘my’ forgiveness, ‘my’ loneliness and ‘my’ belonging ... the list goes on and on. This body is eminently competent in functioning autonomously: the stomach tells the brain (wherein lies the will which, with its data-correlating ability, is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising organ of the body) when it is empty. The stomach secretes a chemical when unoccupied which triggers a receptor in the brain that gives rise to a sensation humans ignorantly call ‘I am hungry’. Indeed, tests have been done by people who delight in doing these things, wherein the chemical was injected into volunteers who had just eaten a full meal: the chemical caused them to feel hungry despite their distended stomachs. Thus ‘I’, thinking and feeling that ‘I’ am an important part of the process, step in and incorrectly say: ‘‘I’ am hungry’. ‘I’ am not hungry at all (how can a psychological or psychic entity need corporeal food) ... it is that the stomach is simply signalling its emptiness to the brain via the autonomic nervous system. Likewise the bladder tells the brain when it is full, and so on. When ‘I’ says ‘I want to got to the toilet’, ‘I’ am not busting for a pee at all ... the bladder is merely indicating its fullness. Once again, a psychological and psychic entity cannot manufacture physical urine ... it is absurd. Furthermore, the empty stomach instructs the legs, via the will function of the physical brain, to walk to the cupboard for food. The eyes, seeing an empty cupboard and thus triggering remembered experience, will advise the legs, via the brain’s organising capability, to walk the body to a shop. An empty wallet will tell the legs to take the body to a bank ... and an empty bank account will demonstrate that it is time to get a job (or go on a pension or whatever). I am neither being pedantic nor facetious here ... it is actually this simple. Without an ‘I’ and/or ‘me’, one is this very sensuous flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware, living in the actual world of people, things and events ... not an ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ living in the grim and glum real world, forever cut off from the magnificence of this luscious actual world by ‘my’ unreal existence, thinking and feeling that ‘I’ have to make responsible and onerous decisions. ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ can never be here in this magical fairy-tale-like actual world for ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ am an interloper, an alien in psychological and psychic possession of the body: ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ do not belong here. All this is impossible to conceive, believe, imagine or in any other way visualise ... which is why it is essential to be confident that the actual world does exist. In order to mutate from a self-centred licentiousness to a self-less sensualism, one must have confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe. This confidence is born out of knowing that the grim and glum ‘real world’ is pasted as a veneer over the top of actual world that underlies everyday reality. This knowing is a solid and irrefutable knowing which is derived from the PCE and is an essential ingredient to ensure success. In such a peak experience everything is seen, with unparalleled clarity and purity, to be already perfect – that humans are all living in perfection – if only one would act upon one’s seeing. Because in a PCE, wherein apperception is operating unimpeded, it is irrefutably experienced that thought, thoughts and thinking happen of their own accord as is necessary ... for it is the function of the brain to do so. Consequently, this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware easily and delightedly writes about its on-going
experiencing. RESPONDENT: The basic question is can the ego be seen as a whole with all its qualities and seeing the truth of all that it ends. RICHARD: Oh yes ... indeed it can. Speaking personally, in 1980 I had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) that lasted for four hours. In that four hours I lived the peace-on-earth that is already always here now ... and I saw that ‘I’ (an emotional-mental construct) was standing in the way of this actual freedom being apparent twenty four hours of the day. In that peak experience I saw ‘myself’ for the social identity that ‘I’ was. ‘I’ was the end product of society and nothing more. ‘I’ was a passionate construct of all of the beliefs, values, morals, ethics, mores, customs, traditions, doctrines, ideologies and so on. ‘I’ was nothing but an fabrication in the psyche ... a social identity which is its conscience. I then saw that ‘I’ was a lost, lonely, frightened – and a very, very cunning – entity ... what I later came to know as ‘ego’. Just as those Christians who are said to be possessed by an evil entity and need to be exorcised, I saw that every human being had been endowed with an identity as ego ... and it was called being normal. When ‘I’ saw that this was all ‘I’ was ... I was no longer that. I was me ... this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware ... as this revelation continued, I saw a new ‘me’ coming into existence ... a grand ‘Me’, a glorious ‘Me’ and a spiritually fulfilling ‘Me’. What was it that was observing these two other ‘me’s – the ego ‘me’ and the grand ‘Me’? There are three I’s altogether, but only one is actual. RESPONDENT: Oh, an actual I. Is it a varying or constant quality? RICHARD: What I am is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. The first person pronoun is not used here to refer to any psychological or psychic identity because in actuality there is nothing other than the physical ... this carbon-based life-form being conscious. There is a consistent quality of perfection ... an unvarying purity. Here is an on-going innocence, an ever-fresh magnanimity which ensures a nobility in character that is vitalised as an endless benevolence ... all effortlessly happening of its own accord. Thus probity is bestowed gratuitously ... dispensing forever with the effort-filled vigilance to gain and maintain righteous virtue. One is free to be me as-I-am; benign and beneficial in disposition. One is able to be a model citizen, fulfilling all the intentions of the idealistic and unattainable moral strictures of ‘The Good’: being humane, being philanthropic, being altruistic, being beneficent, being considerate and so on. All this is achieved in a manner any ‘I’ could never foresee, for it comes effortlessly and spontaneously, doing away with the necessity for morality and ethicality completely. One is swimming in largesse. GARY: Krishnamurti talks about a lot about dying to self, dying to your thoughts, your name, etc. It sounds pretty much like a comprehensive dying to everything. But this is not what most of us are doing – quite the opposite, we are cultivating a continuity, craving a permanency. I have found that when I experiment with this death, embrace death as you say, there is a profound disorientation that sets in followed by an exhilarating feeling of freedom. Now, this is not an actual physical death that you are talking about, is it? Elsewhere you talk about one’s demise, one’s self-immolation. So could you say more about what it means to you to embrace death? RICHARD: [...] When ‘I’ self-immolate in ‘my’ entirety the separative entity’s isolation disappears too –
along with all craving, all desire for a spiritual continuity, a mystic permanency – and an actual intimacy emerges that beggars comparison. This
is because a person’s isolation is formed by the essence of their ‘being’... and ‘being’ itself is the root-cause of all the ills of
humankind. One has ‘been’ in the past, one is ‘being’ in the present, and one will ‘be’ in the future. That ‘being’ is what one
calls ‘me’, taking it to be me as-I-am. ‘I’ was, ‘I’ am, ‘I’ will be ... this feeling of continuity, an instinctual entity called
‘me’ existing over time, is not me as-I-am. I do not exist over time; I exist only as this moment exists, and now has no duration here.
Therefore I am never alone for there is no ‘being’ to be separate ... let alone to crave a continuity, a permanency. One is always here and it
is already now ... there can be nothing more permanent, more perpetual a continuity, than this very place here in infinite space at this very
moment in eternal time. What ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul was searching for in the ‘timeless and spaceless and formless’ dimension was
already always here in time and space as form ... for there is nothing else than this actual world. And this actual world is an ambrosial paradise. RESPONDENT: Richard, I have a few fundamental questions. I am starting with just two questions: From what I have been reading you stake your claim to (f)actualism. Is this something like proceeding from the known to the unknown? RICHARD: That would be a good starting point, yes ... to proceed from the ‘known to the unknown’. This is what enlightened people have done, and they reside in the ‘unknown’. From this position they are aware of an ‘Unknowable’. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti referred to this in his diaries (the ‘Krishnamurti Journal’?) where he wrote – at least twice from my memory – about there being ‘something beyond Love’. Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain was more specific in detailing it as the ‘Known’, the ‘Unknown’ and the ‘Unknowable’ ... of which, he said, the latter could never be known. Generally speaking, Buddhism calls this condition ‘Parinirvana’ and Hinduism names it ‘Mahasamadhi’ ... which, of course, can only occur after the physical death of the body. I am speaking very broadly here so as to convey something of the flavour of an actual freedom, here on earth, in this life-time, as this body. It is not a small thing ... as one spiritual master from over-seas said to me last year: ‘This discovery – if it is correct – is of immense importance for humanity’. RESPONDENT: I am confused here. You do not deny the facts. But why then undertake this ‘esoteric’ journey to nothingness? Is it because of going beyond facts due to boredom? RICHARD: ‘Due to boredom’, eh? That is actually quite humorous ... maybe it is as good a motive as any! No, it is not a case of going beyond facts ... going beyond fiction, more like. Shall I put it this way? The enlightened masters state – quite correctly – that normal people are living in an illusion ... right? This means that every-day reality is a dream, a figment of the imagination ... the real world is not what it appears to be. Okay, so far? So, they say, it is possible to ‘wake up’ from this dream and realise who you really are ... As Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) says: ‘There are two ‘I’s ... the self and The Self’. Realise that you are ‘The Self’ – existing for all eternity – and you will have realised your ‘True Nature’ ... you will be residing in the ‘Greater Reality’. This ‘Reality’ – by whatever name – I discovered to be a delusion born out of the illusion of everyday reality. And it is all to do with the persistence of identity. ‘I’ – as ego – dissolve and one transfers one’s identity, via a quantum leap, into being ‘Me’ ... by whatever name. ‘I’ survive, triumphant now, for ‘I’ am one with everything and everyone. ‘I’ manifest Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and tout ‘The Truth’ all around the world to a suffering humanity. Some are so deluded – Mr. Franklin Jones, for example – that the ‘I am everything and everything is Me’ Oceanic feeling of Oneness and Unity translates as: ‘I am God’, or ‘I am The Supreme Being’ or whatever ‘Being’ one may name it (capitalisation is nearly always important, you will notice). RESPONDENT: Please keep it simple, I am trying to fathom your posts. Of course your account of your adventures make fascinating reading and contemplation. Ramana Maharshi adopted a similar approach (forgive me). He proceeded to enquire ‘Who am I’ starting from the human body and further on. I am not clear about the second ‘I’ you mentioned. RICHARD: When one sees – as an actuality – that enlightenment itself is a delusion born out of the illusion of everyday reality, then something very curious happens. This second ‘I’ dies also. Then any identity whatsoever becomes extirpated, extinguished, eliminated, annihilated ... in other words: extinct. Speaking personally, there is no ‘being’ ... no ‘presence’ at all. There is simply this flesh and blood body bereft of any identity whatsoever. Now, there is peace-on-earth ... it exists in the actual world. There can never be peace in the real world. The reality of the real world is an illusion. The Reality of the Mystical World is a delusion. There is an actual world that lies under one’s very nose ... I interact with the same people, things and events that you do, yet it is as if I am in another dimension altogether. There is no good or evil here where I live. I live in a veritable paradise ... this very earth I live on is so vastly superior to any fabled Arcadian Utopia that it would be impossible to believe if I was not living it twenty four hours a day ... and for the last five years. It is so perfectly pure and clear here that there is no need for Love or Compassion or Bliss or Euphoria or Ecstasy or Truth or Goodness or Beauty or Oneness or Unity or Wholeness or ... or any of those baubles. They all pale into pathetic insignificance ... and I lived them for eleven years. RESPONDENT: Richard, could you summarise please? RICHARD: The single root cause of all the mayhem and misery that epitomises the human condition is the persistent feeling of being an identity inhabiting the body: an affective ‘entity’ as in a deep, abiding and profound feeling of being an occupant, a tenant, a squatter or a phantom hiding behind a façade, a mask, a persona; as a subjective emotional psychological ‘self’ and/or a passionate psychic ‘being’ (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) inhabiting the psyche; a deep feeling of being a ‘spirit’; a consciousness of the immanence of ‘presence’ (which exists immortally); an awareness of being an autological ‘being’ ... the realisation of ‘Being’ itself. In other words: everything you think, feel and instinctually know yourself to be ... is to be an alien in an alien world. RESPONDENT: Okay, that is a description. RICHARD: All words are a description ... it is what the words describe which is important: the root cause of 160,000,000 sane people being killed by their sane fellow human beings in wars alone in the last 100 years; the root cause of 40,000,000 killing themselves in the last 100 years; the root cause of the 34 wars occurring as you read this (wherein people are actually killing and wounding and being killed and wounded); the root cause of all the murders such as the someone, somewhere who is being murdered and the someone, somewhere who murdering as these words scroll past you; the root cause of all the tortures, as detailed by ‘Amnesty International’, which are going on right now; the root cause of all the domestic violence such as the someone, somewhere who is being beaten up at this very instant in some unsafe home; the root cause of all the child abuse wherein somewhere some child is being brutalised, frightened out of their wits at this very moment; the root cause of all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide all over the world ... such suffering is going on in uncountable numbers of utterly miserable lives. It is for reasons like this that I pushed the envelope all those years ago and got out of the institutionalised insanity known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ ... and yet you say: ‘Okay, that is a description’. It is a description of why all that misery and mayhem is actually happening globally ... and all that anguish and anger is most definitely not a dream. * RICHARD: The complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ is the end to all the ills of humankind. RESPONDENT: Okay, that is a belief. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I do not ‘believe’ in peace-on-earth ... I experience peace-on-earth twenty four hours a day, day after day. When I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day ... and I know that I will wake up to yet another day of perfection. This has been going on, day-after-day, for years now ... it is so ‘normal’ that I take it for granted that there is only perfection. Plus I can easily put it all into words so as to unambiguously share my experience with my fellow human beings. Thus I can easily describe how this already always existing peace-on-earth became apparent: It was through the complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ as an irrevocable event ... not via ‘a belief’. RESPONDENT: Where is the proof? RICHARD: I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which subjective experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an altered state of consciousness (ASC). Then ‘I’ as ego – sublimated and transcended as ‘me’ as soul – manifest as a god or a goddess (‘The Truth’ by any name) and preach unliveable doctrines based upon their belief that they are ‘not the body’. Doctrines like pacifism, for example. RICHARD: It is for reasons like this [to uncover the root cause of 160,000,000 sane people being killed by their sane fellow human beings in wars alone in the last 100 years; to uncover the root cause of 40,000,000 killing themselves in the last 100 years; to uncover the root cause of the 34 wars occurring as you read this (wherein people are actually killing and wounding and being killed and wounded); to uncover the root cause of all the murders such as the someone, somewhere who is being murdered and the someone, somewhere who murdering as these words scroll past you; to uncover the root cause of all the tortures, as detailed by ‘Amnesty International’, which are going on right now; to uncover the root cause of all the domestic violence such as the someone, somewhere who is being beaten up at this very instant in some unsafe home; to uncover the root cause of all the child abuse wherein somewhere some child is being brutalised, frightened out of their wits at this very moment; to uncover the root cause of all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide all over the world ... such suffering is going on in uncountable numbers of utterly miserable lives] that I pushed the envelope all those years ago and got out of the institutionalised insanity known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ ... and yet you say: ‘okay, that is a description’. It is a description of why all that misery and mayhem is actually happening globally ... and all that anguish and anger is most definitely not a dream. RESPONDENT: Many of us know it’s not a dream – that’s very patronising. RICHARD: Hmm ... just as I know it is not ‘okay, that is a description’ (which is very dismissive). RESPONDENT: No it’s indicative. It indicates that your description is not immediately practical. RICHARD: I demur ... my description is indeed ‘immediately practical’ for it clearly and concisely portrays and personifies the root cause of all the ills of humankind. Allow me to re-present the particular paragraph which you dismissed as ‘okay, that is a description’ so that you may see for yourself:
For an example of how defining and clarifying the problem, through portraying and personifying the root cause, provides the necessary basis for an investigation into all the ills of humankind I need only recall my own origins: I was born in Australia, of an English/Scottish Hong Kong-born father and an English/English Australia-born mother. With this British background, I was enculturated into believing that I was, literally, an Australian citizen ... but with British blood. Now, blood is blood ... there is no such ‘thing’ as an ‘Australian’, an ‘American’, a ‘German’, a ‘Japanese’ and so on. Thus the wars and the suicides – the blood shed and the tears shed – are precipitated because of the absurdity of identification ... is not all this acculturation ridiculous! However, as an infant, a child, a youth and then a man, I was so programmed as to be unable to discriminate fact from fiction. I had no terms of reference that I could use as a standard to determine which was which, as every single human being on this planet was not simply a flesh and blood body ... but similarly conditioned into being an ‘ethnic’ human being. Thus I bought the whole package. Hook, line and sinker. As I slowly started to unravel the mess that humankind was deeply mired in by unravelling it in me, I discovered a second layer under ‘my’ acculturated ethnicity ... ‘I’ was brainwashed into being a ‘man’ and not simply a flesh and blood male body. Under the enculturated layers lies a further identity ... the genetically-inherited animal ‘self’. It took me years and years of exploration and discovery to find out that ‘I’ was a ‘me’ – a ‘being’ – and not simply a flesh and blood body. By identification as ‘me’, a psychological/psychic entity was able to ‘possess’ this body. It is not unlike those Christians who are said to be possessed by an evil entity and require exorcism. Only this ‘possession’ was called being normal. Therefore, every human being is thus possessed by an ‘alien entity’ ... I discovered that a ‘walk-in’ was in control of this body and that this ‘walk-in’ was ‘me’. So, superficially there is a composite conditioned social identity that encompasses:
These are related to roles, rank, positions, station, status, class, age, gender ... the whole organisation of socialised hierarchical control. As a social identity one is already nothing but the product of brainwashing ... yet behind all that – underlying all the social classifications – is the persistent feeling of being an identity inhabiting the body: an affective ‘entity’ as in a deep, abiding and profound feeling of being an occupant, a tenant, a squatter or a phantom hiding behind a façade, a mask, a persona; as a subjective emotional psychological ‘self’ and/or a passionate psychic ‘being’ (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) inhabiting the psyche; a deep feeling of being a ‘spirit’; a consciousness of the immanence of ‘presence’ (which exists immortally); an awareness of being an autological ‘being’ ... the realisation of ‘Being’ itself. In other words: everything you think, feel and instinctually know yourself to be that makes you an alien in an alien world. There, and only there, is the root cause of animosity and anguish. Cultural brainwashing (either metaphysical and/or humanistic) is but the surface problem ... your very deepest feeling of being – the real ‘me’ – is the base of all the ills of humankind. This ‘being’ is evidenced when one says: ‘But what about me, nobody loves me for me’. For a woman it may be: ‘You only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it may be: ‘You only want me for my money ... and not for me’. For a child it may be: ‘You only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. That deep feeling of ‘me’ – that ‘being’ itself – is at the core of identity. It arises out of the basic instinctual passions that blind nature endowed all human beings 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 common to all sentient beings. This is why it is felt to be one’s ‘Original Face’ – to use the Zen terminology – when one accesses it in religious/ spiritual/ mystical meditation practices and disciplines. This is the source of ‘we are all one’, because ‘we’ are all the same-same blind instinctual self that stretches back beyond the dawn of human memory ... it is a very, very ancient genetic memory. Hoariness does not make it automatically wise, however, despite desperate belief to the contrary. RESPONDENT: Also how does one ‘accept the world as it is, with people as they are’, even though one sees them all as unacceptably nursing malice and sorrow, bringing forth wars etc., etc. RICHARD: I do not advise anyone to ‘accept the world as it is, with people as they are’ ... I always put the question this way: ‘How can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?’ Which means: how is it possible to enjoy and appreciate being here, each moment again, as this flesh and blood body? Or: in what way can one live in complete fulfilment and total contentment for the remainder of one’s life? With the purity and perfection of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) firmly in mind as one’s guiding light one asks, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Incidentally, the word ‘acceptance’ has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’ ... nineteen years ago ‘I’, the persona that I was, looked at the physical world and just knew that this enormous construct called the universe was not ‘set up’ for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments of reprieve. ‘I’ the persona realised there and then that it was not and could not ever be some ‘sick cosmic joke’ that humans all had to endure and ‘make the best of’. ‘I’ the persona felt foolish that ‘I’ had believed for thirty two years that the wisdom of the ‘real-world’ that ‘I’ had inherited – the world that ‘I’ was born into – was set in stone. I ceased accepting, allowing, permitting or tolerating or being resigned to suffering there and then. Which is why I say to people to embrace death (as in unreservedly saying !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood body) as a full-blooded approval and endorsement. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ ... um ... a rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing ... let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist. So much for ‘acceptance’ as a viable modus operandi. RESPONDENT: Richard, can I conclude from what you say that ‘you’ loves order as much as disorder? And ugly as much as beautiful? Life as much as death? RICHARD: If by putting the word ‘you’ in small quotes you are referring to the identity (the psychological and/or psychic entity inhabiting or possessing the body) whom I call ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, then ... yes. ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ fluctuates between loving and hating both ‘order’ and ‘disorder’; oscillates between loving and hating both ‘ugly’ and ‘beautiful’; swings between loving and hating both ‘life’ and ‘death’ ... and so on through all shades of nuance including indifference. However, when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ‘self’-immolates in toto – extinction – all such duality vanishes. For example: where there is no hate its antidote – love – likewise evaporates; where there is no sorrow its antidote – compassion – ceases to exist; no ugly, no beauty; no disorder, no order and so on for all the psychological/psychic opposites. The psyche itself – ‘being’ – has ceased to exist. As for ‘life’ and ‘death’ ... death is not the opposite to life at all. There is only birth and death ... life is what happens in between. RESPONDENT: Thank you Richard. Now my question is which entity ‘I’ or ‘me’ is perceiving this state which you are describing ... RICHARD: The brain is entirely capable of perception without any ‘I’ or ‘me’ whatsoever ... it does it a whole lot better, in fact. I am the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me ... and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’/‘me’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a
window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling
through ‘my’ nose ... and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am
cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ... the world as-it-is. RESPONDENT: Richard said that K’s statement that the observer is the observed unambiguously indicates being the very thing referred to. And I pointed out that K himself said that this does not mean that you are the tree, as that would be ridiculous. Richard frequently gives an overly literal meaning to what he reads from others. RICHARD: Ha ... this is actually quite humorous – given that it is written on a mailing list wherein there quite often is excoriation for interpreting what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words say – in that by me not deviating one hair’s breadth away from what the words ‘the outside is the inside’ and ‘the observer is the observed’ say, in the context they sit in, you are now reduced to making the point that I am being ‘overly literal’ (whatever that means) ... and that I am ‘frequently’ doing so into the bargain. Wonders will never cease, eh? But to get to the point: as we have had a discussion before, you and I, not only on this very topic but revolving around the self-same paragraph as I have posted again this time around, wherein you explained that the phrases mean existing as a relationship (and not being that), perhaps it would be apposite to go into the topic further. For starters, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti indeed does not say that there is identification with a particular tree, hill, rock, bird, and so on ... here is but one example:
Yet, here is another example, where he unambiguously says that the outside is the inside (and the inside is the outside):
The reason why I have emphasised him saying *and there is only life* (when there is no watcher) is because of statements like this:
It becomes even more clear, for an example, when the latter part of the descriptive paragraph already quoted (further above) is examined closely:
Do you see that he says the mind was totally with that bird, not observing the bird, and that the mind went through and beyond it; that the mind of the crow was part of the mind that spanned the seas and time; that this mind was vast, limitless, beyond all measure; that this mind was wholly empty, and being empty this mind could attend without a cause; that this mind’s attention had neither root or branch; that all energy was in the empty stillness of this mind; that the energy of this mind was the energy of all beginning; that *this mind was life* ... it was life that had no time as ending? And just to bring it home to you I will remind you of what you posted yourself just recently:
Perhaps if I were to say, by way of an explanation, that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does not mean that he has identified as the trees, hills, rocks, birds and so on ‘in a narrow exclusive sense’ (which would be akin to painting red ink on a red rose anyway as someone once said) but in the sense that the mind which he is (when the watcher is not) is the ‘true nature or the ground in being of all things’ ... and here are the words ‘all things’ once again:
Now do you comprehend what the phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is conveying? If you maintain that the words ‘the outside is the inside’ do not indicate being that which is referred to, but indicates instead existing in relationship with that which is being referred to, then you are saying, in effect, that the ‘true nature or the ground in being of all things’ exists in relationship with all things ... rather than being all things. As I commented in our previous discussion, as a generalisation, in western mysticism oneness or union with the ‘true nature or the ground in being of all things’ most often means a relationship with that (by whatever name) whereas, also as a generalisation, in eastern mysticism oneness or union with that most often means there is nothing other than that ... and if your experience is being in relationship with that then, as I also remarked in the previous discussion, there is probably not much point in pursuing the matter any further as it really does not matter which delusion is the correct delusion. My experience, night and day for eleven years, was being that KONRAD: There is only confusion about a belief in the existence of such an identity. This is why I see that you are the one who is confused, not me. RICHARD: Perhaps a few quotes from these long-time spiritual seekers might enable you to see – by seeing how others are playing with themselves – just what you yourself are doing here. Vis.:
Does all this help somewhat, Konrad, to throw some light upon the subject? In Australia, this kind of behaviour is called ‘being
a wanker’. KONRAD: For as long as you think that this is necessary, you have no clear understanding of the real nature of ‘I’. For if you had, you would see that this is ridiculous. For you cannot eliminate something that is not there in the first place. There is only one problem, and that is REALIZING that this ‘I’, this identity IS an illusion. And when this is totally realized, in the sense that it is observed to be true, and not only understood as a possibility, the process of enlightenment sets in. RICHARD: Perhaps the following exchange might help you to understand how it is for me in regards to what you are now discussing. Vis.:
What a marvellous difference this makes to being alive!
SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON ‘I’ AS AN IDENTITY (Part Three) RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED 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 |
