Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: Generally speaking, ‘I’ as ego is the thinker (typically described as being in the head) and ‘me’ as soul is the feeler (typically described as being in the heart). Generally speaking ‘I’ as ego is believed to die with the body at physical death (small ‘s’ self) and ‘me’ as soul is believed to survive at physical death (capital ‘S’ Self). In other words: ‘I’ as ego is seen to be mortal ... and ‘me’ as soul as being immortal.

RESPONDENT: The problem is that the soul is tainted by what the ego accepts and does, so they are connected.

RICHARD: If I may point out? This is at odds with your definitive statement (further above) that everything is ‘soul centred’. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘The emotions of love and hate are both ego centred.
• [Richard]: ‘Deeper than that are the passions of love and hate ... and passions are soul-centred.
• [Respondent]: ‘Everything is soul centred so I don’t know what you are referring to.

As a matter of interest ... would you allow that the ego is tainted by the soul?

RESPONDENT: When the ego dies with the body, the eternal soul ...

RICHARD: If I may point out? This ‘eternal soul’ statement of yours is at odds with your ‘fear’ (further above) that there are ‘many bodies without souls walking around the earth right now’ . Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I fear that there are many bodies without souls walking around the earth right now causing a lot of trouble for others.

If you are not vacillating in this section either ... then maybe there is some confusion operating?

RESPONDENT: [when the ego dies with the body, the eternal soul] is still warped by what it was, so the nature of the ego carries on.

RICHARD: Are you saying here that it is the nature of the ego that warps the soul (in contradistinction to your definitive statement that everything is soul centred)?

*

RESPONDENT: [what is the difference between the ego and the soul] and how would one go about giving them up?

RICHARD: Altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice ... a magnanimous ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body.

RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t have any idea of how to do such a thing.

RICHARD: The moment it is seen (experientially) as being desirable for the benefit of this body and that body and every body the ‘how’ of doing it becomes obvious of its own accord.

No ‘idea’ of how to do it is required in advance.

RESPONDENT: You say, I as ego, me as soul. Is there and what’s the difference between I and me?

RICHARD: The difference between ‘I’, as ego, and ‘me’, as soul, is that ‘the thinker’, as contrasted to ‘the feeler’, is to a large part made up of (feeling-fed) thought ... whereas ‘me’ at the core of my being (which is ‘being’ itself) is purely affective.

Just as the ego dies, for enlightenment to occur, the soul also dies in order to go beyond enlightenment.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I’m understanding what you are saying and I find little confusion with the exception of the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. The way I understand the self is that it is all that I am, and then you come along and divide the self into an ego and a soul.

RICHARD: It is the identity that has two parts to it, not the self. The self equates with ego (which is one half of the identity) and the Self equates with soul (which is the other half of the identity). They go by so many different names according the school one subscribes to or the culture one is born into or whose practices one adopts. I am merely using the standard English terminology that is generally accepted in the West. The self (ego) is mortal; the Self (soul) is immortal.

RESPONDENT: This is the extra step that you have put in that one must take to be free, and then assign that assumption that others who did not take the final step of the ‘death of the soul’ were merely metaphysical because they did not solve the ‘problem’.

RICHARD: As the Self (soul) is immortal it is, by definition, metaphysical.

RESPONDENT: What is the problem, Richard? Is it not the self? Please don’t try to divide that self into ego and soul. It just doesn’t work for me – unless you can come up with some real concrete evidence that there is a soul to die.

RICHARD: That is just it ... because it is supposed to be immortal it cannot die. I challenged this passionate and fervently held belief ... and the Self (soul) died. It was not so immortal after all.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to suggest that it was the one self which thought there were two identities in the first place – a self that divided itself into an ‘ego’ self and a ‘soul’ self (which you chose to capitalise).

RICHARD: I did not choose to capitalise ... I am merely following the convention that is common around the world. One has only to read works by and about Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana), for example, to see this convention in action.

As for your suggestion ‘that it was the one self which thought there were two identities in the first place’ ... are you, too, telling me that it is thought ‘imputing’ identities where they do not exist? So it is contagious then, this ‘imputing’ business. Obviously, ‘I’ will do anything but see the fact.

RESPONDENT: It is still this one self that concludes that there are two selves (identities) that must die. You are challenging something that never existed in the first place ... two separated selves.

RICHARD: Okay, since you insist, let us do it your way. What now? How do I proceed to get this self back into my imagination again so that I can experience the world like you do?

RESPONDENT: The self is fragmented and fragments, and I think yourself is still fragmenting. There are not two selves, one with a capital ‘S’ and one with a lower case ‘s’. There is just one self. Richard, I repeat, there is only ONE self.

RICHARD: Okay ... okay ... you have convinced me. There is only ONE self ... got it!

Now what?

RESPONDENT: Yes, there is a delusion of the self being ‘immortal’. People like to think that there is ‘something’ immortal about ‘us’.

RICHARD: And that includes yourself, as is evidenced by your last post ... vis:

• [Richard]: ‘I am mortal’.
• [Respondent]: ‘You certainly are, and so am I.
• [Richard]: If this was all that you wrote, all would be well. But you do not mean it when you say ‘so am I’ because you immediately follow it with:
• [Respondent]: ‘There also may be ‘something else’ beyond the mortal, something you are not/have not experienced. Is that a possibility?’
• [Richard]: ‘Yes, it is more than a possibility ... it is the mystical world ‘Reality’ that I lived in for eleven years. It just happens to be a delusion born out of an illusion called the real world ‘reality’. There is nothing actual beyond the mortal’. And, having read my response, you go ahead and do the same thing again:
• [Respondent]: ‘There may be something which is immortal, but I, personally, do not know that, and neither do I know that there is not, but in all probability it has nothing to do with what we think or don’t think’.

To which I can only repeat what I wrote before:

• ‘This stance is sometimes known as being agnostic ... and the people I have met personally, over many years that I have discussed these matters, who embrace this position have invariably been firmly convinced that this course of inaction is the intelligent approach. Mostly they have been academics ... it is a variation on that hoary adage: ‘he who says he does not know, really knows’. I guess it makes them feel intellectually comfortable’.

Do you want to find out? Do you want to know? Because if you do not find out while you are alive and breathing you will never know.

RESPONDENT: Another suggestion, Richard, is that you give up all of your conclusions and start afresh from no thought about everything you hold so dearly. That is death of the ego, the self.

RICHARD: Why? So that I will become happy and harmless? So that I will be free of sorrow and malice? So that I will become blithesome and benign? So that I will be free of fear and aggression? So that I will become carefree and considerate? So that I will be free from nurture and desire? So that I will become gay and benevolent? So that I will be free from anguish and animosity? So that, by being free of the Human Condition I will experience peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body?

So, tell me how you went about giving up all of your conclusions and starting afresh from no thought about everything you held so dearly. Tell me, please, how you eventuated the death of your ego, the self, and became free of the Human Condition.

May I suggest something in return? One would be well-advised not to give directives that one is not living oneself twenty four hours a day, year in year out. Otherwise one is mouthing empty rhetoric.

And they are silly directives anyway ... it is the ‘Tried and True’ that you are promulgating and it is nothing but the ‘Tried and Failed’. The Saints and Sages have been handing out these half-baked inanities, dressed-up as sagacity, for thousands of years ... to no avail. There is still as much suffering now as there was then. It is high time something totally new hove into view ... and it has.

I call it actual freedom.

RESPONDENT: I would like to ask you what do you mean when saying ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul? What is the difference between ‘I’ and ‘me’ and between ego and soul? I cannot understand what you are trying to convey.

RICHARD: There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual.

RESPONDENT: What is the third ‘I’?

RICHARD: The flesh and blood body only. I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul.

*

RICHARD: The first two ‘I’s are ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) which are the two halves of identity ... thus the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can dissolve/ expand/ transmogrify so as to reveal/create the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) spoke of (soul or Self). Usually I write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer fame (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation).

RESPONDENT: By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)?

RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways:

1. Jnani (cognitive realisation as epitomised by the ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this; not this’ approach).
2. Bhakti (affective realisation as epitomised by devotional worship and surrender of will).
3. Yoga (bodily realisation as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’).

It is also traditionally held that these broad definitions are not exclusive of each other (there are elements of Bhakti and Yoga in Jnani; there are elements of Jnani and Yoga in Bhakti; there are elements of Jnani and Bhakti in Yoga) and that they refer to the main emphasis, of the whole approach, on the part of the practitioner.

RESPONDENT: Is thought involved in this process?

RICHARD: Only initially ... the goal is to become thoughtless and senseless because that which is sacred, holy, cannot come into being whilst thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are operating.

RESPONDENT: Is thought the essence of both ‘I’ or is there anything more?

RICHARD: Both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are held to be the essence of the first ‘I’ (ego or self) but are, most certainly, not considered to be the essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self). The essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self) is solely affective (neither cognitive nor sensate) and is generally held to be a state of ‘being’ ... which is why I usually write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation).

*

RICHARD: Mystical liberation (Moksha) from the bonds of samsara (anava, karma and maya), consists of the soul (atman or purusha) extricating itself from its mistaken assumption of personality or individuality (aham or ‘I’ as ego).

RESPONDENT: I understand that the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’), and this second ‘I’ can extricating itself from the first ‘I’ or individuality, whereupon there is mystical liberation (Moksha). Is this what you mean?

RICHARD: Yes. However, this extrication also includes extrication from both the physical body and the physical world (detachment from both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) inevitably results in dissociation) ... hence the common expression ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’ (maya).

*

RICHARD: This assumption [the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality] is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on the real-world (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds.

RESPONDENT: Why are they reincarnational?

RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that karma, born of the craving for physical existence, is the reason for re-birth. Hence ‘maya’ (which translates as ‘only apparently real’) is the manifestation of ‘samsara’ (which translates as ‘the running around’) which metempsychosis is the result of ‘karma’ (which translates as ‘act’ or ‘deed’). In Hinduism and Jainism, samsara describes the vocation of the soul which – once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self-Consciousness’ – is born as a creature and continues through transmigration until ‘moksa’ (which translates as ‘release’). Buddhism regards all existence as being samsara – and therefore unsatisfactory (‘dukkha’) because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence – and teaches that salvation is to be found in the place where the sun don’t shine. Vis.:

• Mr. Gotama the Sakyan: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; ... neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. (Nibbana Sutta; Udana viii.1).

As to what it is that happens, in the place where the sun don’t shine, that the craving arises in the first place, the explanation you provided to this Mailing List, on Monday, 19 June 2000, is as useful or as useless as any other facile explanation. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘God is the one who introduces the soul into the stream of transmigration so that he might discover his spiritual nature’. (Message #01021 of Archive 00/06).

*

RICHARD: These bonds do not cease to exist but no longer have the power to fetter or bind the soul (atman), until its final release at physical death (Mahasamadhi) whereupon atman is Paramatman (or the Brahman) ... oft-times referred to as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (‘That Thou Art’ or ‘I Am That’).

RESPONDENT: I understand that with this releasing at physical death the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’) will be Brahman. If so, what is Brahman’s essence, is it a creation of the mind?

RICHARD: Ha ... Brahman’s essence is held to be unknowable, ineffable and inviolable (never to be questioned).

*

RICHARD: An actual freedom from the real-world (samsara or prakriti) is when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct – which means ‘being’ itself expires – and not what happens when ‘I’ as ego transmogrifies into ‘Being’ (Paramatman or Brahman). I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul.

RESPONDENT: If both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul have become extinct, does something remain when physical death comes?

RICHARD: Yes, that which always was, already is, and always will be, remains.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless