|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 30
Continued on from General Correspondence Page 13: No. 01 RESPONDENT: What follows is a ramble. Would be delighted if you respond, of course. Emotion backed thoughts. Feelings. Emotions. Instincts. Instinctual passions. Thoughts. Beliefs. Thinker and Feeler and Social Identity and Instinctual Self. Apperception. Are all these things demonstrably distinct? RICHARD: Through self-observation they are, yes ... although there is always some overlap as the phrase ‘emotion backed thoughts’ refers to ‘beliefs’ (sometimes cunningly discussed as ‘truths’) and the word ‘feelings’ refers to both the more superficial ‘emotions’ and the deeper or more primal ‘instinctual passions’ one is born with; the word ‘instincts’ can refer to both the genetically-endowed propensity to act without conscious intention (the startle response, for example) and the ‘instinctual passions’ (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire); the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ (aka ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) can be found to be distinct although the line between them can also be blurred (the line where the one ends and the other begins); the ‘social identity’ (the culturally-instilled conscience) is overlaid on top of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul which are, in turn, overlaid on top of the ‘instinctual self’ (which all sentient beings are born with). Howsoever ‘apperception’ is startlingly distinct ... and in an apperceptive awareness ‘thoughts’ are a sparkling, coruscating delight. RESPONDENT: The body of observations and conclusions presented in the website is ‘actualism’ to me. RICHARD: Okay ... the use of -ism on the end of a word (from the Latin ‘isma’ meaning ‘of action, something done’) simply indicates the characteristics of a person or a thing. It is used to form a noun of action naming the process, the completed action or the result, with emphasis on character or conduct (it is the forming of a term denoting a trait or peculiarity). That it has popularly come to mean (chiefly derogatory) a form of doctrine, theory or principle, is the disparaging usage that many peoples think is its only usage. RESPONDENT: To the actualists this is ‘actuality’ and for somebody who is trying to understand, is it not a theory till (s)he verifies it for (him/her)self? RICHARD: The words and writings on The Actual Freedom Website are sufficiently detailed and extensive
enough in both range and depth to present a prima facie case worthy of further investigation RESPONDENT: And won’t it take time to verify it? RICHARD: Only if one cannot recall a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or have one set-off whilst reading and/or reflecting ... in a PCE everything detailed by all the words on The Actual Freedom Website is startlingly self-evident. RESPONDENT: In that duration, is it not a theory for them? RICHARD: Presumably it could be going by some of the responses I have seen over the years ... but mostly it is peoples who object to be happy and harmless who see it is ‘a theory’ only. RESPONDENT: Apparently there seems to be some difficulty for those who are not ‘actualists’ to see the ‘actuality’, and it takes time and practice, even if there is willingness. RICHARD: There are two ways of seeing it: in a PCE (which is instant) and a reasoned seeing ... it would appear that you are referring to the latter (in which case yes it would take time and practice). RESPONDENT: Also there is this confusion that springs from oneself in these matters. Surely you will agree that all this doesn’t seem to be obvious without carefully going through, discussion, reflecting etc., to a lot of people. RICHARD: Unless one can recall or have a PCE ... yes (which is why The Actual Freedom Website has become so extensive). RESPONDENT: So it could take a long time before the premises are seen for their factual status, and the method verified for its effectiveness, and till then ‘actualism’ is a theory one is willing to explore ...? RICHARD: The length of time taken to verify the prima facie case RESPONDENT: Eastern philosophy has been observed to have solved half of the problem, namely the elimination of the ego. Is there anything that we can borrow from there? RICHARD: Yes ... not to make the same mistake and stop half way. RESPONDENT: Is a two step process as it happened to Richard, a simpler way to achieve the same end? (in retrospect, of course)? RICHARD: No, most definitely not ... it is incredibly difficult – and traumatic – to extract oneself from the enlightened state. RESPONDENT: Could J Krishnamurti (or U G Krishnamurti for that matter) have meant ‘emotion backed thought’ when they diagnosed thought to be the problem? RICHARD: No ... if so they would have clearly delineated the distinction just as I do (so as to not confuse one’s fellow human beings). RESPONDENT: Is the universe being infinite in all directions a theory, not a fact? RICHARD: First of all, it is physically impossible to empirically establish the extended attributes of space, time and matter ... one cannot, ever, hop into some ultra high speed spacecraft and travel to some ‘where’ or ‘when’ or ‘that’ and show or demonstrate or exhibit infinitude. Needless is it to say, for those who propose a caused universe, that no one has journeyed to where they can witness such a creation of material ex nihilo? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a temporary universe, that no one has travelled to when that limited time began? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a finite universe, that no one has voyaged to the edge of that bounded universe? Similarly, if (note ‘if’) one could roam forever throughout the physical infinitude of immeasurable matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time ... one would never ‘prove’ anything. Apart from the current passionate preoccupation by academia with Quantum Theory (which gets ever more frantic due to the mathematicians who, having taken over physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are bemiring themselves more and more in their futile efforts to prove their god to be a mathematician) modern astronomy is showing the universe to be immensely vast. For example, in 1986 a huge conglomeration of galaxies that is 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick were found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe – 12 to 14 billion years – simply look sillier than it already did. Obviously then, the entire question revolves around being sensible ... and I always plunk for a rational or reasonable approach – the judicious approach – from the word go. RESPONDENT: If the theory that universe is finite is found to be true (backed up with evidences, predictions etc. using scientific method), and a spaceship that leaves in one direction comes back from the other direction after some time, won’t we be in a position but to accept it? RICHARD: You seem to be talking about Mr. Albert Einstein’s curved space here ... whatever you do, do not hold your breath waiting for that to be demonstrated (24 to 28 billions years of travelling at the speed of light is too long a journey for any human being to make and come back alive so as to provide a factual report). RESPONDENT: Just as the humans (including church, eventually) had to give up the more obvious ‘geocentric’ to the ‘heliocentric’? RICHARD: Hmm ... it is up to those who propose an edge, a boundary, a beginning, a duration, an ending, a depletion to demonstrate the veracity of their claim. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless, limitless, immeasurable infinitude. Furthermore, they need to satisfactorily explain why they are unnecessarily complicating what is actually a simple issue: they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a finite space ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a limited time ... and when it came and from what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing depletable matter ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why. They also need to satisfactorily explain just what constitutes their timeless and spaceless nothingness which this immense universe (supposedly) arose out of. Apperception In an apperceptive awareness it is patently obvious that one is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being ... as such the universe is stunningly conscious of its own infinitude.
RESPONDENT: What follows is a ramble. Would be delighted if you respond, of course. Emotion backed thoughts. Feelings. Emotions. Instincts. Instinctual passions. Thoughts. Beliefs. Thinker and Feeler and Social Identity and Instinctual Self. Apperception. Are all these things demonstrably distinct? RICHARD: Through self-observation they are, yes ... although there is always some overlap as the phrase ‘emotion backed thoughts’ refers to ‘beliefs’ (sometimes cunningly discussed as ‘truths’) and the word ‘feelings’ refers to both the more superficial ‘emotions’ and the deeper or more primal ‘instinctual passions’ one is born with; the word ‘instincts’ can refer to both the genetically-endowed propensity to act without conscious intention (the startle response, for example) and the ‘instinctual passions’ (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire); the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ (aka ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) can be found to be distinct although the line between them can also be blurred (the line where the one ends and the other begins); the ‘social identity’ (the culturally-instilled conscience) is overlaid on top of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul which are, in turn, overlaid on top of the ‘instinctual self’ (which all sentient beings are born with). RESPONDENT: Is there an acid test to distinguish these elements from one another – that you can pass it on? RICHARD: Yes. As I said (above) self-observation will demonstrate the distinction ... and the attentiveness engendered by asking of the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ each moment again will expedite such self-observation. RESPONDENT: If not for a ego or the thinker or a thought, how do these other entities express themself? RICHARD: As an affective feeling, basically. RESPONDENT: In the fight or flight situation, it is clear. In other situations, if thought or thinker or ego is not there to interpret, translate, comment the experience, can anything happen? RICHARD: Yes ... the affective feelings can happen. * RICHARD: Howsoever ‘apperception’ is startlingly distinct ... and in an apperceptive awareness ‘thoughts’ are a sparkling, coruscating delight. RESPONDENT: Can the object of apperceptive awareness be an emotion? RICHARD: No ... apperception does not operate when the emotions hold sway (apperception is when the ‘self’ is not). RESPONDENT: Can the apperception be a process of learning about the objects hidden in one’s closet, thus happening before self-immolation instead of after? RICHARD: As experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) ... yes. * RESPONDENT: Apparently there seems to be some difficulty for those who are not ‘actualists’ to see the ‘actuality’, and it takes time and practice, even if there is willingness. RICHARD: There are two ways of seeing it: in a PCE (which is instant) and a reasoned seeing ... it would appear that you are referring to the latter (in which case yes it would take time and practice). RESPONDENT: The past seems to be a big muddle for me. I am not able to search and fish out a PCE from it. Whereas, I would like to proceed with experimentation, common sense, logical – a reasoned seeing as is said. I am not as such practicing the method that is suggested in the web site, as I am still in the process of making sense of the whole thing (without a PCE to help me). RICHARD: Ahh ... practising the method (‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’) expedites self-observation and thus clarifies any ‘muddle’. * RESPONDENT: It could take a long time before the premises are seen for their factual status, and the method verified for its effectiveness, and till then ‘actualism’ is a theory one is willing to explore ...? RICHARD: The length of time taken to verify the prima facie case RESPONDENT: I cannot honestly say that I have pure intent, as I not seem to be connected with the turmoils of the world but in an indirect way. RICHARD: Hmm ... self-observation will demonstrate the direct way that one is connected. RESPONDENT: My absence of pure intent is mostly due to my short-sight rather than due to any malice. RICHARD: Again ... self-observation will readily disclose the subtleties of any malice RESPONDENT: But I do have a quest to simplify and understand the processes that one is part of, and I also guess that that will solve the ‘happy and harmless’ issue. RICHARD: There is a discrepancy between the statement ‘the processes one is part of’ and the statement ‘I do not seem to be connected with the turmoils of the world ...’. * RESPONDENT: Is a two step process as it happened to Richard, a simpler way to achieve the same end? (in retrospect, of course)? RICHARD: No, most definitely not ... it is incredibly difficult – and traumatic – to extract oneself from the enlightened state. RESPONDENT: Sorry; I did not mean: go through enlightenment and delusion, as you did; but eliminate the ego; eliminate the feelings [feeler? instinctual self?] with no delusion in between the steps. RICHARD: The elimination of the instinctual self, via altruistic ‘self’-immolation, is automatically the end of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. * RESPONDENT: Could J Krishnamurti (or U G Krishnamurti for that matter) have meant ‘emotion backed thought’ when they diagnosed thought to be the problem? RICHARD: No ... if so they would have clearly delineated the distinction just as I do (so as to not confuse one’s fellow human beings). RESPONDENT: To me these words can be meant in so many ways. RICHARD: Generally speaking I stick to the dictionary meaning (with the obvious exception of ‘real’ and ‘actual’ and ‘truth’ and ‘fact’). RESPONDENT: We know that the language evolved through centuries, and one language represents things differently than the other. RICHARD: It is possible to translate in a valid way ... the translators at the United Nations assemblies demonstrate this on a daily basis. RESPONDENT: The words that I am bringing over and over are not the one’s that are well understood (as words like body, brain, chair, dream, sleep are understood) but are used by different people with different modes. RICHARD: I have read both Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti and they both use words like ‘body, brain, chair, dream, sleep’ in the conventional way ... I have had no difficulty whatsoever in understanding what they mean. RESPONDENT: To illustrate, ‘me’ as soul, is it not your usage (or your derivation from those eastern texts)? RICHARD: No, the word soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) is common parlance for the psychic ‘self’ who transcends time and space and form in any language ... it is the English word meaning what ‘atman’ means in the Indian language. RESPONDENT: The dictionary seems to only say so much ‘the objective case of I’. RICHARD: The Oxford dictionary has the following to say:
RESPONDENT: Can there be a connexion found between the words ‘soul’ and ‘me’, which seems to be ‘aka’ for you, otherwise? RICHARD: Yes ... number 4a (above): ‘the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature’. RESPONDENT: I am not trying to defend Krishnamurti here, I am only sounding the results of my ongoing reflection. RICHARD: Okay. * RESPONDENT: Is the universe being infinite in all directions a theory, not a fact? RICHARD: First of all, it is physically impossible to empirically establish the extended attributes of space, time and matter ... one cannot, ever, hop into some ultra high speed spacecraft and travel to some ‘where’ or ‘when’ or ‘that’ and show or demonstrate or exhibit infinitude. Needless is it to say, for those who propose a caused universe, that no one has journeyed to where they can witness such a creation of material ex nihilo? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a temporary universe, that no one has travelled to when that limited time began? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a finite universe, that no one has voyaged to the edge of that bounded universe? RESPONDENT: Deductive logic works like a chain; if you agree that each ring of the chain to be valid, you reach the last piece of the chain which is not apparent if you did not follow the process. Modern science including quantum cosmogony is not a result of wishful thinking, as the prominent scientists (Einstein: god does not play dice, and similar quotes can be found for relativity) were not able to digest certain findings of these, just as you do. RICHARD: The validity of each link in a deductive chain is dependent upon the initial premise being
correct. RESPONDENT: They are not commonsensical at all, agreed. But experimentation (please refer to: Michelson Morley kind of experiments for relativity, double hole experiments for quantum mechanics) has shown that the common sense understandings do not carry well in very high speeds as well as very small scales, and one is forced to theorize with the set of facts, and predict from the theory, and verify, and verify and verify, till the theory is found to be useful (like nuclear reactors, space ships, cosmic rays). RICHARD: History shows that a model can be found to be useful without it necessarily being correct ... and such a model is later discarded when another model can be found to correspond more accurately to the facts. RESPONDENT: Then the philosophical or metaphysical question arises: this is the theory that is arrived through scientific method to explain certain idiosyncrasies of nature, and works quite well, what does it mean? RICHARD: It means what you just said ... it ‘works quite well’. RESPONDENT: So are the experiments wrong? Was the theory used inappropriately, an abuse of logic and misuse of symbols? We have to go into these. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I never did ‘go into these’ (one does not have to be a theoretical physicist to become free of the human condition). RESPONDENT: We are not dealing with what is evident in PCE anymore, but are viewing through powerful microscopes and more powerful telescopes, which were required in the first place for you to posit about the grandness of the universe in light years in the following paragraphs. RICHARD: Yet powerful microscopes and powerful telescopes entail empirical observation (which was the whole point of what I was saying in the following paragraphs) and not theoretical computations. RESPONDENT: People before us believed that we might fall off the earth if we travelled too long, and that was the prevalent common sense which was very respectable indeed. RICHARD: And today it is popularly believed that the universe is finite in terms of space, time and matter and will come to an end eventually ... nothing much seems to have changed in regards to the vagaries of human speculation. * RICHARD: Similarly, if (note ‘if’) one could roam forever throughout the physical infinitude of immeasurable matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time ... one would never ‘prove’ anything. Apart from the current passionate preoccupation by academia with Quantum Theory (which gets ever more frantic due to the mathematicians who, having taken over physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are bemiring themselves more and more in their futile efforts to prove their god to be a mathematician) modern astronomy is showing the universe to be immensely vast. For example, in 1986 a huge conglomeration of galaxies that is 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick were found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe – 12 to 14 billion years – simply look sillier than it already did. RESPONDENT: It would be naive and limiting principle to say that I will take only what is touched and felt. RICHARD: Of course. RESPONDENT: For instance the sizes and distances of the cosmic objects you refer to are a result of application of indirect logical principles, derived, rather than felt by senses. Otherwise the sun would be apple sized, sun would be going around the earth, sun and moon at the same distance, moon emitting light in the same way as sun, sky blue, stars dots. Not to say that we have to eat all that academia throws to us. Was there a critical study of the principles involved before rejecting them because in a PCE it becomes evident that the conclusions are false? RICHARD: Yes (although I make no pretensions of being a mathematician, a logician or a physicist so the extent of my ‘critical study’ would never satisfy an academician). RESPONDENT: I cannot speak for it because, as I said, no PCE seems to be in the surface for me; and if there was one, not that I would know. RICHARD: Okay. * RICHARD: Obviously then, the entire question revolves around being sensible ... and I always plunk for a rational or reasonable approach – the judicious approach – from the word go. RESPONDENT: Not that I don’t sense the rationality and clarity in your arguments. I would like to discuss this matter of science and mathematics with you, if you think it appropriate, since my viewpoint is slightly different from yours on these matters. I do not think it to be unrelated to the actualism discussions, as the subject has been already described and raised, and understanding the universe we live in is as important as we understand our fellow human beings, who are only a small speck of the whole thing. RICHARD: Speaking personally I am not ‘only a small speck of the whole thing’ ... in an actual freedom from the human condition one is the universe experiencing itself apperceptively: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. This is no little thing which I speak of ... the mystery of life or the puzzle of existence is patently open to view. RESPONDENT: A question for you: what subset of modern science you are willing to admit? RICHARD: That which is sensible, practical and in accord with the facts ... I am also willing to be wrong in the many areas which lie beyond my expertise. I am a lay-person when it comes to physics as I am a high-school drop-out. I started working for a living at age fifteen and have never pursued these matters beyond what is available in the popular press ... if you are looking for an advanced discussion you are talking to the wrong person. My expertise lies in the area of human consciousness only (via self-observation). RESPONDENT: Darwinian theory if not big bang? RICHARD: The science of evolution fits well with the facts ... the ‘big bang’ theory is shot full of holes. RESPONDENT: Expanding universe? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Black holes? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Atomic theory (Bohr’s atomic model with nucleus and protons and electrons)? RICHARD: The jury is still out on this issue ... as a model it works well enough for now.
RESPONDENT: Is there an acid test to distinguish these elements from one another – that you can pass it on? RICHARD: Yes. As I said [in the previous post] self-observation will demonstrate the distinction ... and the attentiveness engendered by asking of the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ each moment again will expedite such self-observation. RESPONDENT: I have not fully understood questioning process. It is surely not simply repeating the sentence, like a ‘mantra’, jogging it in my mind, and try to see what happens, right? RICHARD: It is a question, not a mantra (actualism is non-spiritual). RESPONDENT: If I ask this question now, all I get is a blank. A question that has no answer. Like asking ‘How am I breathing now?’, or ‘How am I walking now?’ ... I don’t know what answers to look for. Please pardon my stupidity here. RICHARD: Just keep it simple ... start by examining what you are feeling. RESPONDENT: Or if I try to answer by analysing the components involved in my consciousness, it is not clear what to call which, what is the common usage, does it have a name etc. What is the answer to the question? RICHARD: If you are feeling bored you can know that you are bored; if you are feeling sad you can know that you are sad ... and so on. RESPONDENT: Or is it by paying attention with the intention of the question, not necessarily in the words ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’, but looking with/without above said words, to find out what is going on ...? RICHARD: Eventually it becomes a non-verbal attitude towards life ... a wordless approach each moment again. RESPONDENT: What do I discover in this process? RICHARD: You discover just what you are experiencing each moment again. RESPONDENT: For our (my?) sake, would anybody describe a session of this questioning process? RICHARD: Again ... it is such a simple thing: you find out how you are experiencing this moment of being alive. After all, this moment is your only moment of being alive: the past, although it was actual, is not actual now; the future, although it will be actual, is not actual now ... only now is actual. Why not find out how one is experiencing this only moment of being alive, eh? RESPONDENT: What goes on in one’s mind: question, discovery, question, question, nothing, blank, discover of a belief, discovery of an emotion, hey there goes me, blank, this is I, that is anger, this fear, etc.? RICHARD: Yes ... it is such a simple thing to ask. * RESPONDENT: If not for a ego or the thinker or a thought, how do these other entities express themself? RICHARD: As an affective feeling, basically. RESPONDENT: Can an affective feeling without the aid of thought result in an action in the physical world? RICHARD: Yes ... lashing out in a blind rage is one obvious example. * RICHARD: Howsoever ‘apperception’ is startlingly distinct ... and in an apperceptive awareness ‘thoughts’ are a sparkling, coruscating delight. RESPONDENT: Can the object of apperceptive awareness be an emotion? RICHARD: No ... apperception does not operate when the emotions hold sway (apperception is when the ‘self’ is not). RESPONDENT: Can the apperception be a process of learning about the objects hidden in one’s closet, thus happening before self-immolation instead of after? RICHARD: As experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) ... yes. RESPONDENT: When apperception happens, the self is not and emotions hold sway you say. RICHARD: No ... I said that apperception does not operate when the emotions hold sway. RESPONDENT: Would it be correct to say that, at the time of apperceptive awareness, then nothing is learnt about the self or emotion, because they are not there? RICHARD: No ... everything is revealed in the bright light of apperception: one can see where everyone has been going awry with remarkable ease because one is free from it all. * RESPONDENT: I cannot honestly say that I have pure intent, as I not seem to be connected with the turmoils of the world but in an indirect way. RICHARD: Hmm ... self-observation will demonstrate the direct way that one is connected. RESPONDENT: My absence of pure intent is mostly due to my short-sight rather than due to any malice. RICHARD: Again ... self-observation will readily disclose the subtleties of any malice. RESPONDENT: Okay. So you are positing that there has to be malice in me in above sentence, I think, as the pure intent is absent. RICHARD: No, it is an of course that you have malice (and sorrow) operating in you ... unless you have already freed yourself from them. RESPONDENT: I have no doubts that there are those feelings (which you categorize as ‘malice’) in me which come into action when conditions change. RICHARD: Good ... this is common to all human beings and is called the human condition. RESPONDENT: What I was saying was not that there is none in me, but, that there is no pure intent (as a want to put an end to the human condition) predominant in me not because there is some element called ‘malice’ in me which says ‘no, don’t ever end the human condition’, but because of some kind of non-understanding. That’s what I meant. RICHARD: Pure intent is the intent to be happy and harmless as soon as possible and thus allow the ingress of the already always existing peace-on-earth ... or, to put it another way, the intent to bring to an end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides sooner rather than later. RESPONDENT: Once again, I find that there are lot of those elements in me and they are diminishing, as these discussions and increased reflection have started. RICHARD: Okay. * RESPONDENT: But I do have a quest to simplify and understand the processes that one is part of, and I also guess that that will solve the ‘happy and harmless’ issue. RICHARD: There is a discrepancy between the statement ‘the processes one is part of’ and the statement ‘I do not seem to be connected with the turmoils of the world ...’. RESPONDENT: When you describe the pure intent and human condition, those descriptions seem to making a connection with what one is, and what the rest of the world (I mean human beings), and they are but one package (if my references become vague, I will take to exact quoting); whereas in my short-sight, I see my ‘condition’ is just my condition, not that it has nothing to do with ‘human condition’ but in my understanding the exact relationship has not be made. That’s what I meant by ‘I do not seem to be connected with the turmoils of the world’. RICHARD: Yet all human beings share the same basic characteristics because of genetic inheritance ... surely you are not setting yourself apart as being born free of them. RESPONDENT: Now ‘the processes one is part of’, I want to understand; I don’t see any discrepancy here. The discrepancy could be that I am not able to see what is very obvious to you. RICHARD: Just try running the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ when the ‘conditions change’ as you said further above. Viz.:
Actualism is a ‘hands-on’ business ... arm-chair philosophising will get you nowhere. * RESPONDENT: Is a two step process as it happened to Richard, a simpler way to achieve the same end? (in retrospect, of course)? RICHARD: No, most definitely not ... it is incredibly difficult – and traumatic – to extract oneself from the enlightened state. RESPONDENT: Sorry; I did not mean: go through enlightenment and delusion, as you did; but eliminate the ego; eliminate the feelings [feeler? instinctual self?] with no delusion in between the steps. RICHARD: The elimination of the instinctual self, via altruistic ‘self’-immolation, is automatically the end of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: You said ‘enlightenment’ is elimination of ego and followed by grandiose delusion. I am asking: can the ego go but no delusion? RICHARD: No ... the soul will rear its ugly head in the space created. RESPONDENT: What would be that state? RICHARD: A grandiose delusion (fed by the instinctual self and the affective feelings it is made up of). RESPONDENT: Aside, can I ask your feedback here? Do you think I am complicating matters and have no interest in understanding? RICHARD: Only you can ascertain whether you have interest in understanding or not (I am not a mind reader). * RESPONDENT: Could J Krishnamurti (or U G Krishnamurti for that matter) have meant ‘emotion backed thought’ when they diagnosed thought to be the problem? RICHARD: No ... if so they would have clearly delineated the distinction just as I do (so as to not confuse one’s fellow human beings). RESPONDENT: To me these words can be meant in so many ways. RICHARD: Generally speaking I stick to the dictionary meaning (with the obvious exception of ‘real’ and ‘actual’ and ‘truth’ and ‘fact’). RESPONDENT: How about ‘me’? ‘I’? ‘Belief’ (as emotion backed thought)? Feeler? RICHARD: The Oxford dictionary has the following to say:
I have no disagreement with these basic definitions ... I simply flesh them out somewhat for ease of communication. * RESPONDENT: The words that I am bringing over and over are not the one’s that are well understood (as words like body, brain, chair, dream, sleep are understood) but are used by different people with different modes. RICHARD: I have read both Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti and they both use words like ‘body, brain, chair, dream, sleep’ in the conventional way ... I have had no difficulty whatsoever in understanding what they mean. RESPONDENT: I seem to have some problem in communicating. Repeat: the words I am bringing over and over (i.e. emotion, instinctual self, feeler, thinker: this thread originally started with a bunch of words asking for their distinctness, and you see I am still dwelling on some of them) are not the ones that are well understood (as words like body, brain, chair, dream, sleep are understood; these are well understood, even by me!) but are used by different people with different modes. RICHARD: Okay, I misunderstood what you were getting at ... here is the ‘bunch of words’ you initially asked about and my reply:
Just what is not clear for you in my response? * RESPONDENT: To illustrate, ‘me’ as soul, is it not your usage (or your derivation from those eastern texts)? RICHARD: No, the word soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) is common parlance for the psychic ‘self’ who transcends time and space and form in any language ... it is the English word meaning what ‘atman’ means in the Indian language. RESPONDENT: Again, some problem with my communication. Should pay more attention. The connexion between the word ‘me’ and soul (I for ego and me for soul) is used by you. What is the quoted me? RICHARD: The parasitical entity deep within the human heart (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself). RESPONDENT: Can I use ‘I’ here? Like (‘I’ at the core of ‘my’ being)? RICHARD: If you want to ... ‘I’ and ‘me’ are more or less interchangeable (where grammatically correct, of course, in common English usage as, for example, ‘I am sitting at the computer’ is grammatically correct whereas ‘me is sitting at the computer’ is grammatically incorrect). * RESPONDENT: ... Michelson Morley kind of experiments for relativity, double hole experiments for quantum mechanics has shown that the common sense understandings do not carry well in very high speeds as well as very small scales, and one is forced to theorize with the set of facts, and predict from the theory, and verify, and verify and verify, till the theory is found to be useful (like nuclear reactors, space ships, cosmic rays). RICHARD: History shows that a model can be found to be useful without it necessarily being correct ... and such a model is later discarded when another model can be found to correspond more accurately to the facts. RESPONDENT: Okay the model maybe wrong but the facts are facts. What do you think about the following facts: light bends around heavy objects which was predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity much before this was found and can be demonstrated, measured; light travels with the same velocity even when the source is moving; particles when they approach the velocity of light behave very unlike particles; a tiny mass m annihilates with enormous energy e=mc square which was predicted before anything like this happened, and was used in construction of atomic bomb by (predicted by Einstein’s special theory of relativity); the space is curved but the curvature is so negligible but still can be measured, hey!; the stars in our galaxy are spreading apart with specific speeds that can be measured; more importantly – with all the data we are processing, not a thing is known that works against quantum + relativity. Again I don’t know whether discussing these things are relevant to the mailing list (I am interested!) and to you. Let me know. RICHARD: I have already said that I make no pretensions of being a mathematician, a logician or a physicist and that if you are looking for an advanced discussion on these subjects you are talking to the wrong person ... my expertise lies in the area of human consciousness only (via self-observation). * RESPONDENT: We are not dealing with what is evident in PCE anymore, but are viewing through powerful microscopes and more powerful telescopes, which were required in the first place for you to posit about the grandness of the universe in light years in the following paragraphs. RICHARD: Yet powerful microscopes and powerful telescopes entail empirical observation (which was the whole point of what I was saying in the following paragraphs) and not theoretical computations. RESPONDENT: The reason why telescope works the way we want it to work relies on a lot of theoretical computation. Without all those, one cannot even construct a cheap binocular with precision. RICHARD: Of course ... but in those paragraphs I am talking of the theoretical computations that posit an expanding universe arising out of a capricious ‘big bang’ which occurs in a ‘no form’ and ‘no time’ and ‘no space’ metaphysical nothingness. RESPONDENT: You seem to throw away all the theoretical computations, mathematics once the job is done. RICHARD: No ... I throw away science fiction (such as the mathematical ‘big bang’ theory). RESPONDENT: And moreover, all the theory, mathematics were ‘naturally’ stumbled upon as we progressed in science, as necessary ‘constructs’ – just as our normal language evolved and included more words and more structure, the scientific language of precision, is mathematics and more and more are getting added. Or else, how would you describe a motion of a ball precisely? It went up and down is no good to construct a rocket! It goes in a parabola, whose equation is thus, and with density of medium this happens etc. Sit beautifully in a formula which for a layman looks like Greek. Can the layman say: all Greek is rubbish? RICHARD: No, but the lay-person can say that the mathematical ‘big bang’ theory has nothing to do with the actual universe ... have you never heard of ‘the emperor has no clothes’ syndrome? * RESPONDENT: For instance the sizes and distances of the cosmic objects you refer to are a result of application of indirect logical principles, derived, rather than felt by senses. Otherwise the sun would be apple sized, sun would be going around the earth, sun and moon at the same distance, moon emitting light in the same way as sun, sky blue, stars dots. Not to say that we have to eat all that academia throws to us. Was there a critical study of the principles involved before rejecting them because in a PCE it becomes evident that the conclusions are false? RICHARD: Yes (although I make no pretensions of being a mathematician, a logician or a physicist so the extent of my ‘critical study’ would never satisfy an academician). RESPONDENT: Did you wonder why things like ‘Maxwell’s equation for electromagnetic waves’ cannot be any simpler than what it is? RICHARD: No ... but then again this is because I have never heard of ‘Maxwell’s equation for electromagnetic waves’ as I am not a mathematician or a physicist. RESPONDENT: It is a set of mathematical equations for describing electromagnetic field, if you didn’t know. It posits the existence of these waves (light like) and describes their behaviour. RICHARD: I rather fail to see what all this you are writing about in this section of these e-mails has to do with the universe being infinite in all directions or not (which is the subject under discussion). RESPONDENT: A lot of mathematics is involved in that. It is fundamental to the computer you use, to the television you see, the microwave oven if you use one and so on and so forth. All these instruments were constructed because we had those equations, and as expected, they worked the way the equations demanded. Do you think it could be made any simpler, and what exists is plain obfuscation? RICHARD: I have no problem with the mathematics which are used in the technological area ... it is where the mathematicians seek to use their mathematical equations to explain the universe that I find it all to be somewhat risible. For example, Prof. Sir Brian Pippard explains what the basic premise behind sub-atomic particles is:
Once the not-observable as objects in space and time basis of sub-atomic particles is established – (as distinct from “visible objects occupying definite positions at definite instants of time” that is) – the mathematical processes involved unfold further mysteries accordingly. Vis:
Almost needless is it to say, once this postulation is accepted – and as “an inescapable necessity” at that – there is no prize for guessing what will happen. Viz.:
Thus the sub-atomic particles have become ‘as real as any everyday object’ ... and to a child Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny are ‘as real as any everyday object’ too. Also for a person who believes ardently in their god; for them their god is real – not actual, mind you – but real. Usually they say that their god is more real than ‘everyday reality’ ... that is how real their fervency makes of their belief. * RESPONDENT: ... understanding the universe we live in is as important as we understand our fellow human beings, who are only a small speck of the whole thing. RICHARD: Speaking personally I am not ‘only a small speck of the whole thing’ ... in an actual freedom from the human condition one is the universe experiencing itself apperceptively: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. RESPONDENT: One is the universe experiencing itself apperceptively and aware of its own infinitude. Okay. What is the proof of this awareness of infinitude? RICHARD: Apperception. Apperception reveals that identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) creates a centre to consciousness – and thus a boundary (or circumference) – which is then projected onto this universe’s properties ... the ending of identity is the ending of such boundaries. RESPONDENT: Does it not mean that if I say I am aware of room, on demand I can identify the objects in the room? RICHARD: No ... apperception is the mind’s awareness of itself (rather than the usual way of ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). A bare awareness, in other words, bare of ‘self’ in any way, shape or form. RESPONDENT: Yet even when apperception is on, Richard could only be aware of a small sensual globe around him. RICHARD: No ... apperception means no centre therefore no boundaries (such as a ‘small sensual globe’ or whatever else). RESPONDENT: Does he mean that he spreads out? RICHARD: No ... consciousness has no centre therefore no boundaries (an unlimited consciousness). RESPONDENT: What is the ‘awareness of infinitude’? RICHARD: The awareness of neither centre nor boundaries. RESPONDENT: Are there things in the universe that are not present in the apperceptive mind? RICHARD: Hmm ... apperception is not to be confused with omniscience. RESPONDENT: Is there a space for this awareness, say Richard’s brain? RICHARD: Apperception is the ‘self’-less brain in operation. * RICHARD: This is no little thing which I speak of ... the mystery of life or the puzzle of existence is patently open to view. RESPONDENT: It doesn’t sound like a little thing. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: And open to view: not yet to me ... not in the words described above. RICHARD: That is because it is a lived experiencing. * RESPONDENT: A question for you: what subset of modern science you are willing to admit? RICHARD: That which is sensible, practical and in accord with the facts ... I am also willing to be wrong in the many areas which lie beyond my expertise. I am a lay-person when it comes to physics as I am a high-school drop-out. I started working for a living at age fifteen and have never pursued these matters beyond what is available in the popular press ... if you are looking for an advanced discussion you are talking to the wrong person. My expertise lies in the area of human consciousness only (via self-observation). RESPONDENT: You say you are a lay person when it comes to physics. But you are challenging the whole of modern physics. RICHARD: No, basically I am challenging the mystic cosmogony of quantum theory ... not modern physics per se. For example, the ‘Big Bang’ theory, which was first proposed by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, is strikingly similar to the Biblical creation myth. Which is not surprising given his theological background.
RESPONDENT: Some questions that arose which I am posing to actualists (while I am still working on the previous threads/ self-observation/ actualism): 1. Is a feeling real or actual? 2. Is a thought real or actual? 3. Is apperception, PCE etc. real or actual? 4. Do the existence of instinctual self/ psychological self follow from LeDoux studies (amygdala, neo-cortex and their functions do, but ...)? Are they actual or real? 5. Related question: LeDoux seems to say that his research is particularly for fear; does it follow for other feelings too? RICHARD: The answer to most of your queries are ascertained experientially: in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), apperceptive awareness reveals that there is neither self, of any nature whatsoever including an instinctual self, nor any feelings – else it is not a PCE – and thought operates unimpeded as required by the circumstances. If there is a self (Supreme Self, True Self, Higher Self and so on) or any feelings (Love, Compassion, Rapture, Bliss and so on) it is not a PCE but an altered state of consciousness (ASC) and in the ASC such a self and such feelings are said to be, in the mystical literature of both East and West, as being more real than anything else ... which was what my own experience back in the early ‘eighties had already informed me. The queries regarding Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s findings relate to scientific investigations carried out under laboratory conditions and I would hazard a guess that someone, somewhere, has scientifically investigated feelings other than the feeling of fear which he focussed his research upon ... it is just that I have not personally come across such studies. And it may very well come to pass that the existence of the instinctual self/psychological self will indeed follow from Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s studies – and other people’s studies – but it is pertinent to realise that no scientist has been able to locate the self by whatever name despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging). Incidentally, there is an informative article, starting on page 46, of last week’s issue of the ‘Time’ magazine (June 10 2002/No. 22) which includes a diagram of the relevant brain circuitry which may help you to work out for yourself from what is implied therein what you are wanting to know (I cannot reproduce it here because of copyright reasons). However I would like to point out that I never came across these scientific studies until a few years ago – I sussed out the things I know regarding self and feelings experientially – and the only reason that any reference is made to them on The Actual Freedom Web Page is so that other people do not have to take my word for it that the feelings arise before thought in the reactionary process (albeit a split-second first). And although it is pleasing to have some of one’s own discoveries verified independently by scientists using the scientific method an actual freedom is basically a do-it-yourself freedom wherein these matters are ascertained experientially. Put simply: it is the PCE wherein one finds out for oneself what one is looking for.
RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard. I wanted to know if ‘thought’, ‘apperception’, ‘PCE’ fit into the definition of ‘actual’ – [quote]: ‘actual is that which is palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material. It is that which can be experienced by the physical senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch only. That which is actual, being in action or in existence at this moment in time, is not merely passive’ [endquote]. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/actual.htm) and if these categories are deemed ‘actual’ by this definition, in what way ‘feeling’, ‘self’ etc. are not actual. RICHARD: In order to convey what life is like in an actual freedom from the human condition I draw a distinct difference between the word ‘actual’ and the word ‘real’ – just as I do with the word ‘fact’ and the word ‘truth’ – even though the dictionaries do not ... and for all other words I can generally find either a dictionary meaning or an epistemological meaning that suits what I want to convey. To a normal person – complete with a self and a full suite of feelings – self, feelings and thought are all real and apperception and a PCE have no existence. To such a person, to whom the word ‘actual’ means more or less the same thing as the word ‘real’, the self, feelings and thought would just as easily be said to be ‘actual’ (as defined in the various dictionaries). To explain this ‘real’/‘actual’ distinction I make: for many years I mistakenly assumed that words carried a definitive meaning that was common to all peoples speaking the same language ... for example ‘real’ and ‘truth’. But, as different person’s told me things like: ‘That is only your truth’, or: ‘God is real’, I realised that unambiguous words are required (to a child, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are ‘real’ and ‘true’). Correspondingly I abandoned ‘real’ and ‘true’ in favour of ‘actual’ and ‘fact’, as experience has demonstrated that no one has been able to tell me that their god is actual or that something is only my fact. Therefore this monitor screen is actual (these finger-tips feeling it substantiate this) and it is a fact that these printed letters are forming words (these eyes seeing it validate this). These things are indisputable and verifiable by any body with the requisite sense-organs. Now, to a person who believes ardently in their god, then for them their god is real ... not actual, mind you, but real. Usually they tell me that their god is more real than we humans are ... that is how real their fervency makes of their belief (it is the same as the child with the Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy example I gave above). So too, is it with regards to this wretched and pernicious self and its feelings. The self, and its feelings, whilst not being actual, are real ... sometimes very, very real. The belief in a real ‘thinker’ (‘I’ as ego) and a real ‘feeler’ (‘me’ as soul – ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself) is not just another passing thought. It is emotion-backed feverish imagination at work (calenture). ‘I’ passionately believe in ‘my’ existence – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – and will defend ‘myself’ to the death (of ‘my’ body) if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. However, ‘my’ survival being paramount is not factual, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, morals, values, principles, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality. That is how real ‘I’ am ... which is why both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul must die a real death (but not physically into the grave) to find out the actuality. RESPONDENT: However from your response, it appears that whatever is evident in a ‘PCE’ is actual, and the rest, is not ... is it so? RICHARD: Yes, the PCE exposes what is actual and what is not ... you said it well yourself in a post to this Mailing List earlier this year:
To which Vineeto responded:
Actuality is a ‘hands-on’ experiencing ... armchair philosophising will get one nowhere, no matter how logical its reasoning may be. RESPONDENT: And the questions related to LeDoux’s work are to know how much of what is stated on (www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/instincts.htm) follows from his and related work, and how much of it is your completion based on your understanding. From the presentation in the above link, it is not clear how much is your construction (schematic diagrams) based on the results – what results from LeDoux and others you are using. RICHARD: Very little of it, other than the basic circuitry of the brain, is based upon scientific studies ... as I said in the previous e-mail the only reason that any reference is made to them on The Actual Freedom Web Page is so that other people do not have to take my word for it that the feelings arise before thought in the reactionary process (albeit a split-second first). This discovery – and nothing else – is the only thing I have ever drawn from Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s studies (I have not read any of his books). RESPONDENT: Most of it (schematic diagrams) are exactly as in LeDoux works (and as in the ‘Time’ magazine’s reference you pointed out), except that I don’t find references to ‘instinctual self’ or ‘psychological self’ or ‘instinctual passions’. RICHARD: Indeed not. As I said in my previous e-mail it is pertinent to realise that no scientist has been able to locate the self, by whatever name, despite all their brain-scans ... and I also said ‘from what is implied therein’ when referring to the ‘Time’ magazine’s article. It is early days yet in scientific circles ... they know nowt of what I talk about. RESPONDENT: Where I am coming from is a ‘PCE’ less investigation – till I have a or/or know that I have one/or understand what it is ... still working on the ‘prima facie’ case :) RICHARD: Okay ... I am interested to see how much you can comprehend of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Web Page without recalling and/or having a PCE as an actual freedom from the human condition is unimaginable, inconceivable and unbelievable. It has to be lived to be known as an actuality.
RESPONDENT No. 59: I feel as if I were just learning to walk again. RESPONDENT: That is a wonderful description. That is how I feel now. Regaining the naiveté and common sense is delightful indeed. It surely required a good dose from extensive writings of the actualists – also the objections raised by many (a lot of the objections were in my mind, but something stopped me from sending every objection to the mail without myself going into them at depth) brought out such responses from Richard, Vineeto, Peter and other actualists – showed clear thinking in action – as opposed to emotional outpour of beliefs or mystical word-play that paralyses common sense. I consider it my great luck to have come across the actual freedom website. I am still struggling with some of the stuff, as I don’t clearly recall a PCE; but I am getting the feeling of well-being which is so good – which is a direct result of having freed myself from a lot of insidious emotions – the freeing of which allows me to enjoy this moment; I think I have reached a point of no-reversal in the sense that my doubts are not powerful enough now to negate my progress and experiential as well as intellectual understanding I have made of the actualism. What in the beginning sounded like ‘dogmatism of the actualists’, is sounding more and more a plausible actuality; I am now clear that I wasn’t reading with ‘eyes open’ and ‘beliefs closed’ – but then it is not by will I can change it – there were and are still innumerable obstacles on the way to this. For instance, I recall from one of Peter’s mails, where he pointed out the possibility of a co-respondent disassociating from his feelings, I found out that I was indeed doing that – which in turn helped me to take a giant leap in understanding. I would like to take this moment to thank (or acknowledge that I have immensely profited from) Richard (as well as ‘Richard’ who had the intestinal fortitude to go ahead for the sake of his body as well as all the bodies) for his ongoing clarifications and his prolific writings on actuality and actual freedom; Peter for having the intestinal fortitude to give it a try (if not for him, I wonder if I would be writing this mail – as his decision to go ahead and try makes virtual freedom a demonstrable actuality – also for having Richard go live in the internet) and Vineeto – for all their expertise and readiness to share on the virtual freedom and actualising of it. And all the participants in this mailing list who are showing interest in this most important business. RICHARD: Feedback such as this (all of the above) is much appreciated ... especially in view of the following (the very last words we exchanged 16 months ago):
I have always maintained that a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – or the recollection of such a moment of perfection – is essential in comprehending and putting into practice what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... and I am so pleased to see that this may not necessarily be the case. Ain’t life grand!
RICHARD: I have always maintained that a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – or the recollection of such a moment of perfection – is essential in comprehending and putting into practice what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... and I am so pleased to see that this may not necessarily be the case. RESPONDENT: Thanks for your mail Richard. I am glad to have made some progress in this gap ... though it wasn’t at all clear what I was doing all these months :). I tried to blend all my beliefs, emotions, pet theories with the actualism readings – and I wasn’t really practising the method consistently – I am planning to write all my experiences – the difficulties I faced in trying to comprehend some of the key aspects of actualism – so as to be of some use to the real-world dwellers like myself. RICHARD: It certainly would be beneficial to have such a record ... especially if it is written while still fresh enough to remember in detail as the minutiae of day-to-day events tend to become more and more vague as the years go by. RESPONDENT: I hit upon the website searching for Krishnamurti stuff ... and I couldn’t digest or ignore the analysis and I was hanging in there, reading and listening to be able to find a ‘bug’/‘glitch’ in the arguments – and the lure of interacting with LAFs (live accessible fellows) as opposed to interpreting the ghosts of LDMs (long dead masters) was great. Your participation in various mailing lists and wonderful archiving of it in various categories (great job, librarian!) and easily searchable/navigable/downloadable facilities (whoever said that the web-site wasn’t well organized?) kept me busy reading. The innumerable paths treaded by various respondents served me to provide a vicarious journey into my neural pathways ... it answered a million questions which I knew not to articulate or not even of their existence. RICHARD: The internet has been invaluable in this regard as different people from diverse backgrounds bring out all kinds of issues – and nuances of issues – that would never occur to me to write about if I were to just sit down by myself and just start writing ... the mailing list format is unequalled by any other means of communication in that anybody can join in on any issue/topic/point and thus bring out all manner of aspects. RESPONDENT: One thing that puzzled me though – I could understand the objections to all the content (as I was going through all that), but why the respondents objected to the style and coherent presentation and inquiry into the issues involved? why did they cop-out in between? of course the answer can be found within me: the various beliefs and opinions one has is not interested in total and coherent inquiry; it is far, far difficult to substantiate all the emotionally felt ‘truths’ etc. which are ‘previously acquired images/ideas that reflect neither autonomous reasoning nor apperception’. RICHARD: Yes ... the term ‘cognitive dissonance’ would be better described as a ‘feeling-fed cognitive dissonance’ as it is not just a mental blockage which causes people to be unable to grasp innovative things that are to their own advantage and to fight so hard to retain the existing belief systems which are inimical to their welfare. It is the strangest of incongruities in regards to human pertinacity that peoples will invent reasons and struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement ... even those conditions which enslave them. RESPONDENT: Though I am not sure about whether I had a ‘PCE’, I sure had some ‘highs’ which were super-normal ... my memories are not too accurate ... long back around 8 years ago, when I was a normal real-world dweller, I had some experience which was massively self-aggrandising, threw a monkey-wrench in my normal affairs. And all these years were spent in search of something super, which I knew to exist, but I should say I wasn’t at all clear what. RICHARD: There is a clue in there – ‘which I knew to exist’ – as this was a thing that puzzled me way back when I was normal:
RESPONDENT: I was reading Krishnamurti and UGK and Ramana Maharishi etc. for a long time ... but though I can’t claim that I was one of the ideal practitioners of their systems, if there one ever was, I now am very glad to be free of the delusions – either self-created or essential nature of their systems. RICHARD: Ah, yes ... to clear the decks, as it were, of all that confounds the issue is to make the way clean for the alternative to hove in to view. RESPONDENT: But I do realize now the importance of having a touchstone such as PCE – for the emotions throw one into some confusion very easily – the memory of the previous experience can be used to contrast and invalidate the emotionally felt certainties. I am trying to commit to my memory the ‘feeling-good’ of the past two three days so as to have a baseline, as you put it. RICHARD: And that sums it up nicely ... both a touchstone to aim for and a baseline to aim from.
RESPONDENT: When I was wondering what makes it impossible to simply be the moment, it eventually lead to facing the fact that life minus all the self created illusions and problems simply reduces to a mortal earthly life: and I found that I was avoiding this fact (though I don’t believe in immortality or any other religious versions of it; still deep within it seems to be that there is some kind of denial/avoidance that this finite earthly lifetime that will come to an end is all there is). Seeing this fact was liberating. And I wanted to read the discussions about death in the website. I hit upon this where you say: [quote] ‘If it were not for physical death one could not be happy ... let alone harmless’. [endquote]. Did you mean ‘psychological death’ as a ‘physical event’ by the term ‘physical death’ in the above statement ? RICHARD: No ... physical death (into the grave or cremated or buried at sea and so on). RESPONDENT: Or as it happened in my case of inquiry, did you mean that ‘if one doesn’t see the fact of physical death as an end all, one could not be happy ... let alone harmless’? RICHARD: Yes, I have sometimes asked peoples of a ‘Jehovah’s Witness’ persuasion, when they come
knocking on my door and showing me paintings of their imagined paradise on earth after their god has annihilated 5,993,000,000 of
the 6,000,000,000 human beings currently alive by treading them in a winepress Which means for billions upon billions of years ... and still more billions to come!
RESPONDENT: Just thought I should express my appreciation for these discussions on modern science ... Richard’s answers and Respondent No. 60 & Respondent No. 27’s questions throw a lot of light on these matters. Very stimulating. What I understood (from Richard’s mails mainly) so far is that: a direct experience is the final arbiter and while logic/ mathematics can sharpen the directly experienced, they are subservient to the direct experience. This is in contrast to the theoretical physicist/ mathematician’s viewpoint which is: logic/ mathematics is the final arbiter – direct experience is prone to error. Please correct this appraisal if necessary. RICHARD: No correction necessary ... you have hit the nail right on the head. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Just as a matter of interest: the empiricism
RESPONDENT: Richard, would you say that psychic communication happens purely through bodily cues? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Say if you were around when two ‘beings’ communicated something, the only thing you would notice is the bodily communication (facial expressions, voice inflexions, choice of language, bodily movements) that gets interpreted by the recipient (using the ancient psychic genetic database that the ‘being’ has access to?) and [arguably] as intended by the originator (or somewhat closer?)? RICHARD: I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world (if that is what you mean) ... there are no psyches, and thus psychic webs, in actuality. Which is not to say they have no reality for either the purveyor or the recipient ... on the contrary it is quite real, so very real in practice, as to have more significance/ consequence than ‘facial expressions, voice inflexions, choice of language, bodily movements’ and so on. For just one instance of this I can recall, many years ago when this flesh and blood body was possessed by a ‘being’, another person smiling in a jovial manner, with a relaxed posture, delivering a psychic coup de grâce ... which decisive finishing stroke put an abrupt end to any further discussion about the non-viability of a particular course of action they were adamantly proposing must be carried out. It was this, and many other such instances, which showed ‘me’ that, for as long as ‘I’ continued to exist, ‘I’ was vulnerable to the dictates of a more powerful purveyor (unless ‘I’ were to become the more powerful of course) ... and ‘I’ could remember many such episodes going all the way back into child-hood. The psychic ‘blow’, so to speak, came in through the solar-plexus (a complex of radiating nerves situated behind the stomach), about four-finger widths below the navel where one’s very ‘being’ is felt to be located, as an energetic current and inexorably travelled swiftly up the spinal-column whereupon, reaching the nape of the neck/base of the brain, it branched out to either side via the limbic system and (presumably) activated the amygdalae – two almond-shaped organs in from and just behind-below the ears – thus pumping fright/freeze/flight/fight chemicals throughout the brain and crippling rational thought. Which is why I say that the psychic currents are the most effective power plays. Viz.:
They have no existence outside of the psyche – which includes the imaginative/ intuitive faculty of course – and whilst the psyche is in situ the psychic currents reign supreme ... albeit behind the scenes, as it were, and most often overlooked/ unnoticed. Hence my observation regarding them being the most effective power plays. RESPONDENT: That is, everybody has this intuitive/ imaginative faculty with its ancient/genetic memories acting as a vast database of imagination; and the physical attributes are translated into psychic messages by the ‘beings’; and importantly, since there is nothing other than physical except in imagination, such a communication has to be transmitted through the physical medium; and usually the body is the means ... is this correct? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: the colloquialism ‘vibes’ does not refer to body-language but to the affective feelings and gained currency in the ‘sixties (as in ‘I can feel your pain’ or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on) – even the military are well aware of this as I had it impressed upon me, prior to going to war in my youth, that fear is contagious and can spread like wildfire if unchecked – and another example is being in the presence of an enlightened being (known as ‘Darshan’ in the Indian tradition) so as to be bathed in the overwhelming love and compassion such a being radiates. Behind the feelings lie the psychic energies which emanate from ‘being’ itself: it is not just the emotional/passional ‘vibes’ which constitute the ethereal network but the psychic currents – a network of intuitive/affective energies that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’ (aka ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’) – which stem from ‘being’ itself (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) irregardless of conscious intent. There are some peoples, of course, who cultivate these psychic currents such that they do become conscious intent (as in psychic powers). RESPONDENT: Can you say anything about the nature of the ancient/ atavistic/ genetic memory? RICHARD: Put succinctly: it is affective only and thus has no existence in this actual world. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: The following link may be of further assistance: Continued on AF Mailing List, No 66
Continued from AF Mailing List, No 66 RESPONDENT: Richard, I think that you will be able to spot the survival tricks of the entity in all its hypocrisy and cunningness in the first glance ... by being free I think you see the identities in their nakedness ... the prize for seeing yourself fully naked! Is my surmise true? RICHARD: As a generalisation ... yes; as a personalisation ... no (I cannot possibly know another person’s every thought, every feeling, every instinctual impulse; nor the nuances of their ethnic background, the intimate details of their familial upbringing, the subtleties of their peer-group coercions, and so on). RESPONDENT: When I realize that you might be reading what I write, I discover some of the ulterior motives and some of the deliberate misrepresentations in my mails (projecting something that I am not) ( the shame and pain and all ... less and less, though). RICHARD: Oh? You do realise, do you not, that when someone fools another they are really only fooling themself (in the final analysis)? * RESPONDENT: I realize that the ‘me’ is still craving for approval from you and others. RICHARD: Just for the record: the only thing that will impress me is another’s actual freedom from the human condition ... for then they cannot change their mind/have a change of heart (it being irrevocable). RESPONDENT: The list social identity! And that is why I write sometimes? Or maybe always? What is behind this desire to bond with you? RICHARD: As there is no identity extant in this flesh and blood body – meaning that you could only ever bond with your own projection anyway – you might as well desist from what is nothing but an exercise in futility. RESPONDENT: I know you will not entertain any of my survival tricks ... I am not following the user’s manual here: I am expressing and expressing. I may not send this mail. I want to reach your heights ... I want to overtake you ... I cant stand this lower positions in the hierarchy – which is in my mind! RICHARD: For what it is worth: whenever I came across somebody who had already accomplished what I wanted to achieve I unabashedly set out emulate them – avidly reading every word they wrote/listening intently to what they had to say (colloquially known as ‘picking their brains’) plus being generally appreciative that they be willing to pass on experience and information – inasmuch at the beginning of the path which led to me becoming a practising artist in my own right, for instance, in the area of the fine arts I slavishly copied, imitated meticulously, acquiring the necessary skills along the way, until the moment came where everything pertaining to that aspiration had became second-nature to me. Then I let go of the controls ... and it all happened of its own accord. RESPONDENT: The ‘me’ showing its ugly head. RICHARD: If you say so ... why would you inhibit aspiration, though? RESPONDENT: I am not like this all the time ... this is the dirty stuff that gets in now and then. RICHARD: Apart from the mistaken impression there be heights to reach/overtake in some fanciful hierarchy the sentiments expressed are laudable, are they not? RESPONDENT: Mostly it is wonderful. Maybe 15 hours out of 24. RICHARD: And if it were not for aspiration would it currently be wonderful 15/24? RESPONDENT: I am riding a mad elephant. RICHARD: Is that a reference to Mr. Gilbert Chesterton’s fictitious nobleman ... or an expression from the Indian Sub-Continent indicating something else? RESPONDENT: I hope to get down soon and enjoy the scenery soon. RICHARD: You might as well enjoy it wherever you are ... you will never have this particular opportunity ever again. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: You may find the following useful: • [Richard]: ‘... instead of having Love/ God/ Truth/ IT give you some ‘shattering kicks in the butt’ may I suggest adopting the benevolent, and thus beneficial, approach? Viz.:
Put succinctly: be kind to yourself ... you are the only friend you have, so to speak’. Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 19
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
