|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 62
RESPONDENT: I am blissfully happy in this moment now, I am not aware of a soul in this body now or at any time in the past. I am an atheist through and through. I am however aware of an ego – albeit a weak one, which seems to give me no trouble in my day to day blissful existence. Your website strikes a chord within me and I find myself comparing my experience of living in this world with yours. I see common sense in what you say but I don’t have the need to change what I am in any way shape or form. I will continue to read your web site and will consider your words regarding the ego in an attempt to understand the one within this body. RICHARD: Okay ... the word ‘soul’, as described on The Actual Freedom Trust web site as ‘me’ as soul, refers to ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – out of which passionate identity (the feeler) ‘I’ as ego (the thinker) arises. It is just not possible for an ego-self (no matter how weak) to exist in a flesh and blood body sans soul-self ... the extinction of ‘being’ itself is the extinction of identity in toto. Also, there is no bliss here in this actual world ... I am incapable of feeling happy.
RESPONDENT: I am blissfully happy in this moment now, I am not aware of a soul in this body now or at any time in the past. I am an atheist through and through. I am however aware of an ego – albeit a weak one, which seems to give me no trouble in my day to day blissful existence. Your website strikes a chord within me and I find myself comparing my experience of living in this world with yours. I see common sense in what you say but I don’t have the need to change what I am in any way shape or form. I will continue to read your web site and will consider your words regarding the ego in an attempt to understand the one within this body. RICHARD: Okay ... the word ‘soul’, as described on The Actual Freedom Trust web site as ‘me’ as soul, refers to ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – out of which passionate identity (the feeler) ‘I’ as ego (the thinker) arises. It is just not possible for an ego-self (no matter how weak) to exist in a flesh and blood body sans soul-self ... the extinction of ‘being’ itself is the extinction of identity in toto. Also, there is no bliss here in this actual world ... I am incapable of feeling happy. RESPONDENT: Richard, firstly thank you for taking time to reply to me. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... I am somewhat behind in all my correspondence, as out-of-town matters have my attention lately, and it may be some time before I catch up (if I ever do). RESPONDENT: I see your point. Your journey to enlightenment required that you as ‘ego’ disappeared leaving you as ‘Soul’ to live in ultimate bliss for 11 years. I understand that ego is the result of ‘me’ as soul – ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being and that therefore me as ‘ego’ can not exist without ‘me’ as soul. I was interpreting ‘soul’ with a religious understanding as in a ‘soul’ that leaves the body after death and moves to some mystical plane were it is reunited with the souls of others who have since passed away. A sort of spirit that lives within the physical body but that is separate from it. This ‘religious’ connotation of the soul is in my opinion palpable nonsense. To take the dictionary definition of soul; [quote] ‘The principle of life in humans or animals; animate existence. The principle of thought and action in a person, regarded as an entity distinct from the body; a person’s spiritual as opp. to corporeal nature. The spiritual part of a human being considered in its moral aspect or in relation to God and his precepts, spec. regarded as immortal and as being capable of redemption or damnation in a future state. The disembodied spirit of a dead person, regarded as invested with some degree of personality and form. The seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature. [Oxford Dictionary]. I have no awareness of this ‘soul’ within me. RICHARD: Hmm ... no ‘seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature’ exists within the flesh and blood body known as ‘Respondent’, then? I chose to use the word ‘soul’, when I first went public, as it has both the secular and spiritual meaning – the Oxford Dictionary is my preferred source of reference for most words – as actualism is the third alternative to both materialism and spiritualism ... the main difference between those two is materialists maintain that such an emotional/ passional/ intuitive self (sometimes referred to as one’s spirit) dies with the body and spiritualists maintain it does not. RESPONDENT: However to come back to your clarification the word ‘soul’ as ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – out of which passionate identity (the feeler) ‘I’ as ego (the thinker) arises. As I understand it you are saying that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul both arise out of the basic instinctual self that all sentient beings are born with ... RICHARD: Yes ... a rudimentary animal self, as it were, however inchoate it may be. RESPONDENT: ... and that you went beyond enlightenment by ridding yourself of this instinctual self by psychological self-immolation. RICHARD: By psychic ‘self’-immolation ... psychological ‘self’-immolation rids the flesh and blood body of the ego-self only. RESPONDENT: What I am having difficulty with is forming a distinction between ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... RICHARD: And does describing the distinction as being ‘the thinker’ (ego-self) as opposed to ‘the feeler’ (soul-self) not go at least some way towards ending such difficulty? In the perceptive process the sensations are primary, the affections are secondary, and the cognitions are tertiary: RESPONDENT: ... and indeed whether that distinction is necessary in order to rid oneself of the basic rudimentary instinctual ‘self’? RICHARD: That distinction is mainly necessary in order to obviate the only danger on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition ... to wit: one may inadvertently become an enlightened being instead. I kid you not ... whilst thought usually cops the blame the feelings (and thus ‘being’ itself) get off scot-free.
RESPONDENT: I am blissfully happy in this moment now (...) RICHARD: There is no bliss here in this actual world ... I am incapable of feeling happy. (...) RESPONDENT: You are of course right to point out that I do indeed experience the materialist’s version of a soul: ‘The seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature’ (This fact is obvious to me right now as I have a feeling of excitement and satisfaction that we are conversing). I guess I was focusing too much upon the spiritual understanding of the word (in my mind the concept of a soul has always been tied up with religious baggage and immortality). RICHARD: Okay ... I am pleased that this is now clear. RESPONDENT: Your clarification of ‘the thinker’ (ego-self) as opposed to ‘the feeler’ (soul-self) is also particularly helpful ... RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: ... and highlighting the potential pitfall of shedding the ego but embracing the soul and hence becoming that bastardisation of a human – the enlightened being – is indeed an important warning. RICHARD: Okay ... ‘me’ as soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) can assume many guises, of course, and not just that of being a transcendent god/ goddess/ truth/ being/ presence (and so on) as it has an instinctive drive for survival-at-all-costs. RESPONDENT: I’d like to comment upon your sentence: [quote] ‘In the perceptive process the sensations are primary, the affections are secondary, and the cognitions are tertiary’ [endquote]. I am assuming that actual freedom is the perceptive process without the secondary affections but with the cognitive process. To clarify; there is a direct sensate experience with the world now in this moment but with no affective feelings. RICHARD: So there is no feeling of excitement/ satisfaction anymore (a mere five sentences above) ... and no bliss (reinserted at the top of this page), either? Moreover, what of ‘me’ as soul (‘me’ as the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature)? Is there no feeling ‘being’ (an intuitive presence) whatsoever extant in the flesh and blood body known as ‘No 62’ as those words are being written? Or is that intuitive presence masquerading as ... um ... as an intelligence? RESPONDENT: And there is an intelligence that then reflects upon this using empirical factual knowledge. RICHARD: Perhaps that intelligence, then, could reflect upon this: the direct experience of actuality only occurs when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is in abeyance – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – or is extinct – as in an actual freedom from the human condition – and if that is what you are referring to by saying ‘there is a direct sensate experience with the world now in this moment but with no affective feelings’ then you would experientially know the difference between a feeling of happiness (as in bliss for instance) and actually being happy (and harmless) as a particular flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: I would also like to comment upon your first response to my
initial post where you say [quote] ‘Also, there is no bliss here in this actual world ... I am incapable of feeling happy’
[endquote]. Now I have been reading your web site for quite some time and I seem to be finding many examples of inconsistence with
this statement. If I may I will give some quotes that appear to be at odds with the above statement. (I’d like to point out that
I haven’t gone looking for inconsistencies in a petty effort to catch you out – these quotes were extracted as a side issue to
my primary goal of finding out more about actual freedom): RICHARD: I see that Respondent No 27 responded to your query (before you reposted this e-mail to me several times):
What is it about the word ‘feeling’ that you do not comprehend?
RESPONDENT: Firstly let me clear up some confusion – when I wrote [quote]: ‘I am assuming that actual freedom is the perceptive process without the secondary affections but with the cognitive process. To clarify; there is a direct sensate experience with the world now in this moment but with no affective feelings. And there is an intelligence that then reflects upon this using empirical factual knowledge’. [end quote] I wasn’t implying that I experience the world in this way – I was looking for clarification that this is the way that it is experienced in actual freedom (apologies if I didn’t make myself clear). I do acknowledge that I have feelings such as excitement and satisfaction and that I don’t have a direct experience of actuality. RICHARD: As they were queries, then, it might be more useful to start again rather than patch an amended response onto your explanatory note above ... here is the original exchange (only with question marks inserted as appropriate this time around):
The reason why I wrote the sentence you commented on was because you were having difficulty forming a distinction between ‘the thinker’ and ‘the feeler’ ... and the best way to understand these matters is empirically (meaning that if you were to experience-observe the perceptive process as it is happening it will become obvious). You may find the following helpful in this regard:
As for your follow-up clarification queries: an actual freedom from the human condition is epitomised by the perceptive process being apperceptive (unmediated perception) in that there is a total absence of both ‘the feeler’ (the primal feeling being/self) and ‘the thinker’ (the derivative thinking being/ self) – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – wherein thought may or may not be operating as required by the situation and the circumstances. Here in this actual world thoughts are sparkling ... coruscating. * RESPONDENT: If I could move on to the question of being ‘Happy and Harmless’; I guess that the main difficulty I am having is in understanding that one can be happy without ‘feeling’ happy but I will persevere with the actual freedom web site, which I am finding fascinating, until this becomes clear to me. RICHARD: Okay ... it may be worthwhile bearing in mind that it is impossible to be happy (be happy as in being carefree), as distinct from feeling happy, without being harmless (being harmless as in being innocuous), as distinct from feeling harmless, and to be happy *and* harmless is to be unable to induce suffering – etymologically the word ‘harmless’ (harm + less) comes from the Old Norse ‘harmr’ (meaning grief, sorrow) – either in oneself or another. Thus the means of comprehending the distinction lies in understanding the nature of innocence – something entirely new to human experience – and the nearest one can come to being innocent whilst being an identity is to be naïve (not to be confused with being gullible). And the key to naïveté (usually locked away in childhood) is sincerity. RESPONDENT: What I will say is that I am more of a thinking person than a feeling person, and that feelings don’t seem to drive my actions in the same way that I observe in others. I seem to be mainly happy in the current moment but am finding the HAIETMOBA very useful when other feelings try to take control. RICHARD: The other aspect of the actualism method – other than felicity/ innocuity – is sensuosity: feeling felicitous/ innocuous, each moment again, brings one closer to one’s senses and the resultant wonder at the brilliance of the sensate world can enable apperception ... the direct experience of the world as-it-is. RESPONDENT: As you have probably gathered I am currently just fact finding and thoroughly enjoying the Actual Freedom web site without having the ‘pure intent’ or indeed the bravery to literally move down the path to actual freedom. RICHARD: Ahh ... courage (and pusillanimity) is another topic: suffice to say for now that daring comes from caring. And to dare to care is to care to dare.
RESPONDENT: Richard I’m getting deeper and deeper into actualism and my daily life is becoming better and better as a result – I have a clarity of thought that makes decision making a breeze, and a confidence born out of living in the moment unencumbered by racing feelings and wayward thoughts. I am enjoying living in the now and examining how I experience each moment – introspection has always come easy to me and I like the specific method that you recommend. RICHARD: As it is the only method so far which has delivered the goods that humankind has yearned for over millennia it is the only one I can recommend. RESPONDENT: But kissing my sleeping seven year old daughter and saying ‘goodnight sweetheart – I love you’ and seeing a slight smile cross her lips and a nod of her head, well that’s a moment of pure perfection which would take some beating my friend. RICHARD: Aye ... not only was I the father of four children (two boys and two girls) myself many years ago, and thus know parental love intimately, I also was love itself (Love Agapé) for a number of years whilst being a single parent, and thus intimately know unconditional love as well, and therefore have no hesitation in saying that it does indeed take some beating. I do not dismiss something lightly.
RESPONDENT: Richard I’ve started reading U. G. Krishnamurti and am immediately struck by the similarities between the way you report experiencing the world and the way he does. RICHARD: Oh? Then obviously you have not come across something like this yet:
As contrasted to this:
RESPONDENT: [U.G.].: ‘When this thing happened to me, I realized that all my search was in the wrong direction, and that this is not something religious, not something psychological, but a purely physiological functioning of the senses at their peak capacities. That was the answer to my question’. [endquote]. RICHARD: As saying that there is ‘no such thing as direct sense-experience’ effectively wipes out the ‘purely physiological’ appraisal of the statement that the senses are functioning at their ‘peak capacities’ all you are left to be struck by is the phrase ‘wrong direction’ ... and a search of the data-base of all his published words for any other instances of that phrase produced the following:
There he is saying that to search is to be going in the wrong direction (whereas I report that the very state of being itself, which he does not like to call ‘enlightenment’, ‘freedom’, ‘moksha’ or ‘liberation’ as they are all loaded words with their own connotation, is what is the wrong direction) ... here is another instance:
Lastly he says that ‘thought-induced states of being’ are all trips in the wrong direction as they are
all within the field of time ... and that the timeless can never be experienced, grasped, contained, or given expression
RESPONDENT: How extensively have you read him ... RICHARD: I read all of the 521,697 words at the following URL, with rapidly diminishing interest, when I first accessed the internet in February 1997: www.well.com/user/jct/ Plus I watched three videos of him around the same time ... and stopped watching the third one halfway through when he answered ‘the body does’ when asked the question ‘do you experience fear’ (always a hot topic) in an televised interview in South America. As I did not transcribe that video-tape this is the nearest print-published quote to that answer I have been able to locate:
RESPONDENT: ... and can you see parallels between his experience of living and your ‘actual freedom’? RICHARD: No ... for just one example Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has made it abundantly clear on many an
occasion that the instinctual passions are still extant. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: 1) I am thinking of the Sanskrit proverb ‘Yad bhavam tad bhavati,’ which means ‘You are what you believe,’ or ‘You become what you believe.’ (snip remainder of Mr. Narayana Moorty’s article about ‘the unity of Being’). RICHARD: Mr. Narayana Moorty also wrote the following:
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 |
