|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 67
RESPONDENT: I am a student of the prasangika madhyamika school of Buddhism (the middle way consequence school of the Dalai Lama) and also a student of all religions, as I have always been very interested in religion and the wisdom contained in its allegory. I do not believe in a primal cause, so to speak, and am therefore an atheist. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... being a declared atheist of a certain buddhistic persuasion your contribution to the topic is not only of considerable interest but timely into the bargain RESPONDENT: I am have also spent many years interested in the teaching of J. Krishnamurti (NOT UG ugh – yuk) whose approach is very similar to this school of Buddhism and am Gurdjieff trained, to the nth, as he would have put it. All of this about the ‘I’ as an entity is refuted by all of these teachings, and in Buddhism, we are specifically trained to understand this. RICHARD: You would be referring to the Anatta (‘Not-Self’) teaching of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, I presume? RESPONDENT: It IS very natural to experience this sense of self ... RICHARD: If I may interject? The topic being discussed is the feeling of ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) – and not a ‘sense’ of self – which affective ‘presence’ is the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire), genetically endowed by blind nature, in action. Put succinctly, ‘I’ am the affective feeling of fear and the affective feeling of fear is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of aggression and the affective feeling of aggression is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of nurture and the affective feeling of nurture is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of desire and the affective feeling of desire is ‘me’ (and so on). Neither Mr. Gotama the Sakyan nor Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (let alone Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and Mr. Tenzin Gyatso) come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded as a rough and ready survival package. RESPONDENT: ... [It IS very natural to experience this sense of self] as existing on its own side, as a non-material entity, so to speak, but just because it is natural does not mean it is correct. In Buddhism, this sense of ‘I’ as an independent entity, sort of like a king of the body ( which is its subject), as existing in its own non-material realm is considered to be wrong view or ignorant. It is responsible for all the disorder and suffering in the world, as life is then seen, as existing on its own side, and this so called ‘I’ which is a function of dualistic perception around which a psychological (physical-emotional-thought) complex forms, tries to cling to it. RICHARD: And the Buddhist solution to this ‘dualistic perception’ is what ... the non-dualistic state of being known as nirvana? RESPONDENT: I found the website by chance and joined this group because it seems that the philosophy of Actual Freedom may be the same as my own. RICHARD: First and foremost, an actual freedom from the human condition (which is what ‘Actual
Freedom’ is short for) is not a philosophy Last, but by no means least, an actual freedom from the human condition is not the same as what you speak of (further above) as it is, as is clearly stated on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, beyond awakening/enlightenment (by whatever name) ... it is a new and non-spiritual down-to-earth freedom. RESPONDENT: If so, I would like to do anything I can to assist this organization in its endeavours to help people understand that ‘I’ can be used merely as a reference point to the physical body ... RICHARD: The use of scare-quotes around the first person pronoun – as in ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is used to refer to the psychological and psychic ‘self’ (the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’) parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body per favour blind nature ... the use of the first person pronoun sans scare-quotes refers to the flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: ... but this sense of a separate entity, and the perpetuation of it into culture, is responsible for almost all of the misery and suffering in this world. RICHARD: As Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s solution to all the misery and suffering was to scarper off to
the place where the sun don’t shine RESPONDENT: I hope this contribution will be of value to someone or other on here. RICHARD: Your verification that a person of a certain buddhistic persuasion classifies themselves as an atheist is certainly of value.
RESPONDENT: It is obvious that the people on this list do not know too much about Buddhism. There are many different schools of Buddhism. The knowledge of Richard in regard to Buddhism and Gurdjieff is pathetically limited, and he also does not seem to really understand the teaching of J. Krishnamurti. He has shaped it all to fit his preconceptions, to make ‘actualism’, but anyone who goes to the website and has any real understanding of some of these topics would be instantly repelled, as his presentation comes across as very ignorant. RICHARD: If you could supply an instance of this ‘pathetically limited’ and ‘very ignorant’ knowledge/presentation it would be appreciated ... as would an example of where it seems I do not ‘really understand’ the teachings brought into the world by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. It may be pertinent to add that I am no student of the many and varied teachings of the many and varied sages and seers – I have made no formal study of the jillions of words engendered by such peoples – as my knowledge/understanding is the intimate knowledge/understanding which comes from having lived that/been that, night and day for eleven years, which those teachings refer to. RESPONDENT: Personally, I went to the web site with an open heart and an open mind. RICHARD: Ahh ... therein lies a clue as to why you were ‘instantly repelled’. RESPONDENT: I had no preconceptions about actualism and actually approached it fresh. RICHARD: If I may point out? Your very first e-mail to this mailing list showed no such approach –
as in, for example, your [quote] ‘it seems that the philosophy of Actual Freedom may be the same as my own’ [endquote]
observation – which post, and my response, may be found at the following URL: As you never did respond you may have missed it the first time around.
RESPONDENT: I am a student of the prasangika madhyamika school of Buddhism (the middle way consequence school of the Dalai Lama) and also a student of all religions, as I have always been very interested in religion and the wisdom contained in its allegory. I do not believe in a primal cause, so to speak, and am therefore an atheist. I am have also spent many years interested in the teaching of J. Krishnamurti (NOT UG ugh – yuk) whose approach is very similar to this school of Buddhism and am Gurdjieff trained, to the nth, as he would have put it. All of this about the ‘I’ as an entity is refuted by all of these teachings, and in Buddhism, we are specifically trained to understand this. RICHARD: You would be referring to the Anatta (‘Not-Self’) teaching of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, I presume? RESPONDENT: Yes, but ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘but’)? I was expressly responding to you saying that ‘all this about the ‘I’ as an entity’ is refuted, in the context of Buddhism specifically training you to understand this refutation, and have no intention of being drawn into whether this sect of Buddhism or that that sect of Buddhism or any other sect of Buddhism is the greater or the lesser or the equivalent vehicle of the transmission of the truth. I will leave such sectarian disputes to the sectarians. And the reason I responded to your ‘all this’ phrasing is that no sect of Buddhism comes even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded as a rough and ready survival package. RESPONDENT: ... [but] I have read your writing on the subject of Buddhism (though only once, as I am very busy) and you seem to be referring the Hinayana school. There is a reason this school is referred to as a lesser vehicle by the Mahayana School. as the Hinayana School does not view the words of the Buddha as interpretative (to be interpreted) but only as literal, which means that the Buddha exists on his own side to speak, as does the receiver of the words, so this method does not lead to what is called ‘subtle-selflessness of person’. I do not have time to write a lot about this, but it is very easy to investigate for yourself if your are interested. The aim of this school, the prasangika, madhyamika school is to achieve a clear light realization, out of which is generated the greater boddhichitta for the good of all sentient creatures. Clear light is a symbolic representation of something, and does not represent light against dark. RICHARD: As the ‘something’ you refer to is none other than the ‘ultimate truth’ it does not take a genius to suss out what it does or does not represent. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: It IS very natural to experience this sense of self ... RICHARD: The topic being discussed is the feeling of ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) – and not a ‘sense’ of self – which affective ‘presence’ is the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire), genetically endowed by blind nature, in action. Put succinctly, ‘I’ am the affective feeling of fear and the affective feeling of fear is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of aggression and the affective feeling of aggression is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of nurture and the affective feeling of nurture is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of desire and the affective feeling of desire is ‘me’ (and so on). RESPONDENT: I do not know why you are saying this ... RICHARD: I am saying this because the topic being discussed is the feeling of ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) – and not a ‘sense’ of self – which affective ‘presence’ is the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire), genetically endowed by blind nature, in action. RESPONDENT: ... as it adds an extra reference point, though I understand that from your perspective, it feels like you are taking one away. RICHARD: As I do not go on what something ‘feels like’ – there is no intuitive/imaginative facility in this flesh and blood body – you obviously do not understand at all ... indeed you specifically said you [quote] ‘do not know why’ [endquote] I am saying that ‘I’ am the affective feeling of fear and the affective feeling of fear is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of aggression and the affective feeling of aggression is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of nurture and the affective feeling of nurture is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of desire and the affective feeling of desire is ‘me’ (and so on). RESPONDENT: This is also what Krishnamurti said when he said the observer is one with the observed, isn’t it? RICHARD: No ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does not come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded as a rough and ready survival package. RESPONDENT: I do not see a difference. You are saying there is no centre. RICHARD: Au contraire ... the feeling of ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself), which affective ‘presence’ is the instinctual passions genetically endowed by blind nature in action, is most definitely in situ for perhaps 6.0 billion or so peoples on this otherwise fair planet we all live on. RESPONDENT: I do not think the approach of ‘I’ is that beneficial, as ‘I’ is a reference point to the body ... RICHARD: The use of scare-quotes around the first person pronoun – as in ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is used to refer to the psychological and psychic ‘self’ (the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’) parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body per favour blind nature ... the use of the first person pronoun sans scare-quotes refers to the flesh and blood body only. And, as you do not think that ‘the approach’ of the feeling of ‘being’ (the elimination of the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition) is beneficial, then that is the end of the matter.
RESPONDENT: I do not appreciate you editing my messages without so indicating, and playing words games. It is dishonest. See Below. RICHARD: Here is the passage you are referring to in the first instance:
Do you not see I inserted three periods after the word ‘body’ to indicate an interjection? And, speaking of dishonesty, since when has coming to conclusion – as in your ‘I do not think the approach of ‘I’ is that beneficial’ phrasing – which is based upon a misrepresentation (that the use of scare-quotes around the first person pronoun refers to the body), when it has already been pointed out previously that such usage does not, been honest? Viz.:
Put simply: to say ‘I do not think the approach of ‘I’ is that beneficial, as ‘I’ is a reference point to the body’ is to say, in effect, that the approach of the body is not beneficial ... which is to be making a straw-man argument (wherein something somebody never said is critiqued/commented on as if they had actually said it). Here is the passage you are referring to in the second instance:
First you tell me I am saying something I am not saying (as in your ‘you are saying there is no centre’ assertion), then you tell me I am doing something I am not doing (as in your ‘you are playing word games now’ conclusion), and now you tell me I am being something I am not being (as in your ‘it is dishonest’ diagnosis). I have read through the remainder of your e-mail and, as it is of a similar ilk as before (that various religions/religious teachers are saying the same as what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site when sprinkled with a little salt shaker), there is nothing of substance to respond to. What I would suggest, at this stage, is to put aside your little salt shaker and read what is on offer with both eyes open.
RESPONDENT: I do not think the approach of ‘I’ is that beneficial, as ‘I’ is a reference point to the body, not that it is means that to most people, but it is still necessary to use this word as a reference point. * RESPONDENT: Directly above is the sentence you cut in half, omitting all the words after body, which completely distorted the context. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-present my response so that it is inclusive of all the words in your sentence. Viz.:
You had already made it quite clear that ‘all of this about the ‘I’ as an entity’ (which you further said is the very natural experience of the sense of self) is refuted by all of the teachings and that, in Buddhism, you were specifically trained to understand this. And, for as long as you continue to maintain that the genetically-encoded affective feeling of ‘being’
(an intuitive ‘presence’ the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into) is a product of ‘the thinker’ Perhaps this may be of assistance:
RICHARD: You had already made it quite clear that ‘all of this about the ‘I’ as an entity’
(which you further said is the very natural experience of the sense of self) is refuted by all of the teachings and that, in
Buddhism, you were specifically trained to understand this. And, for as long as you continue to maintain that the
genetically-encoded affective feeling of ‘being’ (an intuitive ‘presence’ the instinctual passions automatically form
themselves into) is a product of ‘the thinker’ RESPONDENT: I do not recall saying this in the first place. See below. RICHARD: If you cannot see that you say the passions arise out of ignorance in the footnote below – as contrasted to them being genetically-encoded at conception as instinctual survival feelings (as is also the case with other animals) – then nothing I could write in response to the remainder of your replies in this e-mail will make one iota of difference to your conviction that there is nothing radically new on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.
RESPONDENT: Richard, it looks like you are unable to enquire. RICHARD: As I have regard for my fellow human being’s integrity I have no intention whatsoever of pretending to enquire into something I already have intimate knowledge of so as to create an illusion of discovering together. RESPONDENT: You keep saying you are no longer going to respond to my material, and then you keep doing so. It is lame (but also poignant). You touch my heart. RICHARD: As I have never said I was no longer going to respond both your conclusion and your self-induced feeling have no validity. * RESPONDENT: I should have pointed this out sooner, but a feeling is not genetically encoded, as a feeling is a dependent arising between a body with its genetic encodings and the external environment. RICHARD: For as long as you maintain that the affective feelings – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – are ‘not genetically encoded’ then that is the end of the matter.
RESPONDENT No. 44: And a second question for not write another email. You are speaking about PCE’s. What is consciousness? RICHARD: It is exactly the same as when you asked me exactly the same question – ‘what is consciousness’ – on another occasion. Viz.:
What is it about that description you are still having difficulty in comprehending? RESPONDENT No. 44: You are explaining me the manifestation of consciousness. RESPONDENT: This is another problem with the way this system of (so-called) actual freedom is formulated. RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition, which is what the words ‘actual freedom’ are short for, is not ‘so-called’ ... it is called that (I ought to know as I coined the phrase). An actual freedom from the human condition is not a ‘system’ ... it is the condition which ensues when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) altruistically ‘self’-immolates for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. The above is not ‘another’ problem with the way an actual freedom from the human condition is reported/ described/ explained as you are yet to demonstrate there is any such problem on any other occasion. As the ‘this’ you are referring to – Richard (supposedly) explaining [quote] ‘the manifestation of consciousness’ [endquote] – is what my co-respondent is saying, and not what I am saying, then ‘this’ is not a problem either ... for this is my explanation (copy-pasted from above):
As you will now see there is no problem with how consciousness – the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious – is reported/described/explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): The expression – pure consciousness experience – is somehow problematic, and this is probably what you are trying to put your finger on. The use of the term PCE is highly obfuscating. RICHARD: The word ‘pure’ is synonymic with ‘unadulterated’, ‘uncontaminated’, ‘unpolluted’, and so on, thus a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious sans an adulterant, a contaminant, a pollutant, and so on ... specifically an identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): Richard says he is referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious, which is fine, but the term PCE somehow implies that pure consciousness somehow exists on its own side as a constant. RICHARD: If you had read the response I gave to my co-respondent (further below) before writing this you would have seen that I never implied anything of the sort ... that implication is what you make of it. Viz.:
RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): I cannot put my finger on exactly how or why it does this, but it conveys such to me, in a subtle way, and I believe it does so for others. RICHARD: As the implication – ‘that pure consciousness somehow exists on its own side as a constant’ – is what you make of it there is no reason to believe that others necessarily make the same inference. RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): So Richard is saying by the use of the term, PCE, that the ordinary consciousness of a human being is not pure. RICHARD: Indeed I am. The normal condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (which is what the term ‘consciousness’ is an expression of as the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) is a condition of that consciousness being adulterated, contaminated, polluted, and so on, by the presence of an adulterant, a contaminant, a pollutant, and so on ... specifically an identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): But consciousness itself cannot be pure or impure, as THERE IS consciousness (of the body). but without the body there is not consciousness, so the body is conscious of itself as it is. Put in other words, there is a consciousness of whatever, but it cannot be pure or impure; it is only that the brain and body can work or not work in certain ways. When there is an avoidance of certain details by selectively choosing other details that are less painful to focus upon, a person is not fully conscious. When conditions occur so that for a moment there is no pain and a person experience the world as very alive or wonderland, so clean and pure, or budding with love or whatever, this does not mean the conscious is ‘pure.’ It is too silly. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... but as what you are referring to is what you have to say, and not what I have to say, then what is indeed ‘too silly’ is what you have to say. RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): Moreover the frequency of these experiences does NOT mean a person is becoming more liberated, as often this kind of experience is created out of an imbalance. I speak from my own personal experience, as I used to be a mystic to the nth – was this way from the time of young childhood, and have had hundreds if not thousands of such experiences, each one more pure and wonderful and amazing than the next, and in my opinion, these were a result of mental imbalance due to my inner suffering. RICHARD: As a PCE is an experience of being this flesh and blood body only – sans identity in toto – whatever it is that you are reporting/ describing/ explaining there is one thing for sure ... it is not a PCE. * RESPONDENT No. 44: I had asked you what is consciousness per se, in itself. RICHARD: As consciousness – the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious – is indistinguishable from what a body is (when it is alive, awake, and sensible) then to suggest that consciousness is something other than that, that which is indeed what it is per se, in itself, just does not make sense. What is the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious, then, if not what consciousness is per se, in itself? RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): Again, there is the implication from Richard’s use of the term PCE, that consciousness exists on its own side as a constant, though he does not seem to mean this, according to his definition. RICHARD: If you had read the response I gave to my co-respondent RESPONDENT: Maybe Richard, you are not completely sure, deep within yourself, and this is where the confusion with the use of words arises from. RICHARD: And just what ‘confusion with the use of words’ would that be? RESPONDENT: Many people believe that consciousness exists independently of themselves as a constant, and this is hard to leave behind. RICHARD: Not when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) altruistically ‘self’-immolates it ain’t. RESPONDENT: The way you use language, such as speaking of a feeling being genetically encoded, suggests that you may indeed, on some subliminal level, think in this way. RICHARD: I see ... so just because I point out that affective feelings such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – which emotions/passions are evident in other animals as well as the human animal – are genetically-encoded I therefore ‘think’ (and not know) that the feeling of ‘being’ or ‘presence’ they automatically form themselves into exists independently of me as a constant, eh? RESPONDENT: A feelings cannot be genetically encoded anymore than the taste of coffee, though it can be genetically encoded for a certain person to taste coffee in a certain way or to like or not like the taste of cauliflower to have an adrenal rush when a stranger comes at him under certain conditions. RICHARD: I have left your entire sentence intact this time around ... but it is the first six words which are the key to all the to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails on this issue. Because for as long as you continue to maintain that affective feelings, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, are not genetically-encoded then that is the end of the matter. Or, to put that another way, that is the end of your enquiry
RESPONDENT No 44: (snip) RESPONDENT: A feelings cannot be genetically encoded (snip) RICHARD: (snip) for as long as you continue to maintain that affective feelings, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, are not genetically-encoded then that is the end of the matter [the end of your enquiry/the shutting of the door on any further investigation]. RESPONDENT: (snip) it is obvious that a feeling cannot be genetically encoded. RICHARD: I have snipped most of the above so as to provide focus ... and I draw your attention to your very first e-mail to this mailing list:
You will see that I have high-lighted the origin of all the subsequent e-mails on this topic (e-mails in
which you have said, amongst many other unsolicited character references, that Richard is being authoritarian) where you
peremptorily – synonyms: authoritatively, unconditionally, absolutely, dogmatically, dictatorially, and so on – dismiss all of
what Peter is saying Bearing in mind you say that you have been specifically trained
RICHARD: [Peter]: ‘I discovered that there was a very close association between spiritualism (as in having spiritual beliefs) and having *a feeling of ‘being’* or (as in ‘me’, a non-material entity or spirit, so much so that I very often wrote the word spiritual as spirit-ual in my journal and other early writings so as to emphasize the association of the words spiritual and spirit. (...) In my case I don’t have any spiritual beliefs left due to my own intent to expose my spiritual beliefs but I do acknowledge that ‘I’ am a spirit-like being and will remain so until ‘self’-immolation occurs. RESPONDENT: I was actually going to go back to the original message and make further comments in the next few days, so I will do so now. At the time I read this, I did not really understand what he meant by the words ‘‘self’-immolation’ and did not understand this was a kind of wacky actual freedom terminology, so I though he was referring to physical death. RICHARD: If I may point out? I not only highlighted the words [quote] ‘a feeling of ‘being’’ [endquote] – and not the words ‘self’-immolation – but also advised that the highlighted words were the origin of all the subsequent e-mails on this topic. Viz.:
* RICHARD: You peremptorily dismiss all of what Peter is saying [about a feeling of ‘being’ as having been refuted by all of these teachings]. RESPONDENT: This is true. I have done that, but was honestly going to go back to his original message in the next day or do. RICHARD: If, when you do go back to Peter’s original message (and, of course, to your original response), you were to focus upon the highlighted words it would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails. * RESPONDENT: A feelings itself CANNOT be genetically encoded, as it is a result of an interaction between a creature and his environment. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it in Buddhist terms: as it is the tanha (literally ‘thirst’ but often translated as craving/desire) for physical existence which is the cause of birth/ rebirth – without which aging/ death, and thus dukkha, cannot exist – that particular feeling, for an example, exists prior to a creature being born/ reborn ... else there would be no such creature to interact with its environment (aka ‘samsara’). As the whole point of Buddhism is to extinguish tanha (nirvana literally means the extinguishing of a flame)
so that there will be no further rebirth it is preposterous It is this agnosis – the agnosis of the cause of birth/ rebirth – that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan came to dispel.
RICHARD: If, when you do go back to Peter’s original message (and, of course, to your original response), you were to focus upon the highlighted words. it would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails. RESPONDENT: If you were to be more honest and less rigid, everything would be going differently. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: the ‘a feeling of ‘being’’ which Peter was referring to is *not* the ‘this sense of self’ you were referring to when you said ‘I’ as an entity’ is refuted by all of those teachings. Is this now clear?
RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: the ‘a feeling of ‘being’’ which Peter was referring to is *not* the ‘a sense of self’ you were referring to when you said ‘I’ as entity’ is refuted by all of those teachings. Is this now clear? RESPONDENT: It is apparent in the words of Peter that by ‘a feeling of being’ he means a feeling of ‘self’ as a non-material entity, and this is what I meant by a sense of self. RICHARD: I do understand it is indeed apparent to you that what Peter is referring to is the same as what you are referring to – that is not under question and has never been under question – but what I am saying, and have been saying all along, is that what Peter is referring to is *not* what you are referring to when you say that (what you are referring to) has been refuted by all of those teachings. It is a very simple thing I am saying. Maybe this will be of assistance: Peter is referring to the feeling of being which the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire), genetically-encoded at conception, automatically form themselves into by their very presence whereas you say feelings such as those are not genetically encoded ... which means you cannot possibly be referring to what Peter is referring to when you say that (what you are referring to) has been refuted by all of those teachings. Put simply: none of those teachings come even anywhere near teaching that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded as a rough and ready survival package.
RESPONDENT: It is apparent in the words of Peter that by ‘a feeling of being’ he means a feeling of ‘self’ as a non-material entity, and this is what I meant by a sense of self. RICHARD: I do understand it is indeed apparent to you that what Peter is referring to is the same as what you are referring to – that is not under question and has never been under question – but what I am saying, and have been saying all along, is that what Peter is referring to is *not* what you are referring to when you say that (what you are referring to) has been refuted by all of those teachings. It is a very simple thing I am saying. Maybe this will be of assistance: Peter is referring to the feeling of being which the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire), genetically-encoded at conception, automatically form themselves into by their very presence whereas you say feelings such as those are not genetically encoded ... which means you cannot possibly be referring to what Peter is referring to when you say that (what you are referring to) has been refuted by all of those teachings. RESPONDENT: blah blah blah. RICHARD: I do comprehend that for you it is meaningless nonsense And unless/until this is clearly acknowledged there is no point in proceeding. RESPONDENT: Your handling of material is lunatic. RICHARD: I presume you are meaning this in the following way:
If so then, as what you are conveying is that the manner in which sentences form themselves as I sit here at the keyboard is void of any emotion/ passion/ calenture, just what is your point? And I ask this as I have never made any secret of the fact that the entire affective faculty (which includes, of course, the feeling of ‘being’/ ‘being’ itself) is no longer extant in this flesh and blood body ... indeed it is the raison d’être of both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list. RESPONDENT: Moreover, in the message I was replying to, Peter did not even say this, (though he may have said it at some time or another). It is you who are saying it. RICHARD: Aye ... and I first informed you of this in my initial response to you – up-front and out-in-the open so that there would be no misunderstanding from the very start – as it was obvious that what you were referring to was not what Peter was referring to. Viz.:
Hence all these subsequent e-mails on this topic. RESPONDENT: Why do you not let Peter speak for himself? RICHARD: Peter did speak for himself
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 |
